discussion regarding this statement by kj:

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Treveler

This discussion is not about it being a deserved victory or not. Its about the achievement. I was in the phraktos/fang/mitu block last round and tbh it was joke. We hardly had any def calls and we hardly recieved any def when attacking. There simply was no oposition. It was like stealing candy from a child.

Compare 1up achievement this round with FAnG`s victory last round is just plain stupid.

My point were more that the opposition against the FPM block last round werent much bigger than the opposition against 1up this round. The other alliances didn't fit themselves good enough to battle #1('s).

[jerome]

Kj, you do realise you are demeaning MISTU and Phraktos`s part in the block win last round and implying that it was more or less a full FAnG win. Even though, you have already stated elsewhere (pm was it? don`t remember.) that FMP(FPM whatever) had a meeting to decide who would 'win' out of the block, no ?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Kj, you do realise you are demeaning MISTU and Phraktos`s part in the block win last round and implying that it was more or less a full FAnG win. Even though, you have already stated elsewhere (pm was it? don`t remember.) that FMP(FPM whatever) had a meeting to decide who would 'win' out of the block, no ?

no, lol. I said we DIDN'T had a meeting saying who'd win the round, don't twist what I said to you in PM plz.

also, phraktos had not much credits in the win of that round. they lost it when they actively started planning how to **** up the block and its agreements. As for MISTU, no doubt were they equal skilled but we had more planets and well, more avg score and avg roids.

It's not something I'm making up Jerome, the stats at the end of last round prove this.

rgds Kj

[jerome]

can`t be bothered to look up logs, but i must have misread what you said then.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Nadar

My point were more that the opposition against the FPM block last round werent much bigger than the opposition against 1up this round. The other alliances didn't fit themselves good enough to battle #1('s).

Well since I have been a part of both camps I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. The opposition had 1up on its knees around the time lch overtook #1. Many 1up`ers, including myself, thought we were going to lose at that point. I find it pretty amusing that ppl still think 1up had an easy win. It’s equal amusing how ignorant some ppl in command positions are. Is decent Intel something of the past these days?

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kileman

^^^ Winner of the most convincing argument ever

No.. it was just that I was tired of hearing the same thing over and over again ^^

Im completely neutral in this btw.. so dont blame me for thinking both wins were equal deserved. I at least remember from last round many alliances worked together and targeted only FPM planets... but yeah, they were 3 and you 1, still you won as much as FAnG did..

[Jackal2112]

Nadar seems to forget that it's easier to win by blocking than by going solo - can't compare

[Jester]

Summary of deleted posts:

'lol ur alliance sux'

'no lol u r dum'

'lol we shud b banned rly'

'mods r dum'

Keep up the good work!

[JonnyBGood]

As an aside to Jester's sterling efforts in subduing the masses I'd like to point out that merely because the most likely alliance to win the round did in fact win it does not necessarily imply that they had it easy. To pick an example most of you should have a basic knowledge of the fact that arsenal are the best team in the premier league this year won't necessarily mean that they will have had an easy ride if they emerge triumphant in mid-May 2005. Their determination and will to win is factored in when the question of "who the most likely winners are" is considered. Equally 1up were the favourites because they wanted it more than anyone else and they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve victory. Because they were better than you doesn't mean they had it easy. I'd wager diamonds to little green apples that they launched more fleets, roided more often, defended their alliance more often, stayed online for longer and put more effort into their tactics and strategy for the round than any other alliance.



PS Now jester is stupid and I am with him lol

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

As an aside to Jester's sterling efforts in subduing the masses I'd like to point out that merely because the most likely alliance to win the round did in fact win it does not necessarily imply that they had it easy. To pick an example most of you should have a basic knowledge of the fact that arsenal are the best team in the premier league this year won't necessarily mean that they will have had an easy ride if they emerge triumphant in mid-May 2005. Their determination and will to win is factored in when the question of "who the most likely winners are" is considered. Equally 1up were the favourites because they wanted it more than anyone else and they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve victory. Because they were better than you doesn't mean they had it easy. I'd wager diamonds to little green apples that they launched more fleets, roided more often, defended their alliance more often, stayed online for longer and put more effort into their tactics and strategy for the round than any other alliance.



PS Now jester is stupid and I am with him lol

And shouldn't that count for all rounds, for every winner?

[Elder]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And shouldn't that count for all rounds, for every winner?

Indeed, I think this whole discussion is kinda silly, sorry if that hurt any feelings.. In my opinion it's obvious that FAnG should be included among the top alliances. No they cannot be compared to the truly great ones of old but they have proven themselves to be competent enough. They won a round, whether you think it was an easy victory or not is irrelevant. Either FAnG was very strong or the rest of the universe were weak, it does not matter since either way FAnG was the best of the lot.

[jerome]

This post has no relevance to any other post of this thread apart from the one above this

so, why does that make them one of the top alliances in pa of all-time? its their consistent showing which makes them a good alliance imho.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And shouldn't that count for all rounds, for every winner?

Again, not necessarily. 1up this round may indeed have faced very little serious opposition, I am not privy to the required level of information to make a definitive judgement on this issue. My point just concerned the fact that the favourite winning doesn't imply that had it easy.

[Alki]

i shud of been in that top 10:-(

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Again, not necessarily. 1up this round may indeed have faced very little serious opposition, I am not privy to the required level of information to make a definitive judgement on this issue. My point just concerned the fact that the favourite winning doesn't imply that had it easy.

My point being, if it counts for 1up then I don't see why your logics don't count for other alliances that won a round, let's say ... FAnG for instance.

To Jerome, a top alliance all-time is subjective. I'm sure everyone got a different top10 setup. My logics tell me that there have been 13 rounds in PA (all 0.5 rounds included). Of those 13 rounds, there were a maximum of 13 alliances that won the round (winning as in having the most score, most avg score, most roids, most avg roids and most top100 planets and galaxies).

This sound symplistic but well, since Fury, legion etc already claim half of those rounds, that leaves about 8-10 DIFFERENT alliances that once managed to win a round. FAnG is one of them. Whether it was an easy round or not doesn't matter because you simply cannot blame the poor performance of others on the winners.

I agree with Elder's point that we are no where near the performance of let's say Fury, but that we more then proved that we are a top alliance, capable of winning a round and capable of upholding a top position.

I'm sure alot tend to dissagree for whatever personal reasons (let's not fool ourselves, most what's been posted here is by pple have strong anti-feelings which have nothing to do with an objective observation). But when I look purely at the stats and at how alliances are measured these days AND 10 rounds ago, then I can only conclude that FAnG has idd achieved something that VERY little alliances have so far in PA.

[alch]

PS Now jester is stupid and I am with him lol

its look like the small creature is pointing this to yourself and not to jester ;p so the stupid is you , no?

[jerome]

so, as a comparison the 12 winners of 13 pa rounds to date, planet-wise are all the 13 best pa players of all-time? the circumstances in how they won is irrelevant eh?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

My point being, if it counts for 1up then I don't see why your logics don't count for other alliances that won a round, let's say ... FAnG for instance.

I heard a little bit about 1up and their efforts this round off some people so I made a general statement in that area based on my incomplete knowledge. I have pretty much zero knowledge of r10.5 so I can't make a statement in that area.


PS The little guy gets a bit confused at times alch. Unfortunately I haven't yet figured out how to make him appear above my name

[alch]

jonny i know just change all users to have avatar as default with your avatar except you

[Hicks]

Without reading any of the other fagged up posts in this thread let me say this, as Round 11 showed once again the moment FAnG come up against real opposition they fold like something really foldy. The only round you managed to win was when no one decent cared enough to play against you and even then Mistu held most of the top ranks.

Here’s a little victory ratio for you:
VtS – 66%
Fury – 57%
Titans – 33%
Xanadu – 40%
FAnG – 14%

Hell that even manages to make FAnG look a better alliance than they were, you were worse than ViruS, discuss.

Good luck with what ever you do next.

[Razorback]

i will keep it simple, compared to most other decent alliances fang is dubious quality at best.
Dont get me wrong, they won their round, which helped them step from "unimportant" atleast to the upper class, but unlike other alliances they were never a winner alliance or a stable threat.
Too many internal struggles, defections, scandals. They won a single round in their quiet long history and thats about the only notification they have in the winners league. No 2nd places or beeing part of the winning team or even beeing somewhere in the winning block.
Fang always managed to fold, **** up and more or less disband/rebirth (prolly their biggest achievement).
In my view that says something about them and even in my personal biased view i would put them under ToT, Elysium, Wolfpack in the overall performance.
Why?
Simply because those alliances steadily worked on their position, had good single rankings and grouprankings and appeared to be a force to recognize. Fangs quality changed from one round to the other by 100% simply from their mercenary recruiting drive and their huge amount of defections and that througout their whole long history.
Fangs history is more a summary of scandals then of victories, thats something who played pa will not doubt or disagree with be pro Fang or against it.

As many other posters desribed, in r10.5 they might have had an easy win.

Still its a win.

Only if ppl try to blow it up like its something special or compareable to other wins it becomes worth a discussion. Because if you make that step yourself you have to exspect ppls judgement on how you won.

So as my conclusion:
Fury is still the best overall alliance imo and i doubt anyone would have a slight doubt they would beat fang in any quality or form.
Fang did well and im glad they had something to finish their existance in pa with.

[Fred of Bedrock]

Comparing alliances over the rounds is like comparing apples and oranges. It is good to see the fire still in the threads showing the pride and commitment people have/had but I still dont know how any-one can compare between rounds.

One alliance not mentioned is LDK...... say what you like as an enemy they were fabulous competition and I enjoyed playing against them enormously and many were truly excellent people/players.

Overall I still think Legion was my favourite as I had so many fond memories from that time and tbh thats all that really matters anyway as I dont see any destroyers hovering outside my window waiting to nab my roids just now.... well De as escort to pods for the pedantic

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Without reading any of the other fagged up posts in this thread let me say this, as Round 11 showed once again the moment FAnG come up against real opposition they fold like Kjel's mother after being hit in the chest by her pimp. The only round you managed to win was when no one decent cared enough to play against you and even then Mistu held most of the top ranks.

Here’s a little victory ratio for you:
VtS – 66%
Fury – 57%
Titans – 33%
Xanadu – 40%
FAnG – 14%

Hell that even manages to make FAnG look a better alliance than they were, you were worse than ViruS, discuss.

Good luck with what ever you do next.

So we folded r7? get a grip on reality ok. Every Fury exec in r7 can agree that FAnG was, aside from Fury, the biggest firepower in FFLTV. Only our arrogance stepped up in the end causing Virus and Legion to attack us.

Focht, r7 we were in the winning block. The block just happen to fold before the round was over.
r8 we started great, but when adelante folded, our moral dissappeared aswell and add the cheating scandals and internal struggles to it and yes, we couldn't handle it 2nd half of r8.
Also r10, if you claim we didn't give you a more then decent fight then you're just lying. Because your own members thought we put up more then a decent fight.
Then r10.5 we won ...

overall we played 3-4 good rounds. We only fell apart end r8 and end r10. I never said we're perfect, or even a stable alliance, but when we were stable, we were and still are a top alliance.

to Hicks, your insults don't hurt me. But you got a green card from Jester here nway since he's pro 1up and anti FAnG so my bets are he won't remove your blatant insults (which in the past would get you a warning).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

to Hicks, your insults don't hurt me. But you got a green card from Jester here nway since he's pro 1up and anti FAnG so my bets are he won't remove your blatant insults (which in the past would get you a warning).

Originally Posted by Jester

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.

I bid you good day sir.

[Rumad]

I couldn't be arse to read all the replies. But I would put round 7 FAnG up against any alliance winning any round. They suceeded for me against all odds. But only those on the inside would probably agree.

I would also say that FAnG has to be one of the most consistent alliances every round. Sure something happens to collapse thinsg slightly, but isn't it brilliant how they always bounce back?

Has to be a t5 alliance if you compare round order results

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I couldn't be arse to read all the replies. But I would put round 7 FAnG up against any alliance winning any round. They suceeded for me against all odds. But only those on the inside would probably agree.

Yeah, with Killmark's bot army on my side, I'd go up against any alliance too.

I would also say that FAnG has to be one of the most consistent alliances every round. Sure something happens to collapse thinsg slightly, but isn't it brilliant how they always bounce back?

That's not consistency, it's inconsistency!

Has to be a t5 alliance if you compare round order results

Rating FAnG solely against alliances that have existed since it's inseption in round 7, FAnG does rate pretty high. Legion in particular, but Fury too, were pretty shitty by round 7. But then we can hardly rate anything from round 7 (due to the aforementioned bot army). In that context, I agree with Kjeldoran. FAnG is in the top tenth percentile. Higher, probably, as long as we're counting real alliances just qualified 'elitist' alliances.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Jester

Yeah, with Killmark's bot army on my side, I'd go up against any alliance too.

That's not consistency, it's inconsistency!

Rating FAnG solely against alliances that have existed since it's inseption in round 7, FAnG does rate pretty high. Legion in particular, but Fury too, were pretty shitty by round 7. But then we can hardly rate anything from round 7 (due to the aforementioned bot army). In that context, I agree with Kjeldoran. FAnG is in the top tenth percentile. Higher, probably, as long as we're counting real alliances just qualified 'elitist' alliances.

firstly wuld play with fang with or without KM and the bot army was overhyped anyway - in reality it hardly helped us.

Secondly they are consistent in there inconsistency - but you have to admit we have added a certain colourfulness to pa and whatever you feel about the round after round they started as a favourite or one of the favorites.

Round 7 FAnG was like being in legion round 4 or 5 for me. So much is said of round 7 FAnG but in comparison to round 4 or 5 FAnG I would compare them to that level. I do this objectively as I have been in both allainces. However FAnG was always seen as scum (probably cause of me in some part), but yu cannot underestimate wha they offered in comparison to alliances like Titans, legion, fury and Xanadu and Nos (rounds 3 and 4).

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jester

Rating FAnG solely against alliances that have existed since it's inseption in round 7, FAnG does rate pretty high. Legion in particular, but Fury too, were pretty shitty by round 7. But then we can hardly rate anything from round 7 (due to the aforementioned bot army). In that context, I agree with Kjeldoran. FAnG is in the top tenth percentile. Higher, probably, as long as we're counting real alliances just qualified 'elitist' alliances.

And THAT is exactly what I mean. From the time we existed till now, I consider FAnG as a top alliance. This meaning I never will nor wanted to compare FAnG with Fury or Legion or even Virus. I mean since r7 till now (7 rounds) we managed to win 1 round. Only titans, LDK, Eclipse, Elysium and 1up managed to achieve the same (some easier then others I admit).
Winners of r7 not taken into account simply because Fury won that round.

Jester, I don't think FAnG had any more "discovered" cheaters in r7 then ANY other alliance that round. We fought in the winning block and we showed what we were made of. Pity the end was abit against us since both Legion as Virus attacked us. Nonetheless I think it's a marvelous achievement that round.

[Razorback]

fang didnt win r7. A race is over when the ticks stop.

You were in the winning block and got gambled out. You lost.
Really what happened to fang a few times, you always had issues with the end of race breath.

Compare it to marathon, you can lead or be in the leading group for 40km, if you fail after that youre still a loser and not a winner.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Razorback

fang didnt win r7. A race is over when the ticks stop.

You were in the winning block and got gambled out. You lost.
Really what happened to fang a few times, you always had issues with the end of race breath.

Compare it to marathon, you can lead or be in the leading group for 40km, if you fail after that youre still a loser and not a winner.

ok compare this, at the end of the round we still had a sizeable amount of t100 players even though we wee being pummeled by two of our "allies".

We took more targets night on night (legitimately not KM) through our bg's than any other alliance.

Our activity was second to none. and to boot only about 5 people left when we were dumped.

We were a good alliance and it would haev matched any of the winning round alliances in a fair battle.

We never won, but when your allis dump you thats hard. We still fought on and we did well.

As I say my perception is based on a comparison with round 4 and 5 legion and as I played in both if I think hey were on a par I don't think anyone can argue with me really do you?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Rumad

As I say my perception is based on a comparison with round 4 and 5 legion and as I played in both if I think hey were on a par I don't think anyone can argue with me really do you?

If you're not here to argue, **** off.

[Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

So we folded r7? get a grip on reality ok. Every Fury exec in r7 can agree that FAnG was, aside from Fury, the biggest firepower in FFLTV. Only our arrogance stepped up in the end causing Virus and Legion to attack us.

Focht, r7 we were in the winning block. The block just happen to fold before the round was over.
r8 we started great, but when adelante folded, our moral dissappeared aswell and add the cheating scandals and internal struggles to it and yes, we couldn't handle it 2nd half of r8.
Also r10, if you claim we didn't give you a more then decent fight then you're just lying. Because your own members thought we put up more then a decent fight.
Then r10.5 we won ...

overall we played 3-4 good rounds. We only fell apart end r8 and end r10. I never said we're perfect, or even a stable alliance, but when we were stable, we were and still are a top alliance.

to Hicks, your insults don't hurt me. But you got a green card from Jester here nway since he's pro 1up and anti FAnG so my bets are he won't remove your blatant insults (which in the past would get you a warning).

Yep you folded in Round 7, just like every other round you got serious incoming. At least Titans put a fight up, you just surrendered your roids. You were no way the second force in FLVTT, especially after Heresy were all removed for cheating, they were probably the one part of FAnG which I was actually impressed that round and it turned out there was only one reason for that. To be honest I’d probably rate you maybe 4th out of the block behind Titans and Legion, in fact I rarely recall you ever booking the same number of clusters as Legion after Heresy was gone and when you did they tended to be lower quality than those Legion hit. I will give you this, you may have beaten ViruS that round but that's hardly an achievement.

My insults always hurt you Kjel, I'll expect a PM when I get on IRC asking me to stop. Face facts Kjel, FAnG always has been and always will be a second tier alliance riddled with cheaters, mercenaries and idiots, other than yourself (Compliment ahoy !) the leadership has always largely been impotent, you may have viewed yourself as a great alliance but there are huge numbers of people in the community who would disagree, enjoy your delusions of grandeur though.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Yep you folded in Round 7, just like every other round you got serious incoming. At least Titans put a fight up, you just surrendered your roids. You were no way the second force in FLVTT, especially after Heresy were all removed for cheating, they were probably the one part of FAnG which I was actually impressed that round and it turned out there was only one reason for that. To be honest I’d probably rate you maybe 4th out of the block behind Titans and Legion, in fact I rarely recall you ever booking the same number of clusters as Legion after Heresy was gone and when you did they tended to be lower quality than those Legion hit. I will give you this, you may have beaten ViruS that round but that's hardly an achievement.

My insults always hurt you Kjel, I'll expect a PM when I get on IRC asking me to stop. Face facts Kjel, FAnG always has been and always will be a second tier alliance riddled with cheaters, mercenaries and idiots, other than yourself (Compliment ahoy !) the leadership has always largely been impotent, you may have viewed yourself as a great alliance but there are huge numbers of people in the community who would disagree, enjoy your delusions of grandeur though.

Did you actually play round 7? I mean seriously ???

We had a nice war with Virus and Legion. Both commands will admit it was a fun battle and we DID NOT FOLD OR EVEN LOSE THAT MUCH. You're an idiot if you claim else. These are the simple facts.

Honnestly, I don't know why you make such conclussions from r7.

And I won't deny we had a great share of cheaters and even more mercenaries (which I regret aswell). But we won a round and played a good r7, a good first half of r8 and a good r10 (till the last 2 weeks). All in all that is an achievement, to me atleast.

Those pple dissagreeing are 90% Fury/Eclipse/1up pple. Seems it's always the same pple trying to degrade other pple and alliances. I guess pple in Fury think they actually are more skilled then another player. Now who has delusions of grandeur?

[jerome]

why do you think we are deluded ? have we not proved ourselves consistently for several rounds in many areas such as stabilty/consistency/ability ?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

why do you think we are deluded ? have we not proved ourselves consistently for several rounds in many areas such as stabilty/consistency/ability ?

your alliance has yes, the members however ... Or you wanna claim that every Fury member has been enlighted with extra skills and such? After all, there ARE members out there who play BETTER then alot of Fury/Eclipse/1up members.

The only ones who have proven themselves are the command of those alliances as they clearly performed better then FAnG has. But don't come here claiming that your members are better then others on default. I'm sure you got a greater collection of such great players, but being Fury or old Fury is no free card for being skilled or even "decent".

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

your alliance has yes, the members however ... Or you wanna claim that every Fury member has been enlighted with extra skills and such? After all, there ARE members out there who play BETTER then alot of Fury/Eclipse/1up members.

The only ones who have proven themselves are the command of those alliances as they clearly performed better then FAnG has. But don't come here claiming that your members are better then others on default. I'm sure you got a greater collection of such great players, but being Fury or old Fury is no free card for being skilled or even "decent".

what the **** are you on? alliances are made up of members and hc, without both being good, the alliance cannot be good, without both being great, the alliance cannot be great.

Secondly, ofcourse there are players that are/were better than a lot of fury/ecl/1up players - so what?

and furthermore, who said anything otherwise anyhow?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Those pple dissagreeing are 90% Fury/Eclipse/1up pple. Seems it's always the same pple trying to degrade other pple and alliances. I guess pple in Fury think they actually are more skilled then another player. Now who has delusions of grandeur?

Fury didn't really start attracting the really skilled players until they were just about the only decent alliance left. However, Fury consistently had players with dogged determination and tenacity. This is a very underrated skill in PA. Basically, if you can keep your alliance roiding every day of a round, you're guaranteed to do well.

Alliances like FAnG never seemed to grasp this. And without singling out FAnG specifically, a lot of players have gotten top100 planets riding on waves of success. It's easy for people who have stuck with their alliance through thick and thin, who have seen great victories gone to shit and who have played this game longer than Spinner* to go ever so slightly bitter over whiney 'we're so great, we just didn't have a chance to prove it properly' FAnG-alikes when you had ****ing 7 rounds to prove it.

FAnG's only being singled out because you're loudmouthed and you're topical.

* Hyperbole.

** What a great word.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

what the **** are you on? alliances are made up of members and hc, without both being good, the alliance cannot be good, without both being great, the alliance cannot be great.

Secondly, ofcourse there are players that are/were better than a lot of fury/ecl/1up players - so what?

and furthermore, who said anything otherwise anyhow?

Command decides the political way an alliance goes. You might be the best player all-time, if your alliance manouvres itself into a position in which it cannot perform well, then your performance will be different.

And don't get me wrong, pple are what make the alliance. But the command decides what to do with the skills the players offer. Fury did alot more with it because they had a better command and probably more motivated and active members and a better structure.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jester

Fury didn't really start attracting the really skilled players until they were just about the only decent alliance left. However, Fury consistently had players with dogged determination and tenacity. This is a very underrated skill in PA. Basically, if you can keep your alliance roiding every day of a round, you're guaranteed to do well.

Alliances like FAnG never seemed to grasp this. And without singling out FAnG specifically, a lot of players have gotten top100 planets riding on waves of success. It's easy for people who have stuck with their alliance through thick and thin, who have seen great victories gone to shit and who have played this game longer than Spinner* to go ever so slightly bitter over whiney 'we're so great, we just didn't have a chance to prove it properly' FAnG-alikes when you had ****ing 7 rounds to prove it.

FAnG's only being singled out because you're loudmouthed and you're topical.

* Hyperbole.

** What a great word.

What you don't seem to grasp, is that when you do not even come close to the level of Fury, it doesn't mean you suck. Ok you're less good, but that doesn't mean "bad" or "not skilled" on default.

Also what's wrong with playing 6 rounds after being able to win one? Are you a bad alliance on default because you cannot, like 1up, win a round the first time you play as an alliance?

Most alliances never won a round, most alliances didn't even last 7 rounds. Why do pple always remember the bad parts? Like round 10, they immediatly remember how we folded at the end. But few remember we were #1 70% of the round, we were outnumbered and we hurt ToT ALOT untill ely and eclipse made a clever move in getting the attention off ToT so they could rebuild.

We dealt some serious damage to eclipse and ely that round, as they did to us (which in the end deserved them their victory). But pple refuse to remember those things. Focht even thinks if you cannot finish a round decently, then you didn't at ANY point play decent that round.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Command decides the political way an alliance goes. You might be the best player all-time, if your alliance manouvres itself into a position in which it cannot perform well, then your performance will be different.

And don't get me wrong, pple are what make the alliance. But the command decides what to do with the skills the players offer. Fury did alot more with it because they had a better command and probably more motivated and active members and a better structure.

so, what are you arguing against exactly here ?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

What exactly are you arguing 'against' ?

heh, it's not solely my fault that the discussion has shifted away from the initial meaning of your post.

and my point in this particular part was that just because you were Fury/Eclipse/1up, it doesn't mean you're better or more skilled then others on default. But alot former Fury pple still think they are worth more then others (you're not one of those, imo).

Now if Sid would put me down, I'd find it extremely lame but hell, I can live with it. Cause HE achieved more then any HC ever has and he knows better then anyone how to run an alliance to success.
Hicks and co however, never achieved more then I did just because they happen to be part of a better command then I had the chance to work with. Very few know what it is to build an alliance, rebuild it and try to keep things together and running.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Why can't everyone see how great FAnG was?!

Go read my other post about how FAnG was one of the top alliances.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Focht even thinks if you cannot finish a round decently, then you didn't at ANY point play decent that round.

i think he more means that, you hae always seriously lacked stability and only really managed to sustain yourself for 1 whole round - thus, taking away some major credibility to your claim to be one of the best alliances ever at PA. Consistency shows greatness not a single victory (this is a general statement and not aimed at FAnG specifically)

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

i think he more means that, you hae always seriously lacked stability and only really managed to sustain yourself for 1 whole round - thus, taking away some major credibility to your claim to be one of the best alliances ever at PA. Consistency shows greatness not a single victory (this is a general statement and not aimed at FAnG specifically)

where did I claim to be one of the best alliance ALL-time? I merely claim to be a top alliance in the last 7 rounds. Which imo isn't that horribly wrong to claim.

And why you keep focussing on that 1 round? Didn't we play decent in other rounds? How comes some pple value our performance r10 higher then r10.5?

and sure, FAnG wasn't perfect. No alliance is. what others lacked in offensive skills or defensive skills, FAnG lacked in stability. Yet every round pple tip us off as one of the favourites. Must mean pple think we can put up a good show, which we did in a few rounds, sadly not all.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

where did I claim to be one of the best alliance ALL-time?

Right about there:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoren

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

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Rumad

ok compare this, at the end of the round we still had a sizeable amount of t100 players even though we wee being pummeled by two of our "allies".

We took more targets night on night (legitimately not KM) through our bg's than any other alliance.

Our activity was second to none. and to boot only about 5 people left when we were dumped.

We were a good alliance and it would haev matched any of the winning round alliances in a fair battle.

We never won, but when your allis dump you thats hard. We still fought on and we did well.

As I say my perception is based on a comparison with round 4 and 5 legion and as I played in both if I think hey were on a par I don't think anyone can argue with me really do you?

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.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jester

Right about there:

there have been over 200 alliances from r1 till now.
90% of 200 is 180 alliances. yes I claim FAnG is better then atleast 180/200 alliances there have been in PA. I did however not claim to be in the top 5 or, something.

rgds Kj

[lokken]

- FAnG are probably just above average in terms of the whole history of Planetarion.
- they've always had ideas above their station, hence not many people have liked them.
- they won a round where the competition was pretty poor, although to their credit they have come back from horrific internal problems.
- they've been annoying on the forums, got rightly modded, yet think the mods are victimising them.

think that's about the upshot.

[jerome]

Include only the 'real' alliances that actually make some impact within the higher echelons of the game, not the hundred+ 'alliances' which were more or less mostly gatherings of newbs who albeit were alliances but, if you want to stroke your ego by stating how much better you were than those sorts of alliances/players, go ahead and feel proud! :thumbsup:

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

We dealt some serious damage to eclipse and ely that round, as they did to us (which in the end deserved them their victory). But pple refuse to remember those things. Focht even thinks if you cannot finish a round decently, then you didn't at ANY point play decent that round.

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.