|
|
30 May 2009, 20:04
|
#151
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recluse
After 2-3 days at #1, and being 15mill behind XvX, Asc would have had a good argument for teaming with the BG's to bring down XvX, and I'm betting it would have happened. It could have continued like that for the rest of the round tbh, and the BG's would have had fun, and XvX/Asc would have had fun, always knowing what would happen when they got #1.
|
I, for one, am delighted it didn't. Predictability is boring and letting people think they can just opt out of alliance competition and yet still be involved in the conflict isn't a good idea for the future of pa. One dimensional games are ****ing retarded levels of shit.
Quote:
Like I said in my first post here, I found it funny to actually have to put up with a FC when I was not even t10, not part of a winning alliance, and not even a threat to the 2 alliances FCing me. Thats not strategic, its just plain mean :P
|
Being there for that it was actually aimed at someone else who recalled eta 1 15-20 minutes before tick. Having gathered all that fleet already it seemed like a waste to not do something with it so I just newsied the top value bg planets and found your fleet landing eta 1. Of course some kind soul was helpful enough to prelaunch 3 minutes before the tick!
Quote:
Originally Posted by [ND]Byrney
Can't help myself
Anyway, it wasn't me who originally brought xVx up. I only mentioned them because you were basically saying that xVx joining with you would create bad blood between BGs/xVx. Without xVx involved we'd have just bashed on Asc anyway, there being no logic in hitting some other alliance we didn't really have a stance on and letting Asc grow unhindered. xVx would only have been different because there's seemingly no love lost between them and a lot of the BG members.
|
That was just an example, and a rather obvious one at that. The point is that you can always change the parameters of any engagement and if there's one thing we've shown consistent ability to do it's that.
Quote:
If you're set on using that comparison, it pretty much just shows my point about the acceleration of a block forming. Last round you were dominating Omen so a block was formed to try and balance it out. This round if you'd been crushing one of our small allies the block would've been formed with self preservation in mind.
|
I find it insulting you think I learnt nothing from the mistakes I made last round!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 20:25
|
#152
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I find it insulting you think I learnt nothing from the mistakes I made last round!
|
I'm not really sure how to take that.
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 22:13
|
#153
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Being there for that it was actually aimed at someone else who recalled eta 1 15-20 minutes before tick. Having gathered all that fleet already it seemed like a waste to not do something with it so I just newsied the top value bg planets and found your fleet landing eta 1. Of course some kind soul was helpful enough to prelaunch 3 minutes before the tick!
|
Yeah man, you newsied them good.
Other then that what is happening here I think is that two different views of how planetarion should be played is under discussion here. Needless to say that the views of lokken and JBG are presented a bit better argued for.
xx
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 22:20
|
#154
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
That's not at all what I'm arguing about.
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 22:47
|
#155
|
VtS killerbee
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 202
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I question their existence more than their strategies, actually. There seems to be little point in my view to play in a size where you're so easily destroyed if someone takes unkindly to you. Politically, they could have tried and played xVx and Ascendancy off against one another until it got to a stage where they both had to fight it out and they'd be unaffected. Either they didn't want to take the risk or didn't consider themselves capable of playing the level of politics that would be required. Then again, the flipside of that is they overcooked it to a level that Ascendancy investing time in their total destruction was the only logical strategy available to them.
|
well considering you clearly are not 'in the know' regarding alliance politics, i place your comments in the 'aww bless ur mom didnt abort a retarded kid' folder along with theking's ideas which largly focused on the BGs attacking asc, nd & ct at once.
as for waiting for asc to have to fight with xvx for #1, rofl, isnt that the point we have reached only because xvx and the BGs hit asc? End your nap, your about equal, lets see which of you will win, i swear the BGs wont get involved!
btw the * button isnt a magic arguement winning button no matter what JBG tells you, leave it alone.
__________________
ReBorn DC, Instinct, Silver DC, Legion
TGV, xVx, Jenova BC, Vision BC, ASS BC
Easy Company - Founder
"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
Last edited by Thatcher; 30 May 2009 at 23:15.
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 22:52
|
#156
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatcher
End your nap, you about equal, lets see which of you will win, i swear the BGs wont get involved!
|
The interest level in Ascendancy in that war is about zero. So er, no.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 23:04
|
#157
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: xVx - statement
I'd rather keep hitting BGs, I hear we've already started killing EC's lancer fleets...
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 23:10
|
#158
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: xVx - statement
when is the round over btw? and when does next round begin? i m away in italy till 26th or so.
I badly hope to miss the next round. GOOD NEWS COME TO WISHY!
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 23:18
|
#159
|
VtS killerbee
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 202
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
I'd rather keep hitting BGs, I hear we've already started killing EC's lancer fleets...
|
but do you hear that????
its the sound of noone from EC bitchin n moaning about it
__________________
ReBorn DC, Instinct, Silver DC, Legion
TGV, xVx, Jenova BC, Vision BC, ASS BC
Easy Company - Founder
"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 23:30
|
#160
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatcher
but do you hear that????
its the sound of noone from EC bitchin n moaning about it
|
Quite; its the sound of someone from EC trying to get us to hit someone else without providing any real justification.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
30 May 2009, 23:47
|
#161
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
You're exempted from my rant.
|
Didn't see this first time round (don't ask why I'm rereading this garbage thread ) but I can't really understand why you're suggesting SPOOOOON are any different to the rest of us.
Is it just cause they didn't completely commit to our block and instead have tried to avoid conflict at all costs? Or perhaps cause they're the only BG not playing for planet ranks and just playing for fun? They've had members talking about the awesome job they've done at fencing yet somehow they're the best of 'the worst of the bunch', this is pretty great stuff.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 00:06
|
#162
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
I was only taking it from the strength of his post. They're politically independent, apparently always have been and generally don't give an alliance like us perfectly legitimate reasons to pretty much lay waste to them as there's nothing else to do by partaking in a largely self-defeating activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
As the only independent BG that played because we were already BG size and didn't give a toss about Asc, I think we've actually enjoyed the shitfest.
|
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 00:09
|
#163
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: xVx - statement
can we plz stop talking about this horrible round, and provide me with the info I requested? thanks!
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 00:13
|
#164
|
VtS killerbee
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 202
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Quite; its the sound of someone from EC trying to get us to hit someone else without providing any real justification.
|
errr to win the round maybe? afterall didnt you just point the finger at the BGs for not trying to do the same?
spoooon were very much shouting about hitting asc when things were going the BGs way, for tommy's 'politically independant' read 'trying to play both sides'.
__________________
ReBorn DC, Instinct, Silver DC, Legion
TGV, xVx, Jenova BC, Vision BC, ASS BC
Easy Company - Founder
"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 00:21
|
#165
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I was only taking it from the strength of his post. They're politically independent, apparently always have been and generally don't give an alliance like us perfectly legitimate reasons to pretty much lay waste to them as there's nothing else to do by partaking in a largely self-defeating activity.
|
Politically independent, well I suppose that's one way of putting it. I just find it a bit amusing, BGs took a lot of flak from your alliance - perhaps not you personally - for supposedly playing for planet ranks and trying to fly under the radar. Most of us haven't done yet the one that has seems to get the most respect from you?
As for giving you a reason to lay waste to us, lets not pretend we wouldn't have been totally ****ed up the arse if we'd just sat out and let you cruise to the biggest ally win in PA history.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 00:43
|
#166
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by [ND]Byrney
Politically independent, well I suppose that's one way of putting it. I just find it a bit amusing, BGs took a lot of flak from your alliance - perhaps not you personally - for supposedly playing for planet ranks and trying to fly under the radar. Most of us haven't done yet the one that has seems to get the most respect from you?
As for giving you a reason to lay waste to us, lets not pretend we wouldn't have been totally ****ed up the arse if we'd just sat out and let you cruise to the biggest ally win in PA history.
|
Any my point is that we should have never let anyone even get into that position. It was perfectly doable from my point of view and JBG seems to think the logistics are pretty viable and he's far more knowledgeable about Ascendancy than I am and a far better player than anyone who posts here.
As for changing strategy, we're currently making spectacular gains with two weeks left to run and taking plenty of hostile alliances off the board. People don't seem interested in turning our attentions to xVx and I don't see why we should consider any alternative gambit in the immediate future.
As for SPOOON - if they don't care about anything and just play, what's there to criticise?
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 00:59
|
#167
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
As for SPOOON - if they don't care about anything and just play, what's there to criticise?
|
You seem fairly happy to criticise others for it, 'the worst of the bunch' I think the rest of us are. There's really not a lot of e-hate from most of us towards Ascendancy you know.
As for the rest of your post, it seemed fairly irrelevant to what I was saying. What position are you talking about in your first paragraph?
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 01:05
|
#168
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by [ND]Byrney
You seem fairly happy to criticise others for it, 'the worst of the bunch' I think the rest of us are. There's really not a lot of e-hate from most of us towards Ascendancy you know.
|
There's 'fly under the radar' and 'create a huge block to secure the opportunity to fly under the radar but overcook it to the extent that it becomes totally self-defeating'.
Quote:
As for the rest of your post, it seemed fairly irrelevant to what I was saying. What position are you talking about in your first paragraph?
|
You were talking about sitting out being bad; I'm saying we could have acted in a way that would have made any kind of action irrelevant and just won the round in straightforward fashion.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 01:11
|
#169
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatcher
errr to win the round maybe? afterall didnt you just point the finger at the BGs for not trying to do the same?
spoooon were very much shouting about hitting asc when things were going the BGs way, for tommy's 'politically independant' read 'trying to play both sides'.
|
I'm reading competent play from it; why commit to any side when first of all you don't really want to and secondly it's pretty much looking like a competent decision at this point in time. As for winning the round, like I said: two weeks to go, massive gains, no one really fussed about xVx at the present minute.
Also why are you in holiday mode
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 01:18
|
#170
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
I don't think anyone is going to deny that we hit you with self preservation in mind and without some ridiculous* politics it would've been a pretty successful strategy. I don't think anyone can really predict what would have happened if the block had kept on for another half week or so but it couldn't really have been less interesting than this.
As for whether you could've secured a straighforward win, I've made my views fairly clear on that and don't believe you'd have been able to do it. Then again I'm constantly surprised by the dealings some alliances have with you so you could've been bashing BGs one by one at tick 100 with xVx and ROCK for all I know.
*I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here cause I'm sure you don't think it was ridiculous
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 01:27
|
#171
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by [ND]Byrney
I don't think anyone is going to deny that we hit you with self preservation in mind and without some ridiculous* politics it would've been a pretty successful strategy. I don't think anyone can really predict what would have happened if the block had kept on for another half week or so but it couldn't really have been less interesting than this.
As for whether you could've secured a straighforward win, I've made my views fairly clear on that and don't believe you'd have been able to do it. Then again I'm constantly surprised by the dealings some alliances have with you so you could've been bashing BGs one by one at tick 100 with xVx and ROCK for all I know.
*I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here cause I'm sure you don't think it was ridiculous
|
Cool, if that's your opinion I think I'll be able to sleep at night. I'd rather leave it there than go through pointless repetition.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 01:30
|
#172
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
Good, cause that argument is ****ing stupid. It's like saying Omen would've won last round if they'd played better.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 01:46
|
#173
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I know a lot of people this round have stated we've dropped down in quality but thinking we can't take out a bg a third our size in the same amount of time is pretty silly.
|
FYI when Ascendancy hit Evo without xVx and/or Rock this round they capped on a grand total of 2 out of ~70 (possibly more) waves launched and one of those was elviz "crashing" on fake defence. I would have liked to seen you continually launch on us day after day alone and not capping anything, because thats exactly what would have happened and you know it, hence you didn't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Even if it's intentional it's a stupid decision by a desperate bunch, which is pretty much how we've achieved success - put our opponent under massive pressure and frustrate them until they make stupid mistakes.
|
We took a collective decision to NOT defend and LET you (Asc/xVx/Rock) have our roids so we could then all go crash on Cardi for lolz (and FYI it was probably the single most fun day I've had in PA for rounds). It wasn't a stupid decision nor a desperate move and definitely not a mistake since it was exactly what we'd planned to do. For Gods sake we didn't even make a calc. We simply had no interest in even trying to fight against vastly superior numbers and decided to quit, I don't know what you're all circle jirking about since you didn't do anything to make us quit besides nap xVx, which bravo.. took a lot of skill. As I said before, it would have been nice to see your 120 or so continually trying to roid us and barely capping a thing (even starting to crash frustratingly on "fake defence") alas you had to bring friends.. so much for you laying waste to the BG's when you needed xVx and Rock support to actually do any damage and considering your superior numbers and status in the game (3 in a row apparently), it was frankly a pathetic showing from you.
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
Last edited by VenoX; 31 May 2009 at 02:11.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 02:15
|
#174
|
Anarchy Shadow
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nafferton, England
Posts: 324
|
Re: xVx - statement
Asc killed my lancers true as I let them I then let asc land on me to kill some more fleet why as I done what I aimed this round. This round had nothing to do with rank so before gloating about killing ec fleets kila ask about it. We don't moan about it as this round was to establish ec and what was planned has happened with great effect in ecs eyes we are happy our players are happy, we have had many people asking to join next round after seeing what we can do. So everything I one of the hcs of ec hoped and planned for was accomplished. The only person I stopped roiding me was cardi earlier even if he attacked with an asc but hey shows how much a nap with xvx means.
__________________
EX
Legion, Fury, Xanadu, Wolfpack, NoS, TSU, LKSAB, Vgn, F-Crew, CT, Insomnia, Angels, VsN, Gross, Osiris, ROCK, XvX, Faceless, Unsullied, Haven, Carisan, RaGe, Carnage, Kittenz and EC
Currently
In ODDR Command
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 02:22
|
#175
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
FYI when Ascendancy hit Evo without xVx and/or Rock this round they capped on a grand total of 2 out of ~70 (possibly more) waves launched and one of those was elviz "crashing" on fake defence. I would have liked to seen you continually launch on us day after day alone and not capping anything, because thats exactly what would have happened and you know it, hence you didn't do it.
|
That was hysterical
No offence but we shitted on your alliance most of the time when you were the same size as us. At a third the size it wouldn't have been a contest. Like much of PA this round I don't think anyone really cared enough to adequately demonstrate it though. We're better than all of you and quite frankly it's so laughably obvious I'm having trouble not giggling here. Go make a real alliance and have a try again next round. Who knows, I probably still won't be motivated so maybe you'll have slightly more than a snowball's chance in hell.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 02:42
|
#176
|
Sains
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: xVx - statement
Well since we're arguing about it.
When I said we couldn't give a toss about killing Ascendancy, that was entirely true going into the round. We came into the round as a group that had played as a BG before, and looking for a fun round. We're not looking for planet ranks but for consistency, teamwork and a pretty good average score, and considering we have less players in the top 50 (2) than DLR have in the top 10 (4), I can't really see what Byrney's talking about when he says we've been trying to fly under the radar to gain ranks. I was top in SPOOOOOON until I started xp escorting our smaller players rather than landing for roids myself, and quite genuinely do not care if others overtake me.
When the war started and the BGs blocked together, we decided to get involved, but we did so to have some fun in the round, whereas everyone else did so because they hate Ascendancy. That's the long and short of it. I've said at many times that I don't want to fencesit, but again, it's because this is a war game and defending and retalling against incs is generally more fun than struggling to find a target because you've NAP'd the universe. You can interpret my posts however you like, but the fact remains that lokken's rant about the reasons for the existence of the BGs doesn't really apply to us. This isn't the first time we've played as an autonomous entity, outside of any other alliance - we did so in Spaceminers, and felt this would be a good round to repeat the idea.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sains
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 04:31
|
#177
|
Cherry Colored Funk
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 4AD Label
Posts: 137
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
FYI when Ascendancy hit Evo without xVx and/or Rock this round they capped on a grand total of 2 out of ~70
|
I still remember when Ascendancy hit Evolution around tick 500ish (2 nights after asc on negative roids for the first time), Friday night going Sat - May 16. Based on Sandman - despite evolution adding a new planet, it's on -1.6% that day. I remember landing on an Evo that night, and 5 others on that successful raid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
go crash on Cardi for lolz
|
We thought the original tactical plan is: to let yourselves be roided in order to FC "successfully" - because it's in a single wave. I didn't know you guys deliberately wanted it to be a suicide (double black-eye). We're wrong then.
__________________
Soft as snow but warm inside
Penetrate you cannot hide
Feeling lost forever
Really need you
-- My Bloody Valentine
Last edited by Cocteau; 31 May 2009 at 04:41.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 04:46
|
#178
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 318
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Being there for that it was actually aimed at someone else who recalled eta 1 15-20 minutes before tick. Having gathered all that fleet already it seemed like a waste to not do something with it so I just newsied the top value bg planets and found your fleet landing eta 1. Of course some kind soul was helpful enough to prelaunch 3 minutes before the tick!
|
For what its worth, I was jgping myself up till 10 seconds before tick Know whats funny about that? I had no reason to believe I would get FC. hooray for paranoia
__________________
*KoN* ~~ *NoS* ~~ *Fang* ~~ *Angels* ~~ *Urwins* ~~ *TheFallen* ~~ *Spore* ~~ *Ult Def Planet* ~~
Saver of Sad
Supreme Commander of The Spider Colony
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 04:53
|
#179
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recluse
For what its worth, I was jgping myself up till 10 seconds before tick Know whats funny about that? I had no reason to believe I would get FC. hooray for paranoia
|
For what it's worth first permitted launch was 59:50 so if everyone had been pro it would've worked
However people are not. Which is sort of gay but not entirely unexpected.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 08:31
|
#180
|
VtS killerbee
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 202
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
That was hysterical
No offence but we shitted on your alliance most of the time when you were the same size as us. At a third the size it wouldn't have been a contest. Like much of PA this round I don't think anyone really cared enough to adequately demonstrate it though. We're better than all of you and quite frankly it's so laughably obvious I'm having trouble not giggling here. Go make a real alliance and have a try again next round. Who knows, I probably still won't be motivated so maybe you'll have slightly more than a snowball's chance in hell.
|
are you still talking about round 31? because i know asc made hardly any impact on evo till xvx and rock joined in (and i was also around when evo announced it wasnt defending and going for the crash on cardi). If your better than all of us then end the nap with xvx and prove it. otherwise hush.
__________________
ReBorn DC, Instinct, Silver DC, Legion
TGV, xVx, Jenova BC, Vision BC, ASS BC
Easy Company - Founder
"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 08:49
|
#181
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: xVx - statement
seriously, asc got nothing to proove. sadly.
They are better at all parts of PA atm, AD being one of them.
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 09:09
|
#182
|
Most unimportant guy...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kvinesdal
Posts: 1,393
|
Re: xVx - statement
JBG won AD last round
__________________
When we discover the centre of the universe, alot of people will be shocked and dissapointed to know that they are not it!
Retired
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 10:35
|
#183
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
When I said we couldn't give a toss about killing Ascendancy, that was entirely true going into the round. We came into the round as a group that had played as a BG before, and looking for a fun round. We're not looking for planet ranks but for consistency, teamwork and a pretty good average score, and considering we have less players in the top 50 (2) than DLR have in the top 10 (4), I can't really see what Byrney's talking about when he says we've been trying to fly under the radar to gain ranks. I was top in SPOOOOOON until I started xp escorting our smaller players rather than landing for roids myself, and quite genuinely do not care if others overtake me.
When the war started and the BGs blocked together, we decided to get involved, but we did so to have some fun in the round, whereas everyone else did so because they hate Ascendancy. That's the long and short of it. I've said at many times that I don't want to fencesit, but again, it's because this is a war game and defending and retalling against incs is generally more fun than struggling to find a target because you've NAP'd the universe. You can interpret my posts however you like, but the fact remains that lokken's rant about the reasons for the existence of the BGs doesn't really apply to us. This isn't the first time we've played as an autonomous entity, outside of any other alliance - we did so in Spaceminers, and felt this would be a good round to repeat the idea.
|
You came in wanting to have fun, wow shocker. The rest of us didn't even think of that. It was all about killing Ascendancy no matter if it was the most boring round ever, seriously it's all we wanted. As for comparing ranks, that's more to do with xan being garbage and cath being imba. I'm pretty sure those t10 guys of ours have had more incs than almost all of your alliance
If you didn't want to fencesit you're done a pretty awful job. Trying to keep Asc friendly whilst also 'co-operating' with the block. It seems it was all about keeping both sides sweet so you could go galraiding when you wanted and not really get involved with anything.
Don't get me wrong I'm not criticising the way you've played, by all accounts it's the best way to play these days unfortunately, but denying it is pretty lol.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 11:12
|
#184
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocteau
|
I do believe on that day, xvx launched at one of our gals 2-3 ticks earlier, essentially flakking for you. It took 2 alliances to land 6 fleets on evo, congratulations, you guys rock.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 12:59
|
#185
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
That was hysterical
|
Because you're so ashamed of what Ascendancy have become without you? Cos clearly you can't dispute the fact your 120+ man ally couldn't roid our 40~ planets solo since it was proven the 3 times you actually tried this round. Like I said, pathetic.
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 13:15
|
#186
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by VemoX
Because you're so ashamed of what Ascendancy have become without you? Cos clearly you can't dispute the fact your 120+ man ally couldn't roid our 40~ planets solo since it was proven the 3 times you actually tried this round. Like I said, pathetic.
|
Yeah man, the rest of Ascendancy are clearly clueless players!
(this does not rhyme by the way with the fact that every man on this forums whines about the fact that Ascendancy hogs all the best players...Something does not add up! )
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
Last edited by Knight Theamion; 31 May 2009 at 14:45.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 13:27
|
#187
|
Cherry Colored Funk
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 4AD Label
Posts: 137
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]
I do believe on that day, xvx launched at one of our gals 2-3 ticks earlier, essentially flakking for you. It took 2 alliances to land 6 fleets on evo, congratulations, you guys rock.
|
Though i'm not 100% sure where xVx launched that night, but notes here says they targetted a CT/Vgn gal. I'm fairly sure Ascendancy targetted wafhh/Evo that night.
When i say i remember 5 others, it could be more but i can't say accurately how many. Just that, nicking 2.3k roids doesn't really fit 6 lands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
Because you're so ashamed of what Ascendancy have become without you? Cos clearly you can't dispute the fact your 120+ man ally couldn't roid our 40~ planets solo since it was proven the 3 times you actually tried this round. Like I said, pathetic.
|
You'll be surprised how many Ascendancy are stepping up this round. Though, undeniably he's the most useful. I think there are alot that will step-up in case he's afk. It also helps that most members doesn't need babysitting, most often than not - the members calc their own incs, being resourceful in getting def/scans.
The attack on 9 6 is officially the second raid on Evo - all waves on all planets are thru.
__________________
Soft as snow but warm inside
Penetrate you cannot hide
Feeling lost forever
Really need you
-- My Bloody Valentine
Last edited by Cocteau; 31 May 2009 at 13:33.
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 13:36
|
#188
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demort
Asc killed my lancers true as I let them I then let asc land on me to kill some more fleet why as I done what I aimed this round. This round had nothing to do with rank so before gloating about killing ec fleets kila ask about it. We don't moan about it as this round was to establish ec and what was planned has happened with great effect in ecs eyes we are happy our players are happy, we have had many people asking to join next round after seeing what we can do. So everything I one of the hcs of ec hoped and planned for was accomplished. The only person I stopped roiding me was cardi earlier even if he attacked with an asc but hey shows how much a nap with xvx means.
|
I have no idea what you're saying, I just saw a brep of 1mil lancers crashing whilst defending pingu for practically no losses to the attackers and thought I'd poke fun at you guys for it
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 13:40
|
#189
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
Because you're so ashamed of what Ascendancy have become without you? Cos clearly you can't dispute the fact your 120+ man ally couldn't roid our 40~ planets solo since it was proven the 3 times you actually tried this round. Like I said, pathetic.
|
If we're splitting hairs about what happened on the morning of 16th May, we gained 9% overall (which by the way means we capped more than 9%, we just lost some too). Did we initiate these roids or something? On top of that, while a 3% loss for you looks quite small (I'm using averages as absolute is distorted by planets leaving and being added), it doesn't account for all the asteroids lost on that particular day. So we were gaining somewhere and you were leaking somewhere. On top of that looking at the statistics for that week, we were pretty much restrained all week by a lot of incoming given that our growth was flat or negative for 4 days.
Over a period of days, our gains would undoubtedly have increased but we switched targeting, which is the very problem I've been writing about quite openly here. And quite frankly given the fact you are pretty much openly stating you suicided 12 million ships because you might lose a few roids doesn't really bode well for Evolution in a prolonged conflict. So while you might have a fair point that you were defending/playing well, your view of how any war between Ascendancy and Evolution would seriously pan out is just plain unreasonable, looking at the statistics and the typical behaviours displayed by both alliances.
disclaimer - let me make it clear, I don't think this round rewards playing well very much. This round seems to be very much about getting more numbers over the other guys as the tactical options are so limited that any kind of success doesn't really require any kind of special strategy.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
31 May 2009, 18:23
|
#190
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: xVx - statement
From memory the cardi catch came a few days after Asc openly guaranteed they will not win the round. Upon achieving their main goal for the round, many players saw no reason to continue, as planet rank was not a motivating factor for playing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
Last edited by [JungleMuffin]; 31 May 2009 at 18:39.
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 04:28
|
#191
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 318
|
Re: xVx - statement
I would have to agree with JM here (omg I hope that doesn't become a habit) that once Asc said they weren't trying for #1, I saw the activity go bye bye and I, too, gave up. I was hoping to just be able to newb bash a little the rest of the round, but that became impossible as well, due to the FC on me, so nothing left to do this round
__________________
*KoN* ~~ *NoS* ~~ *Fang* ~~ *Angels* ~~ *Urwins* ~~ *TheFallen* ~~ *Spore* ~~ *Ult Def Planet* ~~
Saver of Sad
Supreme Commander of The Spider Colony
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 09:11
|
#192
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]
From memory the cardi catch came a few days after Asc openly guaranteed they will not win the round. Upon achieving their main goal for the round, many players saw no reason to continue, as planet rank was not a motivating factor for playing.
|
Interesting though how you only chose the moment that the incs started coming to give up.
Lasted what, 2-3 nights in a row before you caved in and emoed out? Thats the difference between asc and you.
PS. Your real reason for lasting 'longer' wasnt because you were hardcore, its because you were 80% xan.
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 10:44
|
#193
|
VtS killerbee
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 202
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Considence
Interesting though how you only chose the moment that the incs started coming to give up.
Lasted what, 2-3 nights in a row before you caved in and emoed out? Thats the difference between asc and you.
|
coincidence when the only other tag capable of winning napped asc thereby making any further war pointless. how anyone from asc can wag a finger, when they felt compelled to NAP their only rival in order to smash the BGs, is beyond me.
__________________
ReBorn DC, Instinct, Silver DC, Legion
TGV, xVx, Jenova BC, Vision BC, ASS BC
Easy Company - Founder
"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 11:37
|
#194
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: xVx - statement
If there is one group you want to give gratitude for stopping Asc from winning a round it is the group of Liths that went to xVx.
When you bummers attacked us we were neatly on #1 with a growing roidcount. Stop deluding yourself.
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 11:50
|
#195
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
If there is one group you want to give gratitude for stopping Asc from winning a round it is the group of Liths that went to xVx.
When you bummers attacked us we were neatly on #1 with a growing roidcount. Stop deluding yourself.
|
Actually the group that should be "blamed" for asc losing a round is the bg's and asc itself, the bg's managed to piss you guys off so much that you stopped caring about winning and that you had to make a deal with xVx to let them win in order for you to dick around the bg's.
End of the day you're still losing, no matter how hard you shout on the forums and try to claim the moral high ground, you're still losing.
gg!
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 12:00
|
#196
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recluse
I I was hoping to just be able to newb bash a little the rest of the round, but that became impossible as well, due to the FC on me
|
The FC you avoided?
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 12:31
|
#197
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedeejem!
Actually the group that should be "blamed" for asc losing a round is the bg's and asc itself, the bg's managed to piss you guys off so much that you stopped caring about winning and that you had to make a deal with xVx to let them win in order for you to dick around the bg's.
End of the day you're still losing, no matter how hard you shout on the forums and try to claim the moral high ground, you're still losing.
gg!
|
actually:
1) we are losing because of our own shitness, most errors have been pointed out by lokken already
2) a while ago we said '**** winning' and went out to get the bg's who are being bullied into submission at the moment, something i really like. -> so are we really 'losing' ? It looks like we are achieving our goals.
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 12:42
|
#198
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
actually:
1) we are losing because of our own shitness, most errors have been pointed out by lokken already
2) a while ago we said '**** winning' and went out to get the bg's who are being bullied into submission at the moment, something i really like. -> so are we really 'losing' ? It looks like we are achieving our goals.
|
1) shouldn't you all leave asc then? I thought the only rule you had was don't be shit?
2) For being the best alliance left in the game, don't you think your goals are kinda shit and the way you've played this round is even more shit?
And yes you are really losing, last time i checked sandmans it still said #2 TOOT THE ALLIANCE
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 12:47
|
#199
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: xVx - statement
1) no, we need to get our act together, something we have been doing over the past couple of weeks but isnt nearly as complete as we wish it is
2) yes.
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
1 Jun 2009, 14:04
|
#200
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: xVx - statement
Since I am actually not playing this round I can only say what I witnessed going on in Ascendancy this round.
It started off with some sort of "OK, let's have a relaxed round, we got our 3 in a row, no need to prove anything further" attitude. That continued all the time until xVx joined the bg's block, which more or less just meant "oh screw it, we are not interested in another round of too much activity, let's look for something else". Jester then proposed to "invite death", aka napping xvx so we would not have to be too active and could idle the round out with a victory over those battle groups.
Everyone was pretty happy with that. If this - Ascendancy stopping to go for the #1 alliance rank - was the BG's only aim, well, fair enough, well played guys, you got what you wanted. I don't understand the bitching about our decision then, though. You guys set yourself a goal pre-round, we adjusted ours mid-round. If you consider our current goals as shit (I am fine with viewing our goals as "shit"), well, then most certainly your goals were shit as well to start with since they are pretty much the same - everything else would just be hypocrisy.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29.
| |