Analysis of T10 alliances

[cypher]

i'm just still hoping you guys will actually... or try atleast...would make the game much more fun

[Wandows]

as expected this thread kinda turned into a "no we are better then you, you fking nubjes"-thread.

All i can say is... In a way i am happy how the round ended up to be though i personally might not be happy to see which alliance won, i still think they can´t be blamed for playing the way they did and with the ppl they got amongst their ranks. They have a excellent crew, so despite what they say i don´t think anyone could expect anything else but a top performance from their part.

The problem with the current game imho is that stats allow easy control over a round. 1up has few members compared to others, but those members where (till certain extend) allowed to grow to a decent/top size at the start. With current stat/game mechanics its extremely important to keep your fleet alive no matter what. The alliances that excels in that part of the game, will win the round. Fake def and things like that allow "easy control" over the universe as they are hard to calc with the interference in scans (and the fact that alot of ppl don´t bother to check defenders their news etc). Also resource wise most attacks are relatively easy to stop when your members fleets are bigger, like 1 def fleet stops 3+ attacking fleets or makes it not worth it. with the spreading of the planets/alliances through the universe and the fact that there is no decent cap limit on attacking fleets (no matter what you send in fleet value.. you still get max cap) make it is easy for big planets to regain their losses (jay recall/resend tactics for 20 hours a day with no decent milscan available).

The alliance that (has the most members who have the time and) know how to play this way will win if given enough space. 1up did that simple as what.. so in that way they deserved their victory. The "oh-we-are-so-leet-cuz-we-had-less-members-then-most-top-allies" replies i´ve seen around here from some 1uppers are rather boring. Simply cuz they don´t show anything but the attitude of ur ally, and thats the main thing i don´t like about 1up. Yes they have by far the most active/skilled crew/members in the game. And can´t they simply leave it at that and play the game like that, instead of managing to turn almost anything said anywhere into a "ooooh we are 1up, you aren´t even worth to kiss ur shoes" kinda thing. I just wish the 1up ppl around here simply quit being that arrogant and playing god.

And eventhough i don´t like their attitude, i respect their win of this round.

This round has been interesting and fun, most top10 alliances played a fun round and targetted which alliance needed to be targetted (for their own interest) at certain points in the round, and everyone tried their best to make the round not to easy for 1 alliance to win, which is quite fun for a change.

I won´t comment on any ally specific as i don´t know most of their ideas on the way they played (not taking the #1 in account here).

As for VsN i am proud of the game we played, we don´t not have the most hardened memberbase and most skilled players, but eventhough that fact we managed to launch attack up-rank most of the round (targetting alliances ranked above us). And that took us some ranks as retails were severe, but never the less i am quite sure we had a impact on the final ranking of this round, and am glad we could do that. This round we couldn´t play for a top rank simply cuz of the way we ended round 11 with, but i hope we´ve built a foundation to reach into the next round and fight to make an interesting and fun round again.

[Foxman]

"chika"(as its a stolen nick) pls stop the bullshit, whatever u post, and whatever u say, we ended top10.
i feel sure WE could have finished #10 or higher without mistu also, as a CORE Angels member, i feel i got a better view on our firepower and defstrenght, then a guy that spent one round with fang ages ago does, and again, Angels and FAnG aint the same.

and about angels being a shitty alliance/bg, and would never have finished top10 with good alliances in the game, that would go for your top10 positions also then....

- with love from Foxman

[Almeida]

angels deserve the top 10 position! when they left Mistu they were outside of the top 10 and they fought their way up without any help. so i can't see how someone can say that they don't deserve it.

[Sun_Tzu]

Let's be honest, FAnG should of been burried along with the disbanding rnd8. Since the rnd9 ressurrection it couldn't bare homeage to the name.

However, Angels(notice no quotation-marks since NOTHING online is ever original.) comes a lot closer to the origin than anything we've seen sincen the original. As such, I doubt a lot of the old-timers would mind even if they would have refered to themselves as "the new FAnG". But they haven't. Why not? I suspect because they don't want to dishonor the old if things turn sour. As such, I find it a very much respectable choice.

Now, if Chika could stop mouthing off for a second this conversation might be able to move on beyond "stealing" names off of n00b-alliances nobodys ever heard of. Everyone allread knows it doesn't refer to that never-heard-of-alliance(a top10 finish screams that clear enough). It refers to the FuriousAngelsnextGeneration. Just as Olympians refered to TitanS. Now leave it be.

Now, let's think about this, what king of chances does a 35-member alliance have in a random universe with few players and no really big alliances? A god damn lot better than 30 odd players had back in rnd7 in a private universe with what? 30k players? So forgive me if I look optimistically on Angels changes for the coming round.

[Recluse]

"Chika"(Stolen name) If you had read anything from, oh, post #1 on, you'd see there are 2 arguments taking place regarding Angels. One refers to the name, which tbh, is a really sad argument considering the known meaning of the letters FAnG. The second is whether we deserved t10 spot or not, and from post #1 on people have said we did not, in essance, since we "weren't challenged" or "had help from Mistu". So yes, my post was well founded and correctly my opinion, now take your post and kindly shove it. tyvm.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

Let's be honest, FAnG should of been burried along with the disbanding rnd8. Since the rnd9 ressurrection it couldn't bare homeage to the name.

However, Angels(notice no quotation-marks since NOTHING online is ever original.) comes a lot closer to the origin than anything we've seen sincen the original. As such, I doubt a lot of the old-timers would mind even if they would have refered to themselves as "the new FAnG". But they haven't. Why not? I suspect because they don't want to dishonor the old if things turn sour. As such, I find it a very much respectable choice.

Now, if Chika could stop mouthing off for a second this conversation might be able to move on beyond "stealing" names off of n00b-alliances nobodys ever heard of. Everyone allread knows it doesn't refer to that never-heard-of-alliance(a top10 finish screams that clear enough). It refers to the FuriousAngelsnextGeneration. Just as Olympians refered to TitanS. Now leave it be.

Now, let's think about this, what king of chances does a 35-member alliance have in a random universe with few players and no really big alliances? A god damn lot better than 30 odd players had back in rnd7 in a private universe with what? 30k players? So forgive me if I look optimistically on Angels changes for the coming round.

Hey m8, it's been a while

You are idd correct, the name Angels is derived from Furious Angels (which is a part of the meaning of FAnG). The reason we (or more alch) chose for this name is simply because FAnG ceased to exist in PA and whatever we are or were building on is NOT FAnG, eventhough Angels consists of mainly former FAnG players.
Nonetheless, an alliancename stands for so much more then just the players in it, hence why we decided to give it a different name because for us, personally, it is something new and better.

So Chika, if someone stole a part of an alliance name, it wa "angel" a few rounds ago and not the way you claim it to be.

[Fyodor]

I stole a water pistol one time, my mom slapped me in the mouth, and I fell down the stairs and my shoes and glasses fell off. Seriously. I highly doubt that Fang meant to steal anything when the chose they name angels. Im sure they just as easily could have chosen the name furious. And besides, while in mistu, one of our BG channels was called angels so it was an easy name to slide into. In a sense in choosing the name Angels they are trying to forge a new identity while retaining some of the old identity. Get it? Good. Now we can get back to the discussion of why all other alliances other then 1up and Angels played a crappy round

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

the discussion of why all other alliances other then 1up and Angels played a crappy round

bias
:eek:

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by lokken

bias
:eek:

Thank god im not a mod

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Foxman

"chika"(as its a stolen nick) pls stop the bullshit, whatever u post, and whatever u say, we ended top10.
i feel sure WE could have finished #10 or higher without mistu also, as a CORE Angels member, i feel i got a better view on our firepower and defstrenght, then a guy that spent one round with fang ages ago does, and again, Angels and FAnG aint the same.

and about angels being a shitty alliance/bg, and would never have finished top10 with good alliances in the game, that would go for your top10 positions also then....

- with love from Foxman

For the record, Alch asked of forums if i would stop with the "Angels" (lol) thingy. I did, but people keep talking about it. But once again, its impossible to argue any points when replies to MY points are WAY off. For the 4th time, I NEVER SAID ANGELS WERE A SHITTY ALLIANCE/BG!! Can someone from "ANGELS" (rofl) read that? Please read THAT!!!!
Yes- You guys rocked etc.
Yes- I think your cool.
Yes- All "ANGELS" ( :eek: ) repliying here are taking things not negative and making them negative.
NO!- "ANGELS" (/me twirls in a circle) would not have finished top 10 if any decent proper alliances around.
Alch, KJ, Behe, even Alki, or anyone else, I respect your posts and your opinion.
Foxman, you have only posted a few times, in hopes that what I say next can influence you to not post for a few more years, SHUTUP Its fair to tell you that because you were off topic.
Thanks and <3
P.s The hot pink looks kind of fruity, but thats the color of the day.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

Now, if Chika could stop mouthing off for a second this conversation might be able to move on beyond "stealing" names off of n00b-alliances nobodys ever heard of. Everyone allread knows it doesn't refer to that never-heard-of-alliance(a top10 finish screams that clear enough). It refers to the FuriousAngelsnextGeneration. Just as Olympians refered to TitanS. Now leave it be.

erm, i don't think its mouthing off. To respond to you sensibly, It is a matter of public opinion. Yours is that they are a noob alliance and that they really didn't count. I don't agree with that.

[Foxman]

Originally Posted by Chika

erm, i don't think its mouthing off. To respond to you sensibly, It is a matter of public opinion. Yours is that they are a noob alliance and that they really didn't count. I don't agree with that.

i cba to reply to your remarks to me, as i refuse to go down to your lvl,

how many have realy heard about a noob alliance back in the days when _you_ started,
do you realy think we would "steal" a name from something noone have even heard of.
how the **** would that be "good" or even help us in any way?
now go troll somewhere else

ps. maybe we wouldent end top10 with "decent" alliances around, but u for sure wouldent end top10 player

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Foxman

i cba to reply to your remarks to me, as i refuse to go down to your lvl,

how many have realy heard about a noob alliance back in the days when _you_ started,
do you realy think we would "steal" a name from something noone have even heard of.
how the **** would that be "good" or even help us in any way?
now go troll somewhere else

ps. maybe we wouldent end top10 with "decent" alliances around, but u for sure wouldent end top10 player

/me slaps forehead. This convo has nothing to do with me. i simply said I didn't agree with that. that was all. I think that "Angels" (those guys) did take the name, but it can be argued that ANGEL took the name from them, and then they reverted to it without know about ANGEL and tried to call it a usage of the "ANGELS" in some of the players formaer alliance. Its my opinion. Now we have yours. Thanks.

[lokken]

my view is that if FAnG HC were bothered about the use of 'angels', they would have spoken out against it - but they haven't. Like olympians and titans really and every other 'offshoot' alliance.

Chika makes a worthwhile note that with 35 members, you aren't getting far in planetarion if you play from day 1, regardless of how good you may be. I don't see how anyone would be insulted by that.

[alch]

1) im sure hinch never came to your Angel HC telling him he stole the name from Furious Angels because this is ridiculous, like no one went to black legion to tell them they are using legion in their name.
2) When i chosed the name Angels i never knew about another alliance called "angel" in the past, so your point saying i added a "S" to the name to get away with it is FALSE, chika.
We could have chosed the name "Furious Angels" but because my root are there, but because this chapter is closed and because i have respect to my friend hinch and wouldnt use a name of his clan without consulting him, i just presumed none would have a problem with me using the portion "Angels" from Furious Angels, as it seems the most appropriate thing to do and most natural, from round2 to round12 i have been an angels, A furious angel then a furious angels next genration, now we are simple angels.
Deal with it.

[Sun_Tzu]

Might I point out that, as I said, FAnG in rnd7 had a bit the same situation as Angels do for the next round, a very small player-base with skill and friendship at the core. If FAnG could pull it off in a far worse situation I see no reason why Angels couldn't do well in a random game. I wonder why I even bother to reply, I'm supposed to have left this game fcking ages ago, but I suppose sometimes moronic people simply drag out the best in me ;P

There have been probably thousands of alliances in this game through-out it's history and very few truely original names. Add to that the thousands in other games such as this and we're all just ripping off each other. A friend of mine started playing PA and decided to join WP because his old Quake-clan had been called WolfPack. So the WP name is also stolen. Who gives a shit though? That's right, no-one. Besides, I belive this isn't the first time a major alliance has taken a name which later on was found out to have once belonged to a smaller unknown(n00b) alliance. Did anyone care? Not really. There's nothing to be gained from it and we all know what they really are refering to, so PLEASE quit it ok? Otherwise you're going to have to start putting quotation-marks around everything.

/me goes to see a few mods about this, I know it wouldn't stand for 2minutes on a forum I was modding...

[Sun_Tzu]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

everybody's nit-picking so i figured i'd nit-pick too... u missed to upper-case the "next" in that acronym.. should be FuriousAngelsNextGeneration if u want it to be FAnG - or, y not just call it FANG to keep it simple?

God I hate idiots...

Now, try to follow with me here...

First there was FA - FuriousAngels - a largely irish(?) alliance created in rnd2 of PA by the likes of hinch. Then there was nG - next Generation - another alliance I belive with largely german(?) player-base, also an old PA community. Rnd7 these two merged into FAnG - FuriousAngelsnextGeneration - thus the FAnG tag. Got it? The acronym is the only viable and honours both former alliances. The fact that people(such as yourself, and don't even for a second think your being ground-breaking and funny) seem to think that makes it look like "FAG" and think it's real funny is just a sad statement of the mental capacity of AD both past and present. But please, do continue to proove to me just how childish you are, allways makes me happy to know that me and my bunch are just that much higher on the intellect-scale than most of the rest of the community. Allways a pleasure to find out how much better you are than the average Joe. So please, do continue, you're making just a wonderfull arse of yourself

[lokken]

Chika's posts stand as they have some reasoning to them.
demigod wants a ban, although against my better judgement i'll leave him be for now.

I'm willing to protect from unfair criticism, but when it's got some reasoning to it, FAnG will just have to grin and bear it and argue back i'm afraid.

Although i have to say this thread is going dangerously off topic, but i'll try to keep it open as long as possible, as i'm aware quite a large number of users find this thread of interest - any further posts on the 'angels' topic will be deleted as its quite honestly boring the pants off a large number of users.

NOW - discussion about play in r12 GO GO GO

[demiGOD]

about my alliance, obviously not on T10 although the aim for R12 was to make it to the T10 but with unfortunate internal events wasn't able to do so, with a lot of hardwork and perseverance though, we were able to drop DR (or Rock) down to 15th to pick up 14th place which was pretty cool... expect us to be at a competing level next round

[Jackal2112]

I think this thread has heavily derailed into an Angels is or is not FAnG discussion.

Someone make a new thread and close this one (since it died ages ago..).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

I think this thread has heavily derailed into an Angels is or is not FAnG discussion.

Someone make a new thread and close this one (since it died ages ago..).

I think you need to read point one here. Lokken has asked for a fang/angels related discussion to take place elsewhere to avoid further moving this thread off-topic and so it shall be.

[Lei~]

id like to speak up for sin to make this a little more widespread.

i joined em after i left abso with my gal 2 days before the big crash. Then i joined sin and had a very nice round. An alliance that besides its size is ready to kick 20 members late in the round falling back to 12 i think and struggles up again to almost tenth (grumble at angels...) deserves at least a lil mention.

Theres this quote by someone i dunno remember who but it simply hits what sin was for me this round:
"pa as it should be played"

Thats ofc just how i found it after my roundstart in abso, but still it was just the right thing for me. For that and ofc for the millions of defships i got for a time i gotta thank you all guys

and just btw angels you did a really nice job of catching up...not sure if i should laugh or cry:/

[jerome]

who defines how pa "should" be played, and who "doesnt" play pa as it "should"


pure curiosity, not intended to be a troll.

[Almeida]

i guess the guy who originaly said that did only express his own opinion...

[Lei~]

dunno really jerome but it expresses the changes from abso to sin...
things like a good hc that do what must be done even when the consequences for the ally are a non top10 ranking. Like kicking evil_noob with about 100 ticks to go til round. And the feeling that your ally cares for you. I guess as pa should be played in a good community you might also rephrase that sentence to "a community thats worth playing with" including all the lil details there. Thats not to say that everything always worked prefectly in sin, but simply that if it dint work youd know it would be taken care of and tried to be done better...

abso dint play pa as it should be played for example.

[Tearz]

Originally Posted by Almeida

i guess the guy who originaly said that did only express his own opinion...

Indeed - purely my opinion.

Nothing else to add to me siggy at the time.

[Colt]

Angels suck ass and Irvine is annoying *g*

Well done to every alliance that recahed their pre-round goals. For any that didn't achieve their goals for whatever reason, come back next rd and show what your made off etc..

Happy new year etc.

/me fluffl3s Shev + Gate

[hinchles]

Originally Posted by Colt

In a world that don't know Romeo & Juliet, boy meets girl and promises we can't forget, we are cast from Eden's gate with no regrets, into the fire we cry

I DIDNT DO IT

[Alki]

hinch still has an acc \o/

[alch]

hinch is a fag ;p

[Alessio]

Heh b4 the round I thought the battle this round wouldve been between HR and LCH.. tbh

I think ND just made a desperate move to ally with 1up which only got em some more incs.. and with that they let 1up win the round.. I think 1up did a gd job taking advantage of the situation (what every1 shouldve done in their position) and win the round even tho they probs didnt aim for it at the first place..

ND had great def, only they allied themself with an 2 gd alliance and that made em lose all the chances on the first place.. but that were unforenseen consequenses..
anyways ND should fire their HC's
And about ND having alot of incs excuse.. LCH had many incs 2 and they did better..

Mistu and Absolute were funny tho.. I heard at the beginning of the round every1 should fear absolute and that they were gonna pwn the round.. O_o I never heard anything of them again tbh

congrats 2 every1.. every1 did what they thought was best in every situation so I think every1 deserved what they got.. as alliances as a whole..

[The_Fish]

Do we have a new contender for most clueless post ever there?

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The reason I, and many others, think ND could have ended #1, and HR couldn't, is that politically they stood no chance.

Had LCH (+ friends) beaten 1up, they would have won the round. Had 1up (and friends) beaten LCH, there would be no way HR could have won. However, ND could have slipped past 1up, with alliances around us targetting 1up instead of ND.

It's the 2nd round in a row where ND and HR have performed to a similar standard, and I can see it being similar again next round.

If they wouldnt target ND but every1 else targeted eachother, then ND would have been nr 1!!
and slipped past every1!! So ND must be good!! :xmas:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Do we have a new contender for most clueless post ever there?

[Chika]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Do we have a new contender for most clueless post ever there?

Fish, sadly, i read and re-read his post twice. The only thing silly about it is that he states that ND HC should be fired. Other than that his post makes a lot of sense to me.
If ND wasn't targetted as hard, maybe they would have won. I think thats a safe bet.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

If ND wasn't targetted as hard, maybe they would have won. I think thats a safe bet.

No !

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Chika

Fish, sadly, i read and re-read his post twice. The only thing silly about it is that he states that ND HC should be fired. Other than that his post makes a lot of sense to me.
If ND wasn't targetted as hard, maybe they would have won. I think thats a safe bet.

Stating the obvious IS retarded. Didnt you "retire" from AD a round or two back be course, as you said, you made a fool of yourself or something down those lines? Seems like nothing has changed

[furssie]

No way ND would win, however the available feasible political swing is. Their player lineup is so bad but decent enough to finish 3rd. The only thing they politically did is block with 1up - which they stupidly thought is their only chance to win (by blocking), but they're wrong - the block move just assured of 1up the win.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Stating the obvious IS retarded. Didnt you "retire" from AD a round or two back be course, as you said, you made a fool of yourself or something down those lines? Seems like nothing has changed

Whats sad is you obviously only read my reply and no context post, thus reading a small % of the thread, and also using a small % of your brain. You tried a flame but lacked spunk due to ignorance. I was simply supporting what someone else said a few posts above mines. I guess this was a flame attempt trying to make a comeback to AD?
Oh well, once you read and see you do idd look silly trying this troll, you still won't be man enough to apoligize. GJ though.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

No !

yes. If angels could have ended top 10 without mistu, then ND could have ended top 1 without being hit hard.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Chika

Fish, sadly, i read and re-read his post twice. The only thing silly about it is that he states that ND HC should be fired. Other than that his post makes a lot of sense to me.
If ND wasn't targetted as hard, maybe they would have won. I think thats a safe bet.

His post contains a lot of inaccuracies.

1) It was never a 'desperate' move to nap 1up. We had a lot of options at the time, and ND HC agreed that taking the nap with 1up was the best move. I don't think anyone would change their mind now.
2) ND's defence wasn't as good last round compared to previous rounds, our attacking capabilities was the reason we gained 3rd place.
3) Everyone knew that Absolute would be shit and wouldn't survive the round.

It was a clueless post tbh.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Chika

Whats sad is you obviously only read my reply and no context post, thus reading a small % of the thread, and also using a small % of your brain. You tried a flame but lacked spunk due to ignorance. I was simply supporting what someone else said a few posts above mines. I guess this was a flame attempt trying to make a comeback to AD?
Oh well, once you read and see you do idd look silly trying this troll, you still won't be man enough to apoligize. GJ though.

I use about the same % of my brain as any other human (about 10% if we are to believe those who claims to know these things).

And what comeback are you talking about?

And didnt you make a post where you said you was gonna quit couse of rl issues and the fact that you made a complete fool of yourself on the forums or something down that line? (this is a question)

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

His post contains a lot of inaccuracies.

1) It was never a 'desperate' move to nap 1up. We had a lot of options at the time, and ND HC agreed that taking the nap with 1up was the best move. I don't think anyone would change their mind now.
2) ND's defence wasn't as good last round compared to previous rounds, our attacking capabilities was the reason we gained 3rd place.
3) Everyone knew that Absolute would be shit and wouldn't survive the round.

It was a clueless post tbh.

I already said what I wanted to say about 1.
2. It looked gd in any case, with a bunch of ND members ingal gettin covered all the time and loads of our targets.. much better then in most alliances imo.. it may not have been gd enough from ur point of view, but still gd.. I could change my post 2 u guys were tottally shit if u prefer that..
3. I was talking about their own propeganda..

[The_Fish]

Change it to whatever you want, your opinion still means nothing to me

[Alessio]

You always reply 2 posts that you dont care about :s?

lets just leave it here b4 I start 2 to whoop some ND ass again nxt round..

[Gate]

Originally Posted by furssie

No way ND would win, however the available feasible political swing is. Their player lineup is so bad but decent enough to finish 3rd. The only thing they politically did is block with 1up - which they stupidly thought is their only chance to win (by blocking), but they're wrong - the block move just assured of 1up the win.

Just how else do you reckon ND could have played though? If we could have done as well without any form of agreements with other alliances (in this case, 1up), we would have done it.

We assisted 1up and others in bringing down mistu, then pegging back LCH. At that point, LCH were 35 mil score and 35k roids ahead, and from there it was a choice... either ND could hit 1up to play for second (handing LCH an easy win, from where the round would have stagnated as LCH became untouchable due to no1 aside from 1up having the skill, commitment and organisation to lead a coalition to bring down someone in such a position), or they could help 1up bring LCH within range, and then try to slip past. We aren't good enough to win the game in any other way, so we did what we could.

However, at that point, when LCH were ahead, with ND and 1up both drawn into hitting LCH, a handful of alliances turned on ND in aid of LCH. VisioN and MISTU incs were most common, but Vengeance, Insomnia, Howling Rain (Though it seemed most of their firepower actually did the right thing and hit 1up) and Angels incs appeared quite regularly (Insomnia's though, for instance, were them hitting NoS but massively covering the ND in the NoS gals. And Angels was sometimes them trying to twat TehPropheT, for instance).

Anyway, as I believe the 1up command agree, it was LCH's critical change of targetting that handed 1up the win. Though obviously, if ND hadn't joined 1up, we wouldn't have been hit. The alternative was joining Mistu/HR/VisioN/Vengeance/Angels/LCH and handing the win to LCH on a plate; a win they didn't deserve IMO.

I use about the same % of my brain as any other human (about 10% if we are to believe those who claims to know these things).

Apparently an urban legend. We only use 10% for cognitive thought, but the majority of our brain is used for memory storage, observing information we intake and making links (How we can turn almost everything into a sexual innuendo I believe is due to our brains constantly thinking about sex subconsciously and always 'testing' the link from what was said. I'm probably wrong though.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gate

Anyway, as I believe the 1up command agree, it was LCH's critical change of targetting that handed 1up the win.

That and LCH's critical lack of spine in making thier top players attack us.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

That and LCH's critical lack of spine in making thier top players attack us.

And the fact that several members of ND are damn sexy. Especially CleaningMuppet

But mainly the fact that LCH suck

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gate

But mainly the fact that LCH suck

I know you're messing about but a lot of people have this idea for real - imo LCH don't suck, they just lack discipline.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I know you're messing about but a lot of people have this idea for real - imo LCH don't suck, they just lack discipline.

I agree... I've seen plenty of well orchestrated attacks from LCH, and well marshalled defence. They know how to play the game itself to a high standard, high enough to have won this round.

They lost it because of their choices though. As an alliance player, if I wasn't ND, I think LCH would be one of hte last places I'd even think of applying. I reckon I'm competent enough to play amongst such a respectable alliance, but, tbh, I'd probably go for SiN or the likes first, as I've respected their decisions throughout the round more (eg. Kicking evil_n00b)