discussion regarding this statement by kj:

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

It didnt work well in the past to put things in my mouth neither does it now.

My point is that every alliance can play, but once you start to claim your own greatness and want to be a top dog, you need to back it up with some ingame facts.

"we have a great community" and "we always achieved our own goals" are points which noone can argue but once you start claiming you are a topdog and so leet compared to others ppl might ask for your merits.
Personally i dont see "we did some damage and got beaten till we folded in a scandal" as a special merit. Infact i see it rather as a disgrace fang had to blow up each round in a scandal or a big whining - forumwhoring event. Other alliances i named had the decency to die in silence and admit defeat before preparing for next round. You wont see any Elys, Virus, Wolfpack or LDK claim "we lost because of our allies" or "because we had a shit command", they lost because someone had to lose and they accept that fate.
Fang on the otherhand always worked on a myth to coverup its defeats. either it was hacking, backstabbing, "internal command decisions" or "change in the command" to coverup the simple fact you got beaten and your alliance folded.
An alliance is not just "some members" you claim you are a community infact thats not how you presented yourself to the game. So many defections and rerecruitments and crap deals with former defectors and cheaters. Face it you mostly lost because of your poor "alliance managment" skills. In r8, r6, r4 and many other rounds alliances got really beaten up (i took the fury rounds as examples) and ive never seen that amount of internal shit and crap going down. Those alliances came out stronger after a lost round, they restructured. You simply filled your ranks with a bunch of new guys, some of them (and thats your own words re: Irvine) not beeing loyal for 2 cents in the hope you might do better then before.
The point you never understood was that an alliancestrength comes from within. This strenght, in victory or defeat was never a main force in Fang. Once the pressure raised, your command went amok and your members defected in battlegroups.

This makes you in my eyes not a first choice for the topgroup, but i admit in the lower ranks of this group you will have your place. The single round win is and always will be the only remarkable thing, how many myth you want to spin around r7 wont change the facts.

heh, so now what you're saying is that the command e.g. me mainly was lacking the skills of managing an alliance? Funny how alot of pple that know me think differently.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Razorback

I dont need to discuss fangs perceived quality to you. Fact is they didnt finish in the winning block and they didnt finish "considerably" good. You had 7 planets in the top100 and most of them in the "down" end of the list. All of them apart from Draki had a decreasing history.
The rest is yourself patting your own back in the vain hope of definance and hard to prove assumptions. We would or we could doesnt matter. You lost. Politics played against you and you got hung out to die. Nothing to discuss there really if you had better ppl skills or tried harder maybe things would have been different, but they werent.
Fact is, fang stumbled round after round over their own legs, what could have been is another story and clearly metaphysical to this discussion.

yes we los - suprising that after been duped and dumped we lost.

I wont get into the mechanics of it, but we performed excellent as part of te whole and we excelled. We got ****ed by 2 alliances yet we still fought on without losing many players.

On ability, activity, team spirit and general players abilities we were as good round 7 as any alliance which I have previously played in and that includes round 5 legion.

Sure we weren't the mst politically astute and we were never liked bcause of our posting or because who was in it, but i still believe that you could put round 7 fang in any round of pa against any alliance from any round and it would stand up against them in a equal war situation.

as fr the stumbling at least fang has gone into every round its played t win it. Not many alliances can say that hand on heart it was always one of te main enemies round after round after round.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

heh, so now what you're saying is that the command e.g. me mainly was lacking the skills of managing an alliance? Funny how alot of pple that know me think differently.

Im sure your fan(g) club (hahaha) will disagree with me but its a sad reality Fangs ppl managment skills were poor at best. Or how do you explain all those scandals, blowups and internal defeats ? Note that im taking in plural, the whole fang command was responsible for it, even in rounds where you had no say in it or werent that active. Thats beeing part of the command team right ?

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

heh, so now what you're saying is that the command e.g. me mainly was lacking the skills of managing an alliance? Funny how alot of pple that know me think differently.

didn`t you imply it yourself by going on how FAnG`s members were leet etc and Fury/Ecl/1up were only better because of better command? thus implying FAnG command being shit as they in the end weren`t as good as Fury/etc even though they had as good members, no?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

yes we los - suprising that after been duped and dumped we lost.

I wont get into the mechanics of it, but we performed excellent as part of te whole and we excelled. We got ****ed by 2 alliances yet we still fought on without losing many players.

and the saga continues "we did excellent even if we lost but under the circumstances u know.. i mean we are leet" cant u admit defeat ? You lost because of poor politics and because other ppl outsmarted you. Your members werent ready to fight the odds they were facing and they got owned. No mystery or a big fairy tale behind it.

On ability, activity, team spirit and general players abilities we were as good round 7 as any alliance which I have previously played in and that includes round 5 legion.

Who really cares ? This is the metaphysical area of all alliances who never achieve anything. They all have great communities, they all have more fun or are far better friends. I guess whatever makes you sleep at night. For a factbased discussion about quality rather irrelevant.

Sure we weren't the mst politically astute and we were never liked bcause of our posting or because who was in it, but i still believe that you could put round 7 fang in any round of pa against any alliance from any round and it would stand up against them in a equal war situation.

And that is based on what exactly ? Yes again your own perception. How much will you narrow down the scenario so it fits your purpose ? "Any alliance 1o1" ? Pa has never been about just player quality, we both know that and just for the record, i doubt very much you will have any proof to present to backup your claim.

as fr the stumbling at least fang has gone into every round its played t win it. Not many alliances can say that hand on heart it was always one of te main enemies round after round after round.

I dont know what youre actually now talking about, i think most of the top alliances (those you so desperately try to proof equal to the comedy club of fang) went into every round to win it. On the otherhand just the wish to win is not enough. The wish might have been there in Fang but reading your trackrecord the overall quality wasnt, otherwise you would have constantly failed since r7 your goal (apart from 10.5) and you tell me fang wasnt a failure ?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

and the saga continues "we did excellent even if we lost but under the circumstances u know.. i mean we are leet" cant u admit defeat ? You lost because of poor politics and because other ppl outsmarted you. Your members werent ready to fight the odds they were facing and they got owned. No mystery or a big fairy tale behind it.


Who really cares ? This is the metaphysical area of all alliances who never achieve anything. They all have great communities, they all have more fun or are far better friends. I guess whatever makes you sleep at night. For a factbased discussion about quality rather irrelevant.


And that is based on what exactly ? Yes again your own perception. How much will you narrow down the scenario so it fits your purpose ? "Any alliance 1o1" ? Pa has never been about just player quality, we both know that and just for the record, i doubt very much you will have any proof to present to backup your claim.


I dont know what youre actually now talking about, i think most of the top alliances (those you so desperately try to proof equal to the comedy club of fang) went into every round to win it. On the otherhand just the wish to win is not enough. The wish might have been there in Fang but reading your trackrecord the overall quality wasnt, otherwise you would have constantly failed since r7 your goal (apart from 10.5) and you tell me fang wasnt a failure ?

Ohh come on, get real. Now we're some kinda Failure? ...

[jerome]

every alliance that doesn`t win, fails at the game.

[Jackal2112]

cmon people, just 'admit' to kj that FAnG is great so he can get this obsession out of his head.

thanks

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

every alliance that doesn`t win, fails at the game.

You think that i.e Veneratio failed the game when they actually managed to get a top10 position in their first round?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Nadar

BS.. you think that i.e Veneratio failed the game when they actually managed to get a top10 position in their first round of the game?

if you would have read all carefully you would see the difference between Veneratio and Fang.

Rumad claimed Fangs selfproclaimed goal for every round was to win it.
While i think Veneratios goal would be to do as well as possible.

On the otherhand you wont see Veneratio come here and claim how brilliant they are and to be considered the best of the best who could beat any alliance in a 1o1, or did i miss that post ?

beeing proud of what you achieved is different from beeing to big for your shoes.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Razorback

if you would have read all carefully you would see the difference between Veneratio and Fang.

That wasn't what it was about.. jerome posted that every alliance that doesnt win is failing.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

cmon people, just 'admit' to kj that FAnG is great so he can get this obsession out of his head.

thanks

if you wish to be taken serious, start making your first serious post ever. Untill then, you're nothing but yet another board troll which Jester and co seem to tollerate.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Nadar

That wasn't what it was about.. jerome posted that every alliance that doesnt win is failing.

he is right in a way.
Sense of this game is to win or to achieve something. If you dont reach that goal you "lose".

So in a very far sense, everyone not in the winning block is a "loser" it just depends how grave it is for them personally.

If a jamaikan ski team reaches the last spot in a competition they have "won" because they made it there and proved themself to the public. But for the overall event they are counted as a loser compared to the #1 spot.

Hence my point, if you aim for the top and claim you are first class and you fail to achieve that, you are a loser.
If you know your limits and know you are maybe not first choice and you try hard and reach a 10th or even 20th spot, you might be still a loser but you achieved something in your "class".

If you read my earlier replies you will see i valued also alliances into the top branch who might not neccessarily have held at 1 point the #1 rank.
How would you compare mistu to fang ? i mean in their first round they were already #2 and played a strong round. While fang after many rounds nearly left with empty hands.

Anyways you get my drift and i think jerome might have been abit harsh while he generally agreed wth me.

[Colt]

if im not mistaken Xanadu never actually won a rd?? @ jerome`

Tbh i don't see why you keep needing to discuss this topic as Kj + rumad obv won't back down and Focht etc i doubt will back down, why not just agree to disagree This is AD though..........
PS: im not claiming FAnG are/were better than Xanadu, as they weren't.

[Kjeldoran]

I agree there's little point to try and convince others. I guess it's a bad habbit of me to keep trying though. I didn't ask for this post, I only reacted to defend what I claimed. Something I still do and something I believe in.

It is your right to disagree as it is my right to aswell. Let's leave it at that as yet again this turned into an anti FAnG or Kj thread (and it's not always my fault it does).

[Elder]

Originally Posted by Razorback

On the otherhand you wont see Veneratio come here and claim how brilliant they are and to be considered the best of the best who could beat any alliance in a 1o1, or did i miss that post ?

We're brilliant, definitly among the top 10 alliances of all time .. But seriously though, I don't think Kj is claiming FAnG to be ******* brilliant which would just be silly, he just want them to be considerd among the top 10/20 alliances which I believe is more than fair enough... Thats my thoughts anyway, I may have interpereted this all wrong though, i'm after all not Fury and thus not "leet" so what would I know.

[jerome]

Regarding my earlier post, I meant:Alliances have their own goals, they may be successful at that or not. But the goal of THE GAME is to win. If you don`t, you lose.

Colt - lol, unlike post r10, there was no way to deem a winner in early rounds apart from r1/2/3/5 when it was rather clear. I don`t think many will disagree witht the notion than Xanadu (VeX)were on the winning side r4+6(not sure about 6 as i didnt actually play though:))?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Elder

Thats my thoughts anyway, I may have interpereted this all wrong though, i'm after all not Fury and thus not "leet" so what would I know.

Please don't let that fact stop you. If we only had Fury posters this board would be pretty shit.

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Colt - lol, unlike post r10, there was no way to deem a winner in early rounds apart from r1/2/3/5 when it was rather clear. I don`t think many will disagree witht the notion than Xanadu (VeX)were on the winning side r4+6(not sure about 6 as i didnt actually play though)?

I call bullshit.

Round 4 was won by nos and Xanadu, with Legion in a 'winning third'. Round 6 was won by everyone.

[jerome]

k, like i said, didn`t play r6, didn`t care much. Who was 'everyone' btw? (oh yer, my bad for leavin nos outta r4, couldnt remember who i was missing, which is amusing considering i had a nos ingal and hes been a friend for a long time from since till well, now.)

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Rumad

i still believe that you could put round 7 fang in any round of pa against any alliance from any round and it would stand up against them in a equal war situation.

heh, i havent laughed this hard since the steinmetz incident

[Fyodor]

I realize that KJ invites alot onto himself. But in his defense, I look back through the threads on AD and have found that each round that ive played with Fang (r8 onward) there are quite a few dedicated to fang. Many negative, some postiive. Either way, it seems from the amount of exposure we have gotten, we must have been a wee bit better then a "decent" alliance. Since round 8 till now, The only Alliance I would truly call a powerhouse is Eclipse. Right under them I believe Ely And fang would follow (amongst a few others who i havent the time to mention) Sure fang has failed to finish a few rounds. But they have had a huge impact on each round they have finsihed in and that they havent finsihed in. Without fang, there would have been a much greater lack of competitions through the rounds....
- Kj says Fang Is in the top 10 % all time. I think that is agreeable statement. I also think that since round 8 till now they have been a top alliance as each round (with the exception of this one) they have played a major role in the outcome. Are they in the top of all time? Of course not. Fang and every alliance out these days have played under a different set of rules
- Kj never claimed they were. He claimed they were in the top 10%.
-If you want to be fair about this, come up with a list of every serroius/semi serious alliance from r7 on and then make your judgement as to whether they are in the top 10%

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Tis

heh, i havent laughed this hard since the steinmetz incident

You and focht suffer the same disease then.

I never claimed that in that round we would be the eventual winners. But I can say hand on heart that round 7 FAnG excelled any team spirit that was felt in round 5 Legion. I can also say that round 7 FAnG for me was as good an experience as round 4 Legion which for team play was the best experience of team play in an alliance for me.

Its easy for everyone to say "you lost so you must have been no good" and I have tried very hard to not mud sling. However, that round ToT and FAnG consistently and repeatedly took more targets night after night than any of the other alliances round 7. In the early part of the war we were outstripping the bigger alliances and at the start of the round we only had 66 members.

We covered all but a few defences a night early on and within 2 weeks into the round we were the only alliance to cover 100% defences. Some smarmy remark about KM and his bot army can be made, but the reality is that KM's bot army was only used for alliance purposes a couple of times and since I was the only HC at that point to know about it I know what I say is 100% correct.

Our members had sms facility that round which meant we had great defence cover at whatever time attacks were launched. I believe we were the only alliance with a sms facility which worked within minutes thanks to hinch paying for the sms charges.

The SMS facilty was what made our defensive prowess so good. It also meant our members could sleep for some of the night which made them more commited to the alliance since we were able to offer this facility.

Our members also wanted to attack. We attacked regulary with 2 fleets and members were expected to contribute to our goals (this was monitored through the website.

Now I don't know whether FAnG was the best alliance that round to have ever played. I can't tell you that because we were undermined by politics, people we trusted let us down badly even though we stood firm for those allies in situations which could have resulted in them being left high and dry (anyone remember the consortium). We never won - we cannot dispute that and surely at the end of the round we only had 7 t100 players, but after having 2 strong enemies attack us and bombard us with no support and another dumped ally that hated me and didn't work too well because of that meant our situation was hopeless.

However the alliance never gave up and activity continued. If you are looking at attributes rather than performance that alliance had 100 of the best players planetarian had as an alliance (note as an alliance not as individuals). It had a good officers and a good member base and they gave heart and soul to play to win.

Politics where an alliance is dumped is a poor way of getting extra roids. They have little hope of success and they will be easy targets. However that cannot take away that alliances that stand such barrages and still come back round 8 and play well (till the hc split) cannot be discounted.

With r7 FAnG it was quality over quantity. It had excellent abilities and even better infrastructure.

However only those in it would know and only those that have experienced any part of what i say can have any understanding.

That doesn't mean as jester said I am not here to debate, but rather that my experience and my perception can't really be countered with "you haven't won so you can't be any good" as to truely understand what I say you have to have been there.

At the end of the day external perception will always be different to that of internal perspective, especially when an alliance image portrays a certain things. Inevitably though that perception is wrong in FAnG's case.

However saying that the perception may be wrong, but without the drama's, the strops, the drama queens and the military styled coup's wouldn't PA have ben a more boring place?

I wouln't change any of the experiences I have ahd with FAnG. I doubt any of the members would either or HC's.

Oh well back to work now. I look forward to being flamed ;p

[Razorback]

Rumad a very sentimental and complete nonsense reply.

Fang was in r7 (no matter how many tgts they took) never in a place to be "the most powerfull" or "the best" alliance. Thats a hard reality for you and you have to life with that.
You started good but you failed to finish, the fang desease.
Keep yourself adding glory and some quickly drawn straws to your alliancehistory, but rest assured the rest of the world doesnt share your lala world.
Ironic you mention your first round as your best and the rest just as a constant row of failures and decrease, but even this shows the fang way, good start bad finish.

[Rumad]

The first round was th best - I have no heitation in sating that that mmber cre was the best i worked with and as the unds progress the changing member bas quality decreased along with the game.

However, I can but only compare based on my expriences whihc is why I compare to legion and not with fury or eclipse.

Alliances can be based n there success, but activity is everything and theorhetically any alliance with excellent activity can compete with any other alliance.

I also would not say FAnG had a abd finish - at the end of the day aliances change and so do the membership. It survived round after round and still was sen as one of the main competitors.

You need to stop taking the acid - our tripping way too much it would seem from your replies

As for anyone agreing wih me - thos that do know know and and thos that don't know (like yourself) never will. Either way i am not bothred jus stating my PoV

[jerome]

Heh. One uses 'fang won a round that makes us one of the best alliances etcetc' statement, and another uses 'just because we didn`t win on many occasions didn`t mean we weren`t uber-leet'. cute.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Heh. One uses 'fang won a round that makes us one of the best alliances etcetc' statement, and another uses 'just because we didn`t win on many occasions didn`t mean we weren`t uber-leet'. cute.

You know, this thread will not end and die when trolls like you have nothing more exciting in their lives then to revive it with some smart troll remark. It's not like we have to count on a mod actually doing what he should be doing, now are we?

soz for being harsh though

[alch]

1) Posts directed at one or several mods calling for action. This is in reference to posts within threads calling for action on other posts in that thread. Rather than inflame what you believe to be a bad situation by furthering discussion on it, report the offending posts and let a moderator judge

You know, this thread will not end and die when trolls like you have nothing more exciting in their lives then to revive it with some smart troll remark. It's not like we have to count on a mod actually doing what he should be doing, now are we?

muahhahaha

[Tis]

in that huge long reply rumad, i couldnt see one line that defended the statement i was laughing at, that r7 fang could go toe to toe with any alliance, ever, one on one.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You know, this thread will not end and die when trolls like you have nothing more exciting in their lives then to revive it with some smart troll remark. It's not like we have to count on a mod actually doing what he should be doing, now are we?

soz for being harsh though

A troll it may have been, but it still contained an observation did it not? thus adding to the thread and opening up further discussion regarding how FAnG try to 'spell myths about itself' (in this case by 'cleverly' contradicting each other but also to try and use the same case example to project yourselves in a better light. as someone else (Focht?) has already stated in this thread.

ps. regarding the 'insult' about no-life etc, well, i could ofc go on about how my life is in a never-ending circle with this girl i like but complications arised and still remains etc, but then again, maybe sometimes i prefer my life to be in private and don`t see the point in trying to use to it 'boast' to others ie. Rumad and his gf etc. (although i do rub in how my luck with girls is better than hicks etc, but thats a personal 'rivalry' between friends) Oh and my life is decent ta. i just misuse my time on comp to chat on irc and post occasionally on forums rather than do some work :/ (oh, how unlike others ?)

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

A troll it may have been, but it still contained an observation did it not? thus adding to the thread and opening up further discussion regarding how FAnG try to 'spell myths about itself' (in this case by 'cleverly' contradicting each other but also to try and use the same case example to project yourselves in a better light. as someone else (Focht?) has already stated in this thread.

Originally Posted by kj
Looking at our achievements, I'm infact very happy about the things we achieved, more then 90% of ALL the alliances in PA EVER so far. I wouldn't call that too bad.

It seems to have taken an innocent quote of kjs and for some reason decided to make a thread about it. I still have yet to see anyone disprove what kj has said.

"Better the 90% of ALL alliancesin PA EVER so far."
This is what KJ said....

He didnt say, as some have tried to put words in his mouth "that fang is better then 90% of the top alliances"


Jeez people, leave the poor guy alone already.

[jerome]

he is right, fang is probably in the top10% of the alliances of all-time. If that`s a thing to be proud of or not is another question though, There probably have been hundreds of alliances during the course of 13 planetarion rounds.

In addition to that, i`d just like to add, i was not actually picking on kj, i was just commenting on an instance where 2 prominent FAnG`s were contradicting each other yet projecting yourselves as great. Not disagreeing with them or discussing anything to do with that, just observing the cuteness of it.

[Chika]

I can't see what the discussion is. FAnG won a round. 13 alliances won a round. FAnG was in an Uber block yes. But the times are very different. People really play lazy with pre-launching and such, so the game, in essence, is very different from how it was before. FAnG's win is a worthy win. I mean they had worthy opponents in round 10.5. A lot of the people posting now in this threads were opponents who quit in round 10.5 and did good this round, and now they are speaking out. Where was this when FAnG was pwning. these talks only came about after they lost the round. It's like there is a blip in most of you guy's memory. FAnG is in no way the best, but they still won a round. Simple. Trying to downplay thier history is utterly ridiculous. And to say that they were garbage this round is sort of ridiculous also. Thier top 10 players left. Myself (1up), Colt (mistu), Irvine (job), Yogibear (scanner), Forest (1up), Thats just to name a few. I don't expect them to win either after losing thier top people. So you can't hold that against them.

[Morden]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

he is right, fang is probably in the top10% of the alliances of all-time. If that`s a thing to be proud of or not is another question though, There probably have been hundreds of alliances during the course of 13 planetarion rounds.

In addition to that, i`d just like to add, i was not actually picking on kj, i was just commenting on an instance where 2 prominent FAnG`s were contradicting each other yet projecting yourselves as great. Not disagreeing with them or discussing anything to do with that, just observing the cuteness of it.

Over the course of PA's history I would be suprised if there was anything short of a thousand, it all depends on the level of seriousness. however i would guess that less than 70 were serious.

Top 10% in the all time alliance rating would probably involve around 50+ alliances(most of whome sucked.
Top 10% of the well known alliances would make between 6 and 10 alliances to contend with.

thats the reason why people argue and dispute. because it is not stated in which catagory Kj was referring to.

If he was referring to the former, then I doubt anyone would dispute it, however if it was stated under the former pretence then i seriously doubt we would see as much defiance and critisism from either side. Personally I rather liked FAnG even though I found the amount of Pride and the brashness displayed by many members to be rather amusing and irritating at times.

As for FAnG's record of breaking up and quiting just before the big game, well in some ways this is true in other ways it is not. What most people fail to notice or to understand is that for the most part FAnG has recruited people which most other alliances would not have given a chance, and then took those people and came close on many occasions to winning.

The only round which i can truely comment on was R10, I bare a large amount of the responcibility for our result there just as Kj does. My failing was that I knew I would not be active during the entire round, as there was only so much college work I could ignore. Kj's failing was his inflexibility regarding politics. Without those two failures then it would have been highly probably that FAnG might have won round 10 by quite a substancial margine.

Personally im not particularly interrested in arguing over this, because it is like watching 20 lads argue about which Beer tastes the best, everyone has different views and tastes.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

he is right, fang is probably in the top10% of the alliances of all-time. If that`s a thing to be proud of or not is another question though, There probably have been hundreds of alliances during the course of 13 planetarion rounds.

In addition to that, i`d just like to add, i was not actually picking on kj, i was just commenting on an instance where 2 prominent FAnG`s were contradicting each other yet projecting yourselves as great. Not disagreeing with them or discussing anything to do with that, just observing the cuteness of it.

You really do like to drag things out of context and try to take pple on 1 or 2 words they wrote. Too bad you failed on this attempt. Next time, take this to pm to me to ask for clarifications on what I EXACTLY meant. But that never was your goal. Like most pple, you seek discussions on AD where there are no discussions, or discussions over really silly things. But I've made myself guilty of that in the past aswell.

There is no contradiction here. You wish to believe there is one. Rumad just stated that HE (as in the person called Ruman or John irl) thinks FAnG r7 can blablabla. That however does NOT represent my opinion.

THIS IS ABOUT OPINIONS. YOU CANNOT CONTRADICT EACHOTHER WHEN IT'S ABOUT OPINIONS !!! learn the difference really. It's not like these are official statements. this entire thread is about opinions.

To Morden: Probably the only former Fury/eclipse member who tries to see the good things in other alliances (unlike most of those pple that posted here so far. After all, why would you post just to agree? ). I'm glad you've been a part of FAnG m8y, pity it only lasted so shortly.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

I can't see what the discussion is. FAnG won a round. 13 alliances won a round. FAnG was in an Uber block yes. But the times are very different. People really play lazy with pre-launching and such, so the game, in essence, is very different from how it was before. FAnG's win is a worthy win. I mean they had worthy opponents in round 10.5. A lot of the people posting now in this threads were opponents who quit in round 10.5 and did good this round, and now they are speaking out. Where was this when FAnG was pwning. these talks only came about after they lost the round. It's like there is a blip in most of you guy's memory. FAnG is in no way the best, but they still won a round. Simple. Trying to downplay thier history is utterly ridiculous. And to say that they were garbage this round is sort of ridiculous also. Thier top 10 players left. Myself (1up), Colt (mistu), Irvine (job), Yogibear (scanner), Forest (1up), Thats just to name a few. I don't expect them to win either after losing thier top people. So you can't hold that against them.

you couldn't express it better m8. There were idd 13 winners of a round and FAnG is one of those 13. That's merely an objective observation. It can infact not be disputed because the round FAnG won, there WAS an official ranking system. That system clearly showed we had most roids, most score, most avg roids and most avg score. Just like the system proved that 1up had all of this aswell in r11.

[alch]

Attiention: This is a biased Thread but unlike other, i can accept other thread and not flame.

Ok, this thread was amusing for its trolls but now i think this has been too much, i think people will really stay silly and continue to flame instead of growing up and show some fairplay.

I will Comment few things which i think are worth commenting, from my point of view, as i think i know my own alliance enough.

First, i am really sorry to see that the same people are flaming over and over, dragging thread which should have been of a size of maximum 10-20 posts but no longer than that.
I think the decreasing of AD is not only linked to the fact that There has been less players lately (since round7) but also to the fact that AD material is not Quality material of course.
Trolling Around and flaming each other, will not add another shape to the Quality which i am speaking about, but only result in dragging a subject over and over.

Facts are when you will open your browser and type "pirate.planetarion.com" and click on Alliance discussion, you will find always the same thread on top of topic for more than 3-4 days, most of the players will ignore this topic as they see that the topic has lost its subject discussion after post #24 and will jump to next thread instead.
New player will rather click on it to read what its about, after 24 posts they will click on the "back" button or even post a reply without reading the next posts because they find it boring and they want to have a Stamp on the thread aswell.

This resulting usually in a flamefest between 2 or 3 players, which are constantly flaming and flaming and countering again and again, proving again and again the same old facts.
Some are quoting players and take the time to discuss and explain and maybe be even a little bit sarcastic, the way AD should be, some replying only a "ROFL, you are St00pid, im l33t and i PWN you" The regular Trolls who arent really adding more quality to the discussion.

Concerning my own alliance, FAnG, there is some fact and there is some disputable facts, First Fact are we won a round in round10.5, disputable Facts are it was a worthy round, well lets me affirm you something, on our side it was.
And in my eyes, its the only thing which really matter to me, there is some fact which are undisputable (our winning), and if all of you agree that there was no real opposition in round 10.5, its just tell something about your alliances and about your warrior spirit.
Our winning was because our ennemy were weak, 1up win was because the universe was weak aswell.
Any Alliance who could claim a win in any round will show in fact that they only win because other were weaker than them, by all means, politically or military, that the essence of winning, no?

So the bottom line, (i wont write too much about the topic because all has been discussed allready), is that Its really doesnt matter what you guys think, we won or not, much of the people said right thing in my eyes and some other didnt, morden said true thing, chica did and so on... even jerome...yes, believe it.

Its AD, i wouldnt expect from the players who are in constant course of idoling thereselves and their alliances to accept any other views which may come and deteriore their owns, and its allright, that is why AD is here, declare war, show plot, discuss winning/lossing alliances, and much more, and no one will ever agree on something, no consensus will be reached, this is our nature.

Now, there is few things im happy about, is that regardless the fact there is an alliance ranking, people still argue about it (I remember people saying that implementing such thing would kill "alliance discussions" as we wont have anything to argue about.
Another thing i would like to highlight, i might have found why people like to play the "The Other Game that we should say its name" (tm), someone pasted me it in one of our conversation and i find it to be amazely true.
Not all alliance are in quest of the #1 in planetarion when in "The Other game", around 6-7 alliances are in the quest of winning, which make the game to be a little bit more interesting, more competitive, even harder and more sweet when people acquire ranks, regardless the fact less players are playing it.

Bottom line, stop trolling, start creating more interesting thread with shorter life and less thread and stop dragging discussion over weeks, when it become personal and only a flamefest between 2 players, i even encourage you to open a channel on IRC (tm) and flame each other there, or pm each other.

Lets make AD a little bit more enjoyable. Lets play this game like we played it once, lets fight.
Hopefully, in the near future, people will enjoy browsing AD again.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Tis

in that huge long reply rumad, i couldnt see one line that defended the statement i was laughing at, that r7 fang could go toe to toe with any alliance, ever, one on one.

The core f what I was saying was that in a round of unallied alliancs where you picke th best alliances for that round base n activity, skill, dedication and performance, FAnG round 7 would be there and would compete with those alliances well.

Several other alliances could also make that statement, but from my time in Legion I would say FAnG could and would compete against those other alliances.

At the end of the day politics and superior strength in numbers defeated us, not skill.

[Razorback]

@alch

atleast my point wasnt the win of r10.5 or how deserved it was.

The fang alliance - community was always a hard fighting opponent and i think their members can be proud of playing and fighting for such a long time.

I only dislike ppl like rumad who need to run their mouth and try to create a big mystery.
Those handfull of ppl in fang damaged your credibility.
They put up controversial and endless discussions about "how fang would have owned everyone in r7" a point which is totally moot and from the view of the rest of the readers totally deluded.

This habit is not new for fang, we remember "we have been hacked" "proud to be fang" and some other stunts of the past, the chain of scandals. All those events degrade your achievements.

Ask a handfull of random ppl from all alliances what they have to say about other groups, like Elysium, Eclipse, Fury and compare it with the amount of negative replies you will get towards Fang. Atleast from what i can see the weight will be on fangs side.
Im a simple gamer who likes to play and to win and i find it rather rediculous how fang always tried to mystify and demonize their defeats. Kj asked me if i could say well done Fang, something i can and could but the question is can fang publically stand to its failures?
There is always the taste of "admin abuse" "hacking" or any other available excuse around to add some to the "defeated but never beaten" myth.

I personally think if Fang would get rid of this characteristic you would have had a far better feedback from the community.

[Rumad]

i find it amusing you use words like "dislike" when you don't even know me.

As for being deluded its all hypothetical what i am discussing in such situations its not dellusionment, just opinion.

The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on. Same old crap on a different day.

Sure we have annoyed the hell out of people at times, but at least we have contributed.

[Axis_WLF]

Originally Posted by Rumad

At the end of the day politics and superior strength in numbers defeated us, not skill.

That is skill though.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Rumad

At the end of the day politics and superior strength in numbers defeated us, not skill.

Getting numbers to work together is a skill in itself.

It's a similar point about Xan - I doubt when people were sat in Legion (if you were there at the time) in r5 you gave a fag that Xan were the best military alliance in the game - you had the better block which worked together to take them on and beat them to the ground.

Xan/Fury/Legion lost in r6, I couldn't give a toss if they were better than us, we got the people together to beat them, it was at times a complete nightmare to coordinate such a cumbersome amount of alliances. I think it takes a fair amount of skill.

FAnG's defeat in r7 can sit firmly on their own door - they had ideas above their own station, weren't particularly liked anyway, helped them along the way to getting roided at the first opportunity. If you'ld have put some political effort to improving your image, you might not have got burned - that's skill as well.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

Getting numbers to work together is a skill in itself.

It's a similar point about Xan - I doubt when people were sat in Legion (if you were there at the time) in r5 you gave a fag that Xan were the best military alliance in the game - you had the better block which worked together to take them on and beat them to the ground.

Xan/Fury/Legion lost in r6, I couldn't give a toss if they were better than us, we got the people together to beat them, it was at times a complete nightmare to coordinate such a cumbersome amount of alliances. I think it takes a fair amount of skill.

FAnG's defeat in r7 can sit firmly on their own door - they had ideas above their own station, weren't particularly liked anyway, helped them along the way to getting roided at the first opportunity. If you'ld have put some political effort to improving your image, you might not have got burned - that's skill as well.

actually thats partially my point.

Xan prolly did have the best military round 5, infact the bull gals were a absolute nightmare as was LDK. But focht is saying you cannot be the best allaince without winning. I am saying that activity wise FAnG round 7 excelled legion r5 and they won the round.

Your right FAnG's lack of political savvy was always there downfall and surely that was parly my fault, but it doesn't mean that the alliance was poo?

I have no complaints to loosing in round 7 - but does that mean that in my view that it culd compete against other "best" alliances any less valid?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

actually thats partially my point.

Xan prolly did have the best military round 5, infact the bull gals were a absolute nightmare as was LDK. But focht is saying you cannot be the best allaince without winning. I am saying that activity wise FAnG round 7 excelled legion r5 and they won the round.

Your right FAnG's lack of political savvy was always there downfall and surely that was parly my fault, but it doesn't mean that the alliance was poo?

I have no complaints to loosing in round 7 - but does that mean that in my view that it culd compete against other "best" alliances any less valid?

you prolly missunderstood lokken. How "good" your military is or how "good" your politics are doesnt matter if you get the short stick and lose. Its the sum of all which makes an alliance good or bad.
About competing against the best, best is a superlative and it names the top of the chain. I do not see any proof which would make fang capable of competing there. If you would be able you would have excelled in more then just 1 area in r7. (This is also just your view of your superiority which cant be proven by both scouses site or by any r7 recordings/data). PA was never a 1o1 so any "beliefs" you have are quiet pointless, the best overall alliance or block wins. A strong military alliance can be beaten by superior tactics and targetselection or by better moral in a slugging match. Its the sum which makes the winner.
Fang in r7 might have had some potential, so had many other alliances. That you were as a new alliance in the winning block, was an advantage other alliances didnt have. So there are many "what if"s still open and no proof to be found for your statement other then your beliefs.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Rumad

But focht is saying you cannot be the best allaince without winning.

I have no complaints to loosing in round 7 - but does that mean that in my view that it culd compete against other "best" alliances any less valid?

So by this logic, winning round 10.5 doesn't necessarily mean that FAnG was the best alliance in that round, it could just be that they were say, in a larger block?

[lokken]

and at FAnG HQ, the leading lights wonder if they'll ever understand Planetarion

[Kjeldoran]

how nice to see pple digging up things from PM's. Some pple have a difficulty with the word "Private Message". Especially the word "private" is important there. Not that it matters but your credibility lowers with every PM quote you post on AD.

Not gonna name pple, they know who they are.

To Focht, I did not ask you to say "well done". I asked you for once to look for the possitive aspect instead of the always more obvious negative one.

To Lokken, sure the downfall was partly our fault. Isn't that ALWAYS the case in PA. And well, I don't know if you even played that round but not all FFLTV disliked us and some even supported us alot and appreciated our effort. Again, the end result of that round wasn't all that bad as you make it seem. Don't forget we were a new alliance, new command staff etc. None of us, with the exception of Rumad, had even played in a top alliance like Legion or Fury.

To pple using the "proud to be FAnG" moto again. If you're too retarded to realize that it was a few morons who did it and uphold it, then you're not even worth the time really.

Also, some pple have a lack of memory. I always accept defeat and infact have NEVER looked for other reasons. Really, prove me wrong here or stop dragging everyone in FAnG through the mud.

[lokken]

I indeed played r7 and got that impression from the Fury/Legion command i knew at the time, so I don't see how my post is unreasonable or in error to point out where Rumad has put things I believe to be in error.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

To Focht, I did not ask you to say "well done". I asked you for once to look for the possitive aspect instead of the always more obvious negative one.

I told you i can see the positive sides, you fought hard and you won 1 round, but ill not add to your selfpatting and mystery creation.

To Lokken, sure the downfall was partly our fault. Isn't that ALWAYS the case in PA. And well, I don't know if you even played that round but not all FFLTV disliked us and some even supported us alot and appreciated our effort. Again, the end result of that round wasn't all that bad as you make it seem. Don't forget we were a new alliance, new command staff etc. None of us, with the exception of Rumad, had even played in a top alliance like Legion or Fury.

If you are the new alliance you characterize you should probably stay in your own shoes for once.
Fact is ppl like Rumad try characterize you as more as you were. You got defeated and according to your own words learned a lesson. How can you draw from this the conclusion that you were "the best" or "equal to the best"?
You were a strong force, afterall you finished #4 but this means overall 3 other alliances were stronger. If or if not you were able to compete with the 3 above you will always be open for discussion but i think we all must accept that this is how the dice fell in the end. You were 4th. Be proud of that, you werent in your first round not less, but also not more.

To pple using the "proud to be FAnG" moto again. If you're too retarded to realize that it was a few morons who did it and uphold it, then you're not even worth the time really.

Also, some pple have a lack of memory. I always accept defeat and infact have NEVER looked for other reasons. Really, prove me wrong here or stop dragging everyone in FAnG through the mud.

Its always a single person who can taint the whole image (take TP as your latest "scandal" or Webangels stupidity which made the servers stop for a few days) and yet, in your case, its never enough if 1 person admits defeat while the rest works their way around it and adds little fairy tales to it.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Jester

So by this logic, winning round 10.5 doesn't necessarily mean that FAnG was the best alliance in that round, it could just be that they were say, in a larger block?

since the player base degraded I would say the depth was not as good, but yes it is true to a certain extent (though the man to man gap as lower than with previous block politic wars).

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

I indeed played r7 and got that impression from the Fury/Legion command i knew at the time, so I don't see how my post is unreasonable or in error to point out where Rumad has put things I believe to be in error.

You and foct seem to be hanging n its a mix type statement. I don't think thats true. I admit politics are a skill (espcially in the earlier rounds) but realistically the best alliance has not won (bar last round) in ages. Its about allies - the quantity of not necessarily the quality.

The view that you have to have all elements is true for the fleeting moment you need to win a round, but isn't necessarily a yad stick for what was "the best alliance" or "one of the best alliances".

Simply any alliance could perform against the "top ranking alliances as long as they possss activity, skill and dedication. I don't se what the big hoo haa is about at the end of the day. Its all about perception. FAnG never won round 7 i accept that and I understand why, but that doesn't change that as an alliance it was one of the best I played for or that it could compete against any other alliance pa has ever seen one on one*.

*Note that statement doesnt say win or lose just that based on its activity and its skill and dedidation that they coul compete on equal terms in my view.

Now focht, looken or anyone else can bitch now. I wont be replying again - i see very little value when we all have polarised views