Correct me if I am wrong.

[Chika]

As I was doing my weekly glance at the top planets and gals, I noticed a funny thing. I saw each top gals soaked with planets with little green "A's" next to their name. I was like "woah, am I missing something?" I looked at the top alliances and saw ascendancy was #5. I scratched my head in confusion because they "are" the top 4 gals. Hands down, no maybes, no ifs. They are the top 4 gals. Period. Please fill me in on exactly which alliance is winning.

I am confused because back in the day IPC always had the biggest tag, but they were never the winners. I was wondering if we were going back to that, as clearly Ascendancy played a better round than any other alliance.

[Allfather]

I cant see any green "a"s anywhere :|

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Allfather

I cant see any green "a"s anywhere :|

The force is not with you my son.

[qebab]

Don't listen to it, it's an Ascendancy troll!

[Chika]

Actually I have a legit point. If you really think about it.

I will have to admit though, the discussion delivery is a little bit, lets say, asshole-ish, but still, I have a point.

[qebab]

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself, not me.

[Benneh]

Where are the poor helpless victims?

WHERE ARE THEY.

[Rinoa]

I think it goes some thing like :

" While you were warring, we were stockpiling"

[pig]

What happened to this chap?

[Mzyxptlk]

Never mind. I was misinformed. Request for Speedy Deletion.

[NitinA]

Yeah, Asc are doing well this round. It's also apprioiate to note Ascendency as an alliance are in a very unique position compared to other alliances.

[Achilles]

How do you mean NitinA?

[Rinoa]

-------------
-------------
Read
-------------
-------------

[Achilles]

That's actually a cute little 'graphic' Rinoa, I smiled briefly. The fact is NitinA's post could mean a lot of things and his is an opinion I'm actually interested in. So I'd rather ask him to clarify than make up the meaning which suits me best.

[JonnyBGood]

We need more than thirty active members

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We need more than thirty active members

Hmm, I thought I had given you access to the bot army?

[Allfather]

JBG doesnt need bots, he gets free shippies from the people running pa!

[Virall]

Ive been surprised by ascendancy this round tbh. You lot have 61 tagged members, and Im wondering what recruitment policies you guys have adopted. I think there is some misconception that ascendancy is an alliance of good players who cut the crap and do what they like, but despite this being true, the only recruitment rule you seem to have, is that you dont play shit.

I'd be interested to know when you guys decided to defend each other and what tactics you used this round.

I don't know chika, its really hard for me to agree with you on anything, but WP havent been tested, god knows what angels have been doing, and CT havent been active enough to launch a proper title challenge.

Ascendancy seems to suit its members. Its members (the ones I know are of a certain type; the type that really dont like being told what to do, but they actually do well for themselves playing as THEY want to play. Which, no matter which way you look at it, is fair play. Its an alliance full of intelligent roid whores.

But every round every alliance plays in exactly the same way- they attack together (at roughly the same time bar mid-morning retals) they TRY and defend each other and get into a routine. This round has been pretty poor for that, to me, ascendancy have actually played the most intelligent game. But then, ascendancy won a round a few rounds back, in the most intelligent win (for me) in pa, when they raped xp after looking at the stats and left everyone for dead.

I wouldn't say that the top 4 gals equate to ascendancy being the best alliance this round, because the top10 gals have fluctuated vigorously until about a week ago, when gaps between galaxies seemed to go crazy almost overnight. But ascendancy's rank, well. The roid count, the member count, the avg score. If you aren't in ascendancy, it looks ugly.

It just seems that there are good elements to the way they play, minus all the bullshit that the other alliances have. And the fact that you probably (and this is my most contraversial point) could win rounds like this if you wanted to, leaves you looking bizarre. As long as individuals are performing, the ascendancy tag seems to be a bonus.

Fair play.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Virall

Ive been surprised by ascendancy this round tbh.

The idea is to decimate half the tag, and merge to the highest scoring planets of Angels for a surprise win. Doesn't mean you'd have to recruit the people to form a tag off them, and with Angels we could definately say "nobody saw that coming".

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Virall

I'd be interested to know when you guys decided to defend each other and what tactics you used this round.

Defence was acknowledged to be of far greater utility this round than last. As such, because we don't like getting out of bed at 3am that much the idea of ascendancy-heavy galaxies was reused. We considered the possibility of attempting to win but we lacked the number of members to do so. Incidentally I found that horrifyingly gay about this round, due to the round length it was virtually impossible for us to gain enough score back on the 70 member alliances (we've actually been gaining the most score of any alliance in the game for the last while). The initial point of PA where everyone's fleets are roughly similar and tactically nothing has started to pay off yet is just shit for us because regardless of the fact if you put the 30 best players ever into a tag they're just not going to outgrow a 70 member alliance for the first bit.

We also focused on value as opposed to xp. I think we only have one player who's primarily xp based and he joined mid-round. Focusing on value meant constructions +++. The vast majority of our "serious" players have 60 fcs and have had them for a while, coupled with feudalism we worked out pre-round that you can effectively double the value you get from your planet, 55% mining bonus with the stacked feud bonus is about 206%. We also prioritise intelligent fleet slot usage, using ingal def fleets means while other alliances waste 19 ticks on a fleet slot we spend 9. We're also willing to 3 fleet def when it makes more sense, something you're not going to see in many other alliances.

Next round maybe other people will join us in being ridiculously cool

[Kargool]

TGV have had a sad overuse of threefleet defence this round. In fact we got so fixated in defending that people pulled from our attackraids and defended instead. With the small amount of xp you get, this isnt really worth it, but I can see why some choose to do it.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Defence was acknowledged to be of far greater utility this round than last. As such, because we don't like getting out of bed at 3am that much the idea of ascendancy-heavy galaxies was reused. We considered the possibility of attempting to win but we lacked the number of members to do so. Incidentally I found that horrifyingly gay about this round, due to the round length it was virtually impossible for us to gain enough score back on the 70 member alliances (we've actually been gaining the most score of any alliance in the game for the last while).

Given jer's just said you have the most planets in the top 10/20/100, and as you've said, Ascendancy too focused on value as opposed to XP..

It certainly does appear to me that an alliance in Ascendancy's position could've had much more success in its 'race' against CT/Angels/WP if it had been somewhat more aggressive towards them. The score system certainly did slow you down quite a lot, but if you'd really wanted it I'm sure you could've made up the difference by making life hard for two of those alliances (maybe you are right now with Angels I've no clue).

I find it to be quite silly that what i'd consider to be the most powerful alliance is in fourth place, but it might well be the alliance and not the game at fault. Presumably the alliance could've picked up on this earlier and done a bit more with its power. I guess Asc noticed this at a point where it felt it wasn't going to win regardless and not surprisingly it prioritised other things above 2nd place.

[Stoom]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I guess Asc noticed this at a point where it felt it wasn't going to win regardless and not surprisingly it prioritised other things above 2nd place.

We did indeed. Noone expected to do this good. Least of all myself who's currently t20 with a shot at t10

Originally Posted by pig

You seem to overlook the fact that out of ascendancys 60 members in tag, I am willing to be there are at least 20 who are just as shit as myself.

Correct. For example, if WP has 70 most active members intag out of a 100, we have 30-40 actives out of a 60. Only difference is our inactives are intag. If not our avg probably would be like 400k above WP's.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I find it to be quite silly that what i'd consider to be the most powerful alliance is in fourth place, but it might well be the alliance and not the game at fault. Presumably the alliance could've picked up on this earlier and done a bit more with its power. I guess Asc noticed this at a point where it felt it wasn't going to win regardless and not surprisingly it prioritised other things above 2nd place.

I really couldn't care less if we came second or ninety third. After all, and I think you missed this, in r17 we kicked everyone out of tag and got idi to sign up a new planet and join, thereby ending with the lowest ranked alliance in Planetarion that round.



All I thought was how funny it'd have been if we did that in r16


Wolfpack can still do that this round for the comedy value if they want to. I for one would certainly appreciate it.

Originally Posted by voodoo

and i'm sure it wouldnt take three alliances to do that. just one with some organisation, if anybody can be bothered.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts you'd still be a butt.

Originally Posted by Rinoa

Everyone seems to have overlooked that Wp's average score is 400k higher than that of Ascendancy's, not to mention we also have a much higher average value.

WRONG.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Wolfpack can still do that this round for the comedy value if they want to. I for one would certainly appreciate it.

But it'll never happen. If it did, there'd probably be people shit enough to proceed to loudly proclaim the win for CT, laughable though that is.

[GrandAdm Thrawn]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Defence was acknowledged to be of far greater utility this round than last. As such, because we don't like getting out of bed at 3am that much the idea of ascendancy-heavy galaxies was reused. (

I hope you are not saying that you were some of those people who set up 20 planets till you land in one of the "right" gals - kinda having private gals there..

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Virall

Ascendancy seems to suit its members. Its members (the ones I know are of a certain type; the type that really dont like being told what to do, but they actually do well for themselves playing as THEY want to play. Which, no matter which way you look at it, is fair play. Its an alliance full of intelligent roid whores.

Putting this thread back on track before it's fagged up completely by the jer/kila tiff.

When I was Ascendancy (I'm still around and chat there, but haven't played for a couple of rounds due to work and stuff) the main thing I noticed was that defence wasn't obligatory. You did it because you wanted to.

In other alliances, the incentive to defend is to get defence (through defence points). The motivation to defend others is incredibly Taylorist and quantitative. You had no knowledge of who you were defending, and if they'd ever defend you in return. You hoped that what went around would come around, but it often wouldn't and you'd find yourself uncovered and feeling bitter about it.

In Ascendancy you trust everyone and chat and know them. There aren't enough people for it to be anonymous, and it isn't just a case of "defend 1:2:3 eta 7 please" it is "hey jer send me some of your viper please you little faggot" "ok". You know you'd send defence as they'll do the same in return.

In terms of motivation to play the game (psychologically speaking) it's incredibly impressive and broke out of the mould* which alliances had been following since the days of Fury and Synthetic_Sid. He was a pioneer, but the game has changed and people have changed. Ascendancy adapted.

Having said this, and circle-jerked Ascendancy to hell, I think their members should stop bigging themselves up on these forums. Noone likes a bad winner. Be humble, guys.



*elvis and his crew have also followed this pattern but as they always were members of other alliances it wasn't as noticeable (except that those players consistently did well)

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Having said this, and circle-jerked Ascendancy to hell, I think their members should stop bigging themselves up on these forums. Noone likes a bad winner. Be humble, guys.

The entire point of this thread was not to "big up" the win. It was simply to put it out there that "hey, you actually have accomplished **** all. It was us."
Sadly it only takes half of a disagreement for me to do a full-frontal "IN YOUR FACE", as some people need that for things to sink in.*

[Willzzz]

Originally Posted by Chika

The entire point of this thread was not to "big up" the win. It was simply to put it out there that "hey, you actually have accomplished **** all. It was us."
Sadly it only takes half of a disagreement for me to do a full-frontal "IN YOUR FACE", as some people need that for things to sink in.*

I think i speak for 3 quaters of this community if not maybe all when i tell you to shut the hell up. Now i know some say of course your having your usal fun chika, but tbh your now just becoming anoying.

Originally Posted by Achilles

That's a shit attitude. You will never win because you think like this. Learning to accept criticism from some of the actually great tacticians in PA such as Rob, Jester, bwtmc et al. could only help your alliance. Actually taking people like chika seriously is only testament to total idiocy. But go on, crash your fleets on us in petty vindictiveness instead. You guys will go far that way.

How is that a shit attitude? There was no way in hell Angels as Ass said were going to catch Pack in that lengh of time. Hes been realistic and decided to obviously do somthing for what was left of the round. And learning to take cricism from some of the great tactions of the game? Now ill admit they are great players. And maybe even great leaders at the current state of the game. (what i mean by that statement cleary is that at the moment they are saw as the best tactions, mainly because there simply isny anyone around now else that sticks out, same with general players) In the old days these guys wouldnt of stuck out so much. As i beleive their were a lot more quailty HC and a lot more quailty players back in the day. But the simple fact is no alliance HC likes to be told where they are going wrong in a fashion which insults them. Especially not from people who dont lead by example themselves.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Despite the presence of spastics like kila who seem to think they know me well enough to claim otherwise I have enjoyed this round of PA more than any other for a long time. It's been hard fought and I'm only sorry it's not longer so that Ascendancy had a chance to catch WP on our own. We would all* still have a chance if it wasn't for the fact that you guys lack either lack the bottle to keep on fighting or are too proud to work with Ascendancy cause we upset you on AD.

*By this I really mean Asc/Angels. The only thing CT are good for now is the headless chicken dance and crashing fleet like FCrew (no offence intended to FCrew - standard PA analogy).

I have to admit it has been an interesting round. Although it seems there is a clear cut winner tbh in pack, there have been some great activity with many alliances etc. Havent saw that in a while. But whats this about? We have come to the same situation again me and you had in another thread. I havent saw once where your HC team have offered on these boards to help Angels and CT take down pack. Although you have claimed several times they have. Where? Fact is, Angels or CT are not to proud to work with Asc, its the fact Asc still claim to hit what they want when they want attitude and dont offer to work with them. What was it assman said in another thread? Game offered to help by taking one pack gal? Please. I know a lot of members in Asc well. Ill admit myself your full of quality members there is no doubting that at all, dont make it look like im taking digs at you as an alliance as im not i have all respect. What im anoyed about is how your blaming everyone else around you for allowing Pack to win, but didnt do anything yourselves to prevent it either.

But amusingly im in CT. But according to members of pack, they have even admitted the toughest alliance this round for them (giving them incoming) Was Angels which im quite suprised about. So respect to them in that sense then. But overall yes its been a good round.

[Rinoa]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

But according to members of pack, they have even admitted the toughest alliance this round for them (giving them incoming) Was Angels which im quite suprised about. So respect to them in that sense then. But overall yes its been a good round.

Angels first without a doubt. Then ameth and vgn next i guess and ct a lot further down list part from maybe one night

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Chika

"hey, you actually have accomplished **** all. It was us."

So you're trying to say that even though you've managed to dominate WP you've still managed to lose the game? Yeah stand up and be proud. Really, congratulations.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

So you're trying to say that even though you've managed to dominate WP you've still managed to lose the game? Yeah stand up and be proud. Really, congratulations.

I wouldn't say Ascendancy have dominated wolfpack. I doubt we've hit them much this round and on not a single night did we planet-target them. Realistically in military terms I doubt either wolfpack or ascendancy would fight it that easy to defeat the other. Then again it's not a wargame is it? It's a game of score accumulation.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Having said this, and circle-jerked Ascendancy to hell, I think their members should stop bigging themselves up on these forums. Noone likes a bad winner. Be humble, guys.

In the Alliance Rankings, the only winner is the one that gets #1. No offence to Ascendancy, but doesn't look like they're going to get that.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

When I was Ascendancy (I'm still around and chat there, but haven't played for a couple of rounds due to work and stuff) the main thing I noticed was that defence wasn't obligatory. You did it because you wanted to.

What I wonder about is at what point this becomes unfeasible? How many people before this doesn't work? 50? 100? 200?

I want the alliance limit removed, but I'm not sure my alliance would survive it if it recruited past that critical point. Maybe cliques would form that defended eachother. Maybe the system would fail as the group became so large that people wouldn't know who else was a regular defender anymore. Or maybe people would figure out a new way to do things that would work.

One of the interesting things about being in Ascendancy is watching these things play out. Our hierarchy never imposed any sort of defense system on the alliance, people started sending eachother defense when defending was a better strategy than attacking. So in rounds like 16 or 20, no one really bothers sending defense, because attacking is so much more beneficial and people realize that. Whereas in rounds like 19 or 21 (this round), people realize that defense is a valuable commodity and adjust their play accordingly.

I realize I'm crawling up our collective anus a bit here, and I'm not trying to say that other alliances are shit with their defense systems, I'm just saying that it's interesting how this contradicts the assumption that defense point systems, procedure and hierarchies are necessary. You may say that this is due to our exceptional players, but not all our players are named players. There are not a few people who have joined from being galmates that Ascendancy members felt would be good recruits*. Some are new players, who have only been in one or two alliances, others have been around longer and find a home with us.

*By whatever criteria they decided. Personally, I don't consider how much score a player's planet will generate when deciding whether to sponsor someone for Ascendancy. I don't consider their potential to learn in future rounds. I just consider whether they're fun to be around. That's it. Other people in Ascendancy have other standards, but mine are ridiculously low.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Jester

Other people in Ascendancy have other standards, but mine are ridiculously low.

That's why I got in right?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Jester

What I wonder about is at what point this becomes unfeasible? How many people before this doesn't work? 50? 100? 200?

150, apparently.

One of the interesting things about being in Ascendancy is watching these things play out. Our hierarchy never imposed any sort of defense system on the alliance, people started sending eachother defense when defending was a better strategy than attacking. So in rounds like 16 or 20, no one really bothers sending defense, because attacking is so much more beneficial and people realize that. Whereas in rounds like 19 or 21 (this round), people realize that defense is a valuable commodity and adjust their play accordingly.

This is a good example of spontaneous order. It's certainly very interesting to watch this work in practice, and to watch how the community manages to organise without any real leadership as such. One very good thing about this system is that it avoids the possibility that a misguided leader could force an alliance to follow an incorrect strategy; if we tried that in Ascendancy, people would simply ignore us and follow a better strategy.

I realize I'm crawling up our collective anus a bit here, and I'm not trying to say that other alliances are shit with their defense systems, I'm just saying that it's interesting how this contradicts the assumption that defense point systems, procedure and hierarchies are necessary. You may say that this is due to our exceptional players, but not all our players are named players. There are not a few people who have joined from being galmates that Ascendancy members felt would be good recruits*. Some are new players, who have only been in one or two alliances, others have been around longer and find a home with us.

I think similar effects would occur elsewhere. What I find interesting is that people have no trouble in figuring out who defends and who doesn't, without a points system to do it for them. The complete laissez-faire approach has actually produced an efficient system whereby those who contribute a lot tend to get more back, and those who contribute least also receive the least. The non-hierarchical nature of the alliance means that it's impossible for anyone to get special favours, for example by friendship with the officers or HC. I think this generally leads to a healthier, more active community where people are much more proactive and do not require leaders to tell them what to do. Other alliances seem to stop functioning entirely once their officers/HC give up (which is what seems to have happened to CT and Angels this round).

The reputation-based system also has the benefit of utilising tacit knowledge, things that individuals are aware of but cannot express in a systematic way. If I know that someone is a good defender, I will defend them; if they merely have high defence points, I am not so sure that they deserve defence. This was always a problem in 1up, because certain people could cheat the system slightly by only sending defence during the day, when recalls would happen early. Often a person could attack with 2 fleets and still get 3-4 defence points per day by sending/recalling during off-peak times, especially if they happened to be an officer or HC (mentioning no names, of course ). In comparison, the people who would wake up at 4am just to send defence got one point. A reputation-based system ensures that people can make subjective measurements of the behaviour of others, which can make use of a lot more information than a simple def point system.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Without meaning to derail the thread or anything there is actually a very interesting book entitled 'The Wisdom of Crowds' which covers this topic pretty extensively, if not quite directly. Can't remember the author offhand though.

James Surowiecki (amazon link). Richard Dawkins covered some similar ground in The Selfish Gene, and the concept of decentralised organisation has been around for a long time within liberal-leaning philosophy (Hume, Smith, Mill etc.) and economics (Hayek, Friedman, Mises etc.).

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

This is a good example of spontaneous order. It's certainly very interesting to watch this work in practice, and to watch how the community manages to organise without any real leadership as such. One very good thing about this system is that it avoids the possibility that a misguided leader could force an alliance to follow an incorrect strategy; if we tried that in Ascendancy, people would simply ignore us and follow a better strategy.



I think similar effects would occur elsewhere. What I find interesting is that people have no trouble in figuring out who defends and who doesn't, without a points system to do it for them. The complete laissez-faire approach has actually produced an efficient system whereby those who contribute a lot tend to get more back, and those who contribute least also receive the least. The non-hierarchical nature of the alliance means that it's impossible for anyone to get special favours, for example by friendship with the officers or HC. I think this generally leads to a healthier, more active community where people are much more proactive and do not require leaders to tell them what to do. Other alliances seem to stop functioning entirely once their officers/HC give up (which is what seems to have happened to CT and Angels this round).

The reputation-based system also has the benefit of utilising tacit knowledge, things that individuals are aware of but cannot express in a systematic way. If I know that someone is a good defender, I will defend them; if they merely have high defence points, I am not so sure that they deserve defence. This was always a problem in 1up, because certain people could cheat the system slightly by only sending defence during the day, when recalls would happen early. Often a person could attack with 2 fleets and still get 3-4 defence points per day by sending/recalling during off-peak times, especially if they happened to be an officer or HC (mentioning no names, of course ). In comparison, the people who would wake up at 4am just to send defence got one point. A reputation-based system ensures that people can make subjective measurements of the behaviour of others, which can make use of a lot more information than a simple def point system.

You are putting way to much into your theory. First of all, players in an alliance are mostly known as being good based a lot on their activity, TGV who has been operating with extra points for being called at nights to send def for example, and we have also tried to give bonus points for being up at odd hours at nights. The problem with a "reputationsystem" like the one you show, is that in an environment where you are new, you don't tend to be shouting the loudest, ergo you get less def. Having a dc department that handles defensecalls and prioritizes the defense in a efficient way has and will always be an important backbone of an alliance, and then there is always the classical comment: What might work for you, might not work for others. There are no real good answers to how to define how an alliance should act, as alliances are as different as night and day, and some more than others.

[Virall]

Oh and Benneh is a whore.

[Allfather]

You will never be as cool as me, but thanks for trying though.

[Chika]

Having the top 4 gals constitutes winning. I am sorry, it just does. It makes it an arguable ordeal, and in that sense ascendancy wins. Sure we can speculate that if people in ascendancy play half serious they could have had the top score overall also. Ascendancy doesn't have these superduper smart plans like jbg makes it sound, from the outside looking in, they all agree with one thing (3 or 4 people discuss it and say it in the public channel and everyone follows) and they stick with it collectively. Other alliances do not do this, WP did not do this. In what aspect did they win? They had the most active players? With half the active member base ascendancy virtually controls the universe. I did absolutely nothing this round, I did send defence to these top gals though. I feel better about having 4 of the top 5 gals, than by my alliance collectively having the most score, with only 7 or 8 of our planets in the top 100.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Chika

Ascendancy doesn't have these superduper smart plans like jbg makes it sound

While they're often not that explicit everything I said in my post is pretty much true.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

While they're often not that explicit everything I said in my post is pretty much true.

Yeah. Straight up real shit. I am only implying that it isn't rocket science.

[pig]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

While they're often not that explicit everything I said in my post is pretty much true.

Did someone forget to tell me, or were you all to lazy so you got alki to spread the tactics of the round.

[CBA]

Originally Posted by Chika

Having the top 4 gals constitutes winning. I am sorry, it just does. It makes it an arguable ordeal, and in that sense ascendancy wins. Sure we can speculate that if people in ascendancy play half serious they could have had the top score overall also. Ascendancy doesn't have these superduper smart plans like jbg makes it sound, from the outside looking in, they all agree with one thing (3 or 4 people discuss it and say it in the public channel and everyone follows) and they stick with it collectively. Other alliances do not do this, WP did not do this. In what aspect did they win? They had the most active players? With half the active member base ascendancy virtually controls the universe. I did absolutely nothing this round, I did send defence to these top gals though. I feel better about having 4 of the top 5 gals, than by my alliance collectively having the most score, with only 7 or 8 of our planets in the top 100.

what you mean by having the top 4 gals?

[Game^]

Originally Posted by CBA

what you mean by having the top 4 gals?

Exactly what it says, Asc controls the top4 gals.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Game^

Exactly what it says, Asc controls the top4 gals.

You are being a bit to nice there Game.

When you say Ascendancy "control" the top 4 galaxies you imply they may have members who are a "minister" or "GC". I think you should be less gracious and just tell everyone that the galaxies are Ascendancy heavy as far as the planets are concerned.

Oh Apologies I may have just done it for you.

[jerome]

ascendancy have the most number of planets in the top 100 by the way, and also top 10/20.

[JonnyBGood]

Motivation comes from within dear.

[Mzyxptlk]

Depending on how you define "control", you just said the exact same thing as Game did.

[pig]

I guess, but I slightly gave some substance behind the matter if you know what I mean.