[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Yeah, I understand to some extent how Ascendancy works - or worked when I was there. What I can say, as a bystander, though, is that Ascendancy didn't really put up a fight for military dominance, any more than Angels or Conspiracy did so. If you feel different please elaborate further. Otherwise, why would any other alliance set themselves on the given target either? What makes Ascendancy so special in compared to any given top10 or so alliance? Because they works different? Does that mean that when one alliance works different than others, the others are automatically assumed to be "standard alliances" and should be dictated by opinions of others (including those of the alliances working differently) and go plunging into wars "just for shits and giggles" and just to serve as the "expected/required of a top alliance"?

PS. Before you serve the "But I did", yes, I acknowledge, but you're missing my point: you're saying because Ascendancy works different it didn't struggle for military dominance in the way a "top" alliance that "works regularly" should; but why shouldn't Ascendancy aim for military dominance on an organized level, instead of just asking why other alliances don't do it, and critisizing other alliances for not doing it? Put otherwise, there would have been planets in Angels and Conspiracy too who saw themselves fighting for military dominance. Though it wasn't the whole alliance working for it.

This is just drivel. This round had alliance rankings so aiming for military dominance would be nothing more than a personal preference.