|
|
14 Dec 2005, 11:32
|
#1
|
Sir peon to you
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 275
|
#1 = best alliance?
For the first time I can remember (which might not mean much, ive been drinking a lot lately) we have a round that is running very close right up until the round ends with more than 2 alliances fighting for victory. Which brings me to the point, will the alliance that is 1st when the ticks stop be the best alliance or just the one who happened to be on the lucky end of the usual up and down cycle of fluid politics?
(edit: Just to make it blatently obvious, this is in no way a dig at NewDawn. More so the switching of ranks between Exi and Angels.)
__________________
Ğragon to the Death!
"The only easy day was yesterday."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 11:35
|
#2
|
Drink is Good
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
It will be the alliance who made the best out of the 4 man race. Thus end up the better alliance of the round.
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 11:42
|
#3
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
It will be the alliance that played the best round. Unquestionably. Anything beyond that you need to specify what you mean by best, best military, best HC, best members, best political understanding, best looking HC in a pink ballerina's dress? If you mean a summation of all those then in what quantities should they have relevance? Or perhaps you mean which alliance if a new round started right now would be most likely to win? You need more qualifiers in your question.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 11:44
|
#4
|
Just like science!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cabinet of the Glorious Leader
Posts: 158
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zo0f
For the first time I can remember (which might not mean much, ive been drinking a lot lately) we have a round that is running very close right up until the round ends with more than 2 alliances fighting for victory. Which brings me to the point, will the alliance that is 1st when the ticks stop be the best alliance or just the one who happened to be on the lucky end of the usual up and down cycle of fluid politics?
(edit: Just to make it blatently obvious, this is in no way a dig at NewDawn. More so the switching of ranks between Exi and Angels.)
|
The answer is easily yes, because there is no other way to decide which alliance is best. By definition, the alliance that wins, is best. That said, they may not be the most deserving of victory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious;
|
Getting into a wrong fight is a bad excuse for losing.
There's another good Sun Tzu quote somewhere about only fighting wars you've won before-hand. Obviously that would get a bit boring in PA, but the general principle applies.
__________________
Injelititis - Incompetance and jealousy interacting according to the formula I^3J^5
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 11:56
|
#5
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
It will be the alliance that played the best round. Unquestionably. Anything beyond that you need to specify what you mean by best, best military, best HC, best members, best political understanding, best looking HC in a pink ballerina's dress? If you mean a summation of all those then in what quantities should they have relevance? Or perhaps you mean which alliance if a new round started right now would be most likely to win? You need more qualifiers in your question.
|
I agree completely. The winner is the alliance that played the best round, regardless of how that happened or whether we like/dislike the used tactics.
If Rumad would play, his alliance would certainly win the "best looking HC in a pink ballerina dress". 2nd would be Zhil ...
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 11:59
|
#6
|
I'm who you want me to be
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In a flat place, enjoying RL
Posts: 418
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
'Best' is a little too vague for me. But if your criterium is how they played the round, then yeah, the #1 alliance IS the best alliance.
__________________
And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count... it's the life in those years
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:07
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,081
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldoran
I agree completely. The winner is the alliance that played the best round, regardless of how that happened or whether we like/dislike the used tactics.
If Rumad would play, his alliance would certainly win the "best looking HC in a pink ballerina dress". 2nd would be Zhil ...
|
Actually, Zhil is the best looking out of a ballerina dress... <3<3
__________________
Dynamic Salvage!
[16:10:34] <[lfc]stif|afk> "dont be the worst in your alliance, join CT. We have Arfy!"
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:19
|
#8
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
I would actually say no #1 doesn't mean your the best. The reason I say that is that success in PA does require a huge slice of luck which is something that can negate any advantages a better alliance has over you.
The best alliance in my book is the alliance with the best members, the best commanders, the greater tactical awareness, the best political savyness and such like and while obviously the #1 alliance will need to be strong in all these areas it doesn't need to be the best in them to win, they just need the run of the green. However this isn't a bad thing, its the very thing that makes sport interesting and what also makes PA interesting because anything can happen. It also certainly doesn't mean that the alliance whom is #1 doesn't deserve to win as they do, while they may or may not be the best they have taken hold when the opportunity presented itself and have used the slice of good luck they have received to take the win and thats just smart playing and makes anyone deserve to win
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:30
|
#9
|
Sir peon to you
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 275
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
To me it comes down to how you want to measure 'best'. It is so easy to use the #1 alliance at round end, because to measure 'best' in its entirety is far too complex and thus difficult for most people to do.
However back to the topic: What makes the question valid in my opinion is that it is not just the #1 alliance that effects the ranks come end of round. In a round with the combination of fluid politics and such a close density of alliances at the top it is not entirely up to the said alliances at which point they peak and fall. Therefore it is a possability that an external and non controlled factor (outside the main contenders) could decide who peaks at the specific time the round ends. Luck is not a factor I would personally list when defining the 'best' alliance.
__________________
Ğragon to the Death!
"The only easy day was yesterday."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:41
|
#10
|
Vitriolic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #public
Posts: 1,506
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
In my opinion there is no 'best', only winners. Every single round is an entirely different playing field with different external factors. The only way to measure the best alliance would be to only have two allinaces in the game fighting it out with each other, anything other than that is tainted because of allies, naps, random incoming, politics and so on.
Whoever wins this round deserves to be labelled as winners because they dealt better with anyone the obstacles in front of them but calling anyone the best alliance of this round, or any other round for that matter, is wrong and anyone doing so doesn't have a clue.
__________________
Chief [ 1up] Chimp.
<@JBG> by the way is mazzelaar a community account that everyone in 1up logs into when they're feeling angry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood
mazzelaar has always reminded me of a hungry hungry hippo. Except instead of eating marbles he just bites the heads off new AD posters
|
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:50
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
WTFwhere did Concordium and C7R go??
__________________
Round 1 Krom of Kromulous 52:??:??
Round 2 Krom of Sumeria 24:15:4
Round 4 Galadrieth of The Chronic 178:11:3
blerp
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:53
|
#12
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
I would actually say no #1 doesn't mean your the best. The reason I say that is that success in PA does require a huge slice of luck which is something that can negate any advantages a better alliance has over you.
|
What the **** would you know about winning?
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 12:55
|
#13
|
Bragpack™
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 815
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzelaar
In my opinion there is no 'best', only winners. Every single round is an entirely different playing field with different external factors. The only way to measure the best alliance would be to only have two allinaces in the game fighting it out with each other, anything other than that is tainted because of allies, naps, random incoming, politics and so on.
Whoever wins this round deserves to be labelled as winners because they dealt better with anyone the obstacles in front of them but calling anyone the best alliance of this round, or any other round for that matter, is wrong and anyone doing so doesn't have a clue.
|
Think you've said it all.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:02
|
#14
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
best looking HC in a pink ballerina's dress?
|
That award is already won by Sethy
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:06
|
#15
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
eXilition have the best military, and ND played the politics better than any other alliance so far this round. Thats all you can say safely, really. You can compare alliances when it comes down to specific fields of play, but you can't compare an alliance overall and say it is better than another one. What criteria would you take in mind? Community? Military? Politics? Member motivation, activity? Command activity, leadership? And the list goes on. mazzelaar summed it up quite nicely.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:11
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,081
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
What the **** would you know about winning?
|
Why the **** would it matter? I believe Wakey is pretty in touch with the game and alliances.
__________________
Dynamic Salvage!
[16:10:34] <[lfc]stif|afk> "dont be the worst in your alliance, join CT. We have Arfy!"
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:12
|
#17
|
Ex-Head Multihunter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 900
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
[]LCH[] are the best rebuilding alliance, peforming unexpectedly well, even to us.
Great congratz to our members !
__________________
R02.0-R4.0: [noob]
R05.0: [Wrath]/[Fury]
R06.0: Quit after 1 week
R7-9: Had an account, but didnt play seriously
R09.5: []LCH[] Officer
R10.0: []LCH[] HC (Rank #9, #1 Gal)
R10.5-R18.0: []LCH[] HC Scanner!
R18.0-R33 : Multihunter, Head MH
R34-.. : [CT] HC
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:16
|
#18
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
What the **** would you know about winning?
|
You don't have to have won at PA to understand that luck plays as much of a part in winning as skill/quality. Anyone who's competed at anything will understand that its not always the best that come out on top. I have for example won titles at both Football and Tennis but should I have won them all? While for some of them its a yes as i've been the better player or on the better team there's also times when i'm the weaker player or on the weaker team but i've had some lucky net cords or the team snatched a lucky goal. And vise versa I've lost to weaker players/teams myself, its simply the nature of competition that a large part of success is getting lucky and it doesn't matter if its an online game, or a rl sport as long as its free thinking humans against free thinking humans you need luck to be on your side
And it doesn't matter if your come 1st or come 21st that still comes into play. All the way through the rankings there are examples of alliances whom score higher in all the areas where you could quantify quality are below those whom are weaker in these same area
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:27
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Swansea
Posts: 798
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzelaar
In my opinion there is no 'best', only winners. Every single round is an entirely different playing field with different external factors. The only way to measure the best alliance would be to only have two allinaces in the game fighting it out with each other, anything other than that is tainted because of allies, naps, random incoming, politics and so on.
Whoever wins this round deserves to be labelled as winners because they dealt better with anyone the obstacles in front of them but calling anyone the best alliance of this round, or any other round for that matter, is wrong and anyone doing so doesn't have a clue.
|
was about to make a similar post then saw this one, which pretty much summed up what I wanted to say
__________________
In Elysium till the end.
Former [1up]
Current [Spore]
Returned under the IRC nick BenSwansea
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:31
|
#20
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
You don't have to have won at PA to understand that luck plays as much of a part in winning as skill/quality. Anyone who's competed at anything will understand that its not always the best that come out on top. I have for example won titles at both Football and Tennis but should I have won them all? While for some of them its a yes as i've been the better player or on the better team there's also times when i'm the weaker player or on the weaker team but i've had some lucky net cords or the team snatched a lucky goal. And vise versa I've lost to weaker players/teams myself, its simply the nature of competition that a large part of success is getting lucky and it doesn't matter if its an online game, or a rl sport as long as its free thinking humans against free thinking humans you need luck to be on your side
|
Nah dude, PA's like a football league more than a football match, the longevity, the consistent competition with all comers et cetera. It also doesn't really have the same luck factor that a game has where you can say that the wind was insanely strong, or the ball had a lucky bounce on the grass or something. The only external factor that's comparable is the game going down probably. Things like inactive members or shit planning are your (general your) fault. To go slightly off-topic this reminds me of a discussion I had with someone recently concerning chaos theory. They were under the mistaken impression that chaos theory is basically a synonym for randomness. This it most certainly is not. It appears to be chaos but in fact it is reducible to a set number of initial circumstances and a set number of axioms. Politics in planetarion is more about the law of unintended consequences than "luck". The nature of competition is that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (credit due to Thucydides here).
This post has been in honour of jesterina. Remember kids, dead girls don't say no.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 13:48
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 601
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real Arfy
Actually, Zhil is the best looking out of a ballerina dress... <3<3
|
!!! News Flash: 1up member arrested on rape charge! !!!111
In my opinion the best alliance is at the end of the day the alliance that finishes number one. They have played the political climate well and had the military prowess to back up any enemies they have made. The best alliance of the round is the number 1 alliance. fact
__________________
[DLR] [Conspiracy Theory] [1up] [Faceless] [Elysium] [LCH] [NewDawn] [Apprime]
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:15
|
#22
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Nah dude, PA's like a football league more than a football match, the longevity, the consistent competition with all comers et cetera. It also doesn't really have the same luck factor that a game has where you can say that the wind was insanely strong, or the ball had a lucky bounce on the grass or something. The only external factor that's comparable is the game going down probably. Things like inactive members or shit planning are your (general your) fault. To go slightly off-topic this reminds me of a discussion I had with someone recently concerning chaos theory. They were under the mistaken impression that chaos theory is basically a synonym for randomness. This it most certainly is not. It appears to be chaos but in fact it is reducible to a set number of initial circumstances and a set number of axioms. Politics in planetarion is more about the law of unintended consequences than "luck". The nature of competition is that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (credit due to Thucydides here).
This post has been in honour of jesterina. Remember kids, dead girls don't say no.
|
Football leagues arent always won by the best team though. A lucky win can set a team on a run as that lucky break has positive effects and an unlucky loss can set a team on a downwards spiral.
Look at the premiership last season, Arsenal looked unstoppable at the start of the season but the loss to Man Utd hit them and they struggled somewhat. And Wigan this season were not top6 quality but they were on a run and stayed their for much of the season. They have however lost a couple of games and seem to be slipping a bit.
And its the same with PA, theres all these luck factors inluding but not limited to galaxy placement, attacks that are launched at you ect ect. Ofc like a football league something over such a long period isnt going to see someone who should be near the bottom end up winning as it does even out somewhat BUT it can and does change a groups ranking by few places.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:33
|
#23
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
Football leagues arent always won by the best team though. A lucky win can set a team on a run as that lucky break has positive effects and an unlucky loss can set a team on a downwards spiral.
|
No ****ing way. Football leagues are nearly always won by the best team. If you can go on a shit run after losing one game that indicates a lack of mental fortitude.
Quote:
Look at the premiership last season, Arsenal looked unstoppable at the start of the season but the loss to Man Utd hit them and they struggled somewhat. And Wigan this season were not top6 quality but they were on a run and stayed their for much of the season. They have however lost a couple of games and seem to be slipping a bit.
|
Arsenal played shit teams and won comfortably. They couldn't beat well organised teams as easily. They also just plain weren't as good as chelsea and had nowhere near the same squad-depth. It's just that shit fascination with rapidly changing outlooks that means writers have to spout off a new article about why the team currently doing well is currently doing well. Wigan are an excellent example, they played a whole load of dreadful teams and won by the odd goal. They have played some good sides now and they've lost the most recent games. Down in the middle it's random crap but at the top it's always the best team winning.
Quote:
And its the same with PA, theres all these luck factors inluding but not limited to galaxy placement, attacks that are launched at you ect ect. Ofc like a football league something over such a long period isnt going to see someone who should be near the bottom end up winning as it does even out somewhat BUT it can and does change a groups ranking by few places.
|
You get attacked when you're a good target, or your alliance is a good target, or your galaxy is a good target. With buddy-packs and the question of galaxy organisation (something you are responsible for) blaming inactive galaxies is a little silly. You're also talking about the placement of ~80 planets throughout the universe which, considering the total number of galaxies, is something very likely to balance out, or extraordinarily closely, for alliances. You also have the question of how you use any "luck" that comes your way, people can deflect targetting away from their alliance if they're perceived as less of a threat (hello ND!) This is a skill in itself.
At least you appear to have backed down from your rather bizzare earlier statement of
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
The reason I say that is that success in PA does require a huge slice of luck which is something that can negate any advantages a better alliance has over you.
|
I think we can all acknowledge that success in PA does not require a huge slice of luck.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:43
|
#24
|
part time ghost
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 925
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
If the #1 alliance at the end of the round is not the best, then whats the point in alliance rankings?
__________________
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:45
|
#25
|
Drink is Good
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remy
[]LCH[] are the best rebuilding alliance, peforming unexpectedly well, even to us.
Great congratz to our members !
|
napping every mother and her dog, and jumping on the exi bandwagon...any player could see you where gonna do well:>
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:45
|
#26
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Success in PA is partly dependant on a number of factors wich you can not control, though. Thus, saying that the "best alliance is the one that wins", is, in my opinion, not a valid statement. There are so many ways that an alliance can be better than another. Also, comparing alliance performance in different rounds is hardly easy, because the climate differ so much.
One can say that "alliance A" beat "alliance B" in x and y round, and hence they played better in those rounds. Does that make "alliance A" a better alliance than "alliance B"? My opinion is that it does not. If this thread is about the coming winner if this round, I'd say whoever wins this round deserves it, as all the alliances that are still in the race for it, have put down enormous amounts of work, and done very well the entire round. A couple of other alliances have done very well over a long time, as well.
And to JBG, and wakey. Can you say with certainty that 90's Turin, for instance, were better than Chelsea are now? Achievement is hardly the only way to measure how good anyone is.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:45
|
#27
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neferti
If the #1 alliance at the end of the round is not the best, then whats the point in alliance rankings?
|
To determine a winning alliance of that specific round.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:51
|
#28
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by qebab
And to JBG, and wakey. Can you say with certainty that 90's Turin, for instance, were better than Chelsea are now? Achievement is hardly the only way to measure how good anyone is.
|
Not to quote myself too much but...
What we're talking about here is something entirely different.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:57
|
#29
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neferti
If the #1 alliance at the end of the round is not the best, then whats the point in alliance rankings?
|
The best? No.
But it is the alliance that played the round the best. Let's be honnest here, if ND wins then overall they've played the best round of all alliances, nobody can deny that fact.
But does it mean ND is the best alliance? Let's not kid ourselves, we both know e.g. Exilition is by far better when it comes to military power.
Any sane person can look at the development in the round, the circumstances each alliance had to play in, the political sitation, many more factors which an alliance cannot controle ... I think most pple can judge an alliance based on that rather then on their final rank only.
But again I repeat, the alliance that wins has played the best round, has been able to deal best with the circumstances, has been able to use the opportunities the most etc.
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 14:59
|
#30
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
The beginning of the game does involve luck
But that hardly determines the round
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 15:09
|
#31
|
NewDawn pe0n
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: #NewDawn
Posts: 313
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzelaar
In my opinion there is no 'best', only winners. Every single round is an entirely different playing field with different external factors. The only way to measure the best alliance would be to only have two allinaces in the game fighting it out with each other, anything other than that is tainted because of allies, naps, random incoming, politics and so on.
Whoever wins this round deserves to be labelled as winners because they dealt better with anyone the obstacles in front of them but calling anyone the best alliance of this round, or any other round for that matter, is wrong and anyone doing so doesn't have a clue.
|
__________________
NewDawn
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 16:02
|
#32
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
the best alliances at PA will be and should only be defined by their success.
if you don't win, you LOSE.
i wholeheartedly second all posts made by jbg & jester till this post.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 16:07
|
#33
|
Vitriolic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #public
Posts: 1,506
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_
i wholeheartedly second all posts made by jester till this post.
|
In that case:
What the **** would you know about winning - you've only ever managed half a round haven't you?
You're worse than FatRat
__________________
Chief [ 1up] Chimp.
<@JBG> by the way is mazzelaar a community account that everyone in 1up logs into when they're feeling angry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood
mazzelaar has always reminded me of a hungry hungry hippo. Except instead of eating marbles he just bites the heads off new AD posters
|
Last edited by mazzelaar; 14 Dec 2005 at 16:07.
Reason: speeling
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 16:15
|
#34
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_
the best alliances at PA will be and should only be defined by their success.
if you don't win, you LOSE.
|
I so strongly disagree with such statements ...
The world would be a sad bunch if you apply this kinda thinking on other things.
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 16:28
|
#35
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_
the best alliances at PA will be and should only be defined by their success.
if you don't win, you LOSE.
|
Seen films where kids go insane trying to be the best so I would disagree coz then what would be the point in f-crew and co?
I dont think they see themselves as losers and I dont look at them as losers.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 16:33
|
#36
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
Seen films where kids go insane trying to be the best so I would disagree coz then what would be the point in f-crew and co?
I dont think they see themselves as losers and I dont look at them as losers.
|
F-crew have a lot going on outside the immediate planetarion politico-military paradigm.
Sorry but I've always wanted to say that
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 16:34
|
#37
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzelaar
In that case:
What the **** would you know about winning - you've only ever managed half a round haven't you?
You're worse than FatRat
|
jer was top100 before he hit puberty (and before you were even in that shit alliance no one liked). </circle jerk>
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 17:18
|
#38
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldoran
I so strongly disagree with such statements ...
The world would be a sad bunch if you apply this kinda thinking on other things.
|
"honour" & other such subjective issues aren't being questioned here, this is simply the objective truth/question of how to define "best" at the game. if it's not by winning, what way is it?
don't get me wrong, when it comes to respect or such there are many more variables thrown in the pot ofcourse.
(ps i was cool post-puberty too.)
noah: the point in f-crew is that they are farms for winners early rnd and in a more respectable level - a place to learn to grow and hopefully eventually grow out of being a loser.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 17:30
|
#39
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Best alliance in terms of ability is entirely subjective and there can only be opinions and not 'facts'. People say military should be the sole yardstick - I can see why, it is the most important one. But to rely on military alone is foolish; an alliance of such ability of Xanadu only won one round when on military alone, probably should have won more. Successful alliances make the most of their ability by using politics and having sufficient military to back it up; if they don't have the military they are doomed to fail. One excellent example is 1up having the military clout to compel planets to sign personal NAPs.
The only barometer we have for alliance performance is ranking. It is a judgement of who made the best of their situation. And when there is no mega blocking, every alliance needs a bit of luck to win planetarion. Elysium is the case in point - did they deserve to win? Of course they did, they outsmarted their opposition with what at the time was a legitimate strategy. That's all that matters - I doubt they give a hoot that everyone says Eclipse was better than them, because they won.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 17:39
|
#40
|
Black Power MotherF*ckas!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JAPAN
Posts: 1,812
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remy
[]LCH[] are the best rebuilding alliance, peforming unexpectedly well, even to us.
Great congratz to our members !
|
You guys had virtually no serious incoming. Wow. like a boxer with no fights saying he was the best. AND your in 4th.
__________________
Ascendancy
When Doves Cry
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 18:18
|
#41
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
"rebuilding" being the key word there.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 18:37
|
#42
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
It's interesting seeing which people are saying what atm, some are clearly preparing for a final rank other then #1 ;D
Im with the "#1 = best alliance of that round", lot anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadar
That award is already won by Sethy
|
Pfff, clothes are for loosers;P
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 19:25
|
#43
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
My alliance is always the best.
Fury was the best.
Eclipse was the best.
Now 1up is the best for this generation.
It is useless to argue against me on this
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 19:27
|
#44
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Elysium is the case in point - did they deserve to win? Of course they did, they outsmarted their opposition with what at the time was a legitimate strategy. That's all that matters - I doubt they give a hoot that everyone says Eclipse was better than them, because they won.
|
Eclipse was by far better than Elysium. They only came ahead in score due to recruiting all the hostiles - any idiot can do that. My cat can do that. History will always remember Eclipse as the true winners.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 19:34
|
#45
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Not every alliance aims to end number 1, and so an alliance which has greatly exceeded all expectations can have 'the best round'. However, this thread isn't about which alliance has had the best round - it's about which is the best alliance.
And that award is shared between ND and eX - ND politically and eX militarily. The two areas (politics and military) are inseparable, so I'm not even going to bother.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 20:30
|
#46
|
m33p
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 4th floor
Posts: 138
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by qebab
Success in PA is partly dependant on a number of factors wich you can not control, though. Thus, saying that the "best alliance is the one that wins", is, in my opinion, not a valid statement. There are so many ways that an alliance can be better than another. Also, comparing alliance performance in different rounds is hardly easy, because the climate differ so much.
|
In 1250 ticks ppl can have "factors you cant control" as you call it. But saying one alliance won a round becouse it had more "factors you cant control" that came out more positive then the other competing alliances, is just BS.
I think that the alliance who ended 1st in todays PA is the best alliance this round.
__________________
Trying is the first step to failiure.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 20:40
|
#47
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
to be the man, you gotta beat the man... with that said, the winner of any round, that round, was the best alliance, and analysing it further is pointless.
If a team wins the super bowl, regardless if they had the best win-loss record... they were the best when it counted....you don't say they suck but the won the super bowl... as if they truly sucked, they wouldn't be the world champs
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 20:43
|
#48
|
Behe
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 540
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
Eclipse was by far better than Elysium. They only came ahead in score due to recruiting all the hostiles - any idiot can do that. My cat can do that. History will always remember Eclipse as the true winners.
|
Agreed. Eclipse did most of the damage to Fang in pax. (that we didnt do to ourselves)
Eclipse: Never liked em, always respected em. The best dynasty of their generation.
Ely: Never liked em, never respected them. Punked out the "win" in pax.
__________________
Once in awhile you get shown the light,
in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 21:01
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
My alliance is always the best.
Fury was the best.
Eclipse was the best.
Now 1up is the best for this generation.
It is useless to argue against me on this
|
I've learnt that it's not worth bothering
|
|
|
14 Dec 2005, 21:15
|
#50
|
Retired
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 702
|
Re: #1 = best alliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
Eclipse was by far better than Elysium. They only came ahead in score due to recruiting all the hostiles - any idiot can do that. My cat can do that. History will always remember Eclipse as the true winners.
|
Wrong and true. Eclipse were the best alliance (in several aspects) in this round, and did a lot of damage to FAnG as behemoth stated, elysium werent the best and somehow felt the nessecery of recruiting their opponents to finish higher than eclipse. They were surely not the best but they did win this round, and Planetarion has some kind of habit to remember only the #1 alliance.
On several aspect, eclipsed finished the round with respect from most of the players, and most of all from their ennemies (me being one of them) and also knowing they were the best. Elysium actually finished higher in the ranks and lost all respect but won a #1 ranking that will always be remember in history book.
Whats higher in value? that is the question.
Win at all cost? or lose with respect?
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23.
| |