discussion regarding this statement by kj:

[jerome]

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.

hmmm, to be honest. there have probably been hundreds of alliances in pa 'ever', so really, being in the top 10% wouldn`t mathematically mean that much. However, assuming you were talking about the 'decent and above level alliances' well, does 1 round win - in the end, that`s all you have to back up your claim, as you`ve never managed to end highly (ie. #1 or #2 atleast.) on any other round, eh? So my question is, on what basis do you judge yourself to be so 'great'? i mean, sure there was only VtS(controversial, as they had a problem in-terms of stability as they had to survive some few splits - pack, ely, titans etc)/Fury/Xanadu (and titans/eclipse to an extent) who were 'top of the top, alliance-wise' but there were quite a few 'decent' to 'good' alliances who are surely equal to FAnG in-terms of history etc.


didn`t want to start a probable flamefest in the other thread, to keep respect with that topic there etc. please refrain from being abusive/defensive but just state reasons for your statement.

[Jackal2112]

FAnG was never anywhere close to alliances such as Fury, Legion, Xanadu and others I am probably forgetting to mention. Yeah sure they were one of the better good/decent alliances, but nothing more than that. What do I base that on? The fact that earlier rounds it took more organisation and skill to get anywhere with a big alliance and the fact that in these days these above alliances scored the most wins and were the most influential. Just look at scouse's PA website.

[[i2k]Xy]

URL to scouse's site?

[Kjeldoran]

FAnG won 1 round, very convincingly.

from the 13 rounds we've had so far, FAnG won 1. Only 12 other alliances could have MAXIMALLY achieved the same or better. It's a simplistic look at things, I know, but hardly ANYONE knows how difficult it is to manage an alliance that plays to win and had always had a big part in the evolution of the round.

Considering that, I think we've done a remarkable achievement looking at the amount of other "new" alliances that have been formed and never achieved anything. I'm not comparing FAnG with Fury, Tuba, Legion and Xanadu or anything.

Those alliances are from another level. But towards ALL the other alliances we certainly don't have to be less proud of what we achieved. For instance, in r7 we were equals to Virus and Legion etc. I don't think it's easy to be at the top when giants like Fury, Xanadu and Legion are playing.

Ofc my views on this are higly biassed, which imo is acceptable given my position here. I do consider FAnG as a top alliance of the last 5-7 rounds and I do think we''ve achieved quite a bit and certainly more then most current alliances.

Fact that we're one of the most hated and disliked alliances says something. And certainly it isn't always about the cheating stories of which 9/10 are made up and of which NO other alliance is better at or anything.

Nway, this is my opinion and certainly not a defence. You and others are entitled to think about FAnG as you like. I've had the best time in PA with it and I couldn't imagine a better community then the one me and a few m8's have created.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

FAnG was never anywhere close to alliances such as Fury, Legion, Xanadu and others I am probably forgetting to mention. Yeah sure they were one of the better good/decent alliances, but nothing more than that. What do I base that on? The fact that earlier rounds it took more organisation and skill to get anywhere with a big alliance and the fact that in these days these above alliances scored the most wins and were the most influential. Just look at scouse's PA website.

I agree with you on that. Never did I ever claim to better as those mentionned alliances. But I'm comparing my alliance with the top alliances of the last 7 rounds, and looking at those, FAnG CERTAINLY belongs to the top.

[jerome]

my bad. i think we should count the winning block rather than alliances.

[Jonas]

Fury
Legion
Xanadu
Elysium
Virus
...
..
...
..
...
..
...
FAnG

Congratulations.

(im bein funny )

[Jonas]

Seriously, tho. FAnG should be allowed to be proud of themselves, for their acchievements some rounds back. But thats bout it.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Seriously, tho. FAnG should be allowed to be proud of themselves, for their acchievements some rounds back. But thats bout it.

beats most ifnot all current alliances though

[Axis_WLF]

Fang was no way equal to Legion in r7 galaxy rankings and standings even show that.

On another note Fang winning a round is a achievment that most alliances will not achieve so they should be proud.

[Morden]

Originally Posted by Axis_WLF

Fang was no way equal to Legion in r7 galaxy rankings and standings even show that.

On another note Fang winning a round is a achievment that most alliances will not achieve so they should be proud.

Well, the way I see it is, FAnG came into existance at a time when all the original kings were falling from grace and most were leaving the game. And you know as well as I do that Legion in round 7 was hardly 10% as effective as it had been in previous rounds.

Was it an acheivement for FAnG to be compareble to Legion in R7? In many ways it was, especially for a new alliance, but in many ways it was there biggest problem. Pride before the fall is probably the most common reason for any capable alliance to get trashed.

FAnG's biggest acheivement is the same acheivement that all of the older alliances have repeatedly shown over the rounds. And that is to keep getting back up after taking a fall. Everyone who payed any attention to the history of this game saw the ebs and flows. For every victory there is a crippling defeat.

The reasons Legion,Fury and Xanadu were famous was not just because they were winners, it was how they had won, the way they could have had the most disasterous defeat one round and then go on to win the next round.

FAnG should be proud of winning a round, deservedly so, I really doubt anyone would dispute that as long as they dont claim to be in the same league as the original legions of the game, just because they managed to win a round in a game which is a fraction of its former self.

As for the acheivements overall, Im not entirely sure if I could rank them top 10 overall, not many who played the earlier rounds could forgot the way some of the alliances played, even ones such as NoS who have fallen so far from there origins that most of the current players dont realise just how effective they used to be. Or a lot of the older Heavies.

Laterz

[Kjeldoran]

Again I never claimed FanG to be in top league like Fury or Legion was. FAnG however was EQUAL in military strength as Legion or Virus during round7. Doesn't mean we're equal to Legion overall but in round 7 we played a good round and it took them another alliance to slightly put us back.

rgds Kj

top10 rank are subjective. No way to measure the strength of the old NoS or RB with the current alliances. Ofc we know fury, legion and co are in there but apart from maybe 7 alliances, the 3 remaining ones are highly sujective since most of us don't even know the achievements of those older alliances.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by [i2k]Xy

URL to scouse's site?

http://www.caeneus.org/planetarion/

[Hicks]

1 - 16:7:3 Sn0w Mistu
2 - 13:2:3 chika FanG
3 - 22:8:8 Yogibear FanG
4 - 18:10:7 Synthetic_Sid Wolfpack
5 - 11:3:4 Colt FanG
6 - 22:8:7 Adam Mistu
7 - 22: 8:1 Kefalos Mistu
8 - 13:2:6 Derbio Mistu
9 - 22:8:10 [Dreamy] Mistu
10 - 17:10:10 Vandal Mistu

You certainly wtfpwned that round Kje

[Treveler]

Personally i think FAnG did a much better job in pax then in r10.5. In pax fang was fighting a much thougher oposition in ely and ecl and gave them one hell of a fight before fang fell apart.

What fang did in r10.5 is not much to be proude of imo. There was hardly any oposition and durring most of the round they hardly did any better then phraktos, an alliance without any leadership for most of the round. FAnG won a round when there was no oposition and imo what fang did in pax was a much greater achievement.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Hicks

1 - 16:7:3 Sn0w Mistu
2 - 13:2:3 chika FanG
3 - 22:8:8 Yogibear FanG
4 - 18:10:7 Synthetic_Sid Wolfpack
5 - 11:3:4 Colt FanG
6 - 22:8:7 Adam Mistu
7 - 22: 8:1 Kefalos Mistu
8 - 13:2:6 Derbio Mistu
9 - 22:8:10 [Dreamy] Mistu
10 - 17:10:10 Vandal Mistu

You certainly wtfpwned that round Kje

You gonna dispute the fact that we owned r10.5? You gonna deny our lead in points over ALL other alliances? Or are you no better then a troll ...

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Personally i think FAnG did a much better job in pax then in r10.5. In pax fang was fighting a much thougher oposition in ely and ecl and gave them one hell of a fight before fang fell apart.

What fang did in r10.5 is not much to be proude of imo. There was hardly any oposition and durring most of the round they hardly did any better then phraktos, an alliance without any leadership for most of the round. FAnG won a round when there was no oposition and imo what fang did in pax was a much greater achievement.

Again, the lack of opposition cannot be blamed on FAnG. Ofc r10 was a much harder fight and to some alot more rewarding but that doesn't take away the sweetness of a round we've won. A win is a win.

And this isn't meant towards Treveler, but isn't it ironic how always the SAME pple seem to troll FAnG, seem to mock with us and try to discredit an alliance in any ways they see possible? Funny how those pple even remotely think they've achieved anything to judge others ...

What you lot think about our achievements is as important as what sid had as breakfast on 5th of November 1995. Those who worked with FAnG, fought against FAnG know our value, not the trolls and pple disliking an alliance/person out of personal reasons.

Most posters here aren't here to post their opinion or trying to prove their point. They don't even care what the thread is about.

kinda sad and pathetic

[Treveler]

I understand that you urged for a win, but in my opionion your win was much the same as playing footie against 10 year old kids. It can be very fun, but its not a greate achievement. Its not your fault that no one met you on the battle field, but that doesnt make your ahievement great. But this goes for a lot of victories down the pa history tho.

[Kileman]

To burst the Fang enthusiasts bubbles (apologetically ofc)

Comparing Fang to Virus or Lego in R7 isnt that much of an accomplishment.... all 3 werent exactly 'top class'. Cant say much for the politics of either 2.... id even go as far as to say that Rah was a better alliance than the 3 of them, better not neccesarily meaning pure military strength btw.....

My top 10 of all time:
1) Fury (including Eclipse/1up)
2) Xanadu (including LDK etc)
3) Legion (including pack r4)
4) Nos (r4)
5) Titans
6) Deus
7)Virus
8) Fang
9) Rah
10) ToT

My justification:

1) Fury, resilient and the best by a mile
2) Xanadu, always been up there with the best, strong opponent, resilient, up there by a mile.
3) Legion, strong in former rounds, crappy and poorly run in later. Included pack r4 as part of lego since it was basically the same r3 core.
4) Nos, tough as bricks in R4 and to some lesser extent R6, got really crap in later rounds.
5) Titans, strong, resilient, good players, a tough opponent - even when losing.
6) Deus, had a good round maybe some1 else should be up here but hey, who cares.
7) Virus, tough to put them this high up, they have always been Fury farms, and always will be in R7 Fury could of whipped the floor with them easily... Fang could of also (and did with a little tactical advice *cough*). The attitude of some members, and the ability to give up so easily when losing is a top quality in Virus.
8) Fang, always been a medium alliance from my encounters, never achieved anything huge when I was around, gave support when needed, alone wouldnt achieve much.
9) Rah, RAHARHARAHRHARHH coz they played the game with honor and dignity, and were small and had a bit of punch.
10) ToT, they were always just 'there' cant say much for their achievements (other than r9? that I didnt play)
11) is prolly Elysium, but I never had a huge amount of respect for there military strength, they were always a flack/farm alliance - and gave up quickly at a hint of incoming, despite a few quality members here and there in the past.

Havent included some of the more recent alliance splits etc, they;re all pretty much the same as there predeccesors, and I missed a few rounds.

No doubt some people will strongly disagree.... but hey , it happens

[Colt]

I found rd10.5 more enjoyable than PAX for obvious reason that both my ally/planet did well (only round i havent been on losing side too ) although imo PAX was a greater achievement for FAnG, you never know, if it wasnt for that "incident" then we could have ended #1 then, atleast #2 anyway...

[Kileman]

On a less serious note... My top 5 alliances are:

1) Fury
2) 1up
3) Wrath
4) Eclipse
5) Fury-prov \o/

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Colt

I found rd10.5 more enjoyable than PAX for obvious reason that both my ally/planet did well (only round i havent been on losing side too ) although imo PAX was a greater achievement for FAnG, you never know, if it wasnt for that "incident" then we could have ended #1 then, atleast #2 anyway...

I enjoyed pax very much. I thought it was Fangs best round. But the fact that we were left for dead at the end and rose up with only a core of 15-20 members to take the win in 10.5 is something im also very proud of. Even round 11 makes me proud, as we sunk very fast yet the sinking was caught and the members that remained had a better average then 1/3rd of the top 10 alliances.

[General Martok]

Originally Posted by Kileman

list etc

Quote defendable list imho, I bet everone has some comments on it, but in general (especially top3) I think we can all agree with it. The things I'd like to add are that I hold Virus higher than Deus, the one-round wonder.

And LDK should probably have it's own space in the list, probably somewhere around 6th/7th place (above Fang at least ). We all know about the cheating etc, but you can't really say Fang has been clean the last few rounds either.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Kileman

No doubt some people will strongly disagree.... but hey , it happens

yes I do

And calling FAnG a mediocre alliance is abit lame imo. After all we won a round and played some very decent rounds in which we held the top positions for a long while.

[Kileman]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

yes I do

BIAS!!!!1111

Id like to add that my list was based on my own experiences with said alliances, through dealing with them (and seeing what they are/arent capable of) and through attacking them/defending against them in my past experience with Fury et al.

Ie, for some Ely may have been a formidable opponent, for me, they were free roids past 2am....

I also wish to reinforce, that while my comments about said alliances may seem derogatory, they are *purely* on my view of the alliances PLANETARION strength (diplomacy and military), and isnt meant to offend anyone on a personal level.

kthnx @_@

[edit] And the round that Fang won was one that I did not play, and as far as I can tell.... there was no real or formidable competition in any way. As for other rounds, sure you may have held some top positions for some time, but every alliance has its star players, its whether the alliance can support them, and when/in the event they get knocked down, they'll keep fighting, over and over.

My own personal view of Fury is particularly high, because even in the rounds we were being dicked, a core of us continued to play as active as we played in rounds that we were winning - launching attacks/defence every day, despite the lack of hope. Whereas on the other end of the scale, other (unnamed) alliances will quit after one bad night of incs and will go into hibernation for the next round. Or disband, or 1/2 the members will alliance switch, or the members will only continue playing when things are looking good.

Or in short, the thing that seperates the best from the rest, is resilence.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Kileman

[edit] And the round that Fang won was one that I did not play, and as far as I can tell.... there was no real or formidable competition in anyway.

Why is that when 1up wins by an astronomacal margin, its because they where uber 1337, yet when fang does it, there was no real competition?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Kileman

BIAS!!!!1111

Id like to add that my list was based on my own experiences with said alliances, through dealing with them (and seeing what they are/arent capable of) and through attacking them/defending against them in my past experience with Fury et al.

Ie, for some Ely may have been a formidable opponent, for me, they were free roids past 2am....

I also wish to reinforce, that while my comments about said alliances may seem derogatory, they are *purely* on my view of the alliances PLANETARION strength (diplomacy and military), and isnt meant to offend anyone on a personal level.

kthnx @_@

[edit] And the round that Fang won was one that I did not play, and as far as I can tell.... there was no real or formidable competition in any way. As for other rounds, sure you may have held some top positions for some time, but every alliance has its star players, its whether the alliance can support them, and when/in the event they get knocked down, they'll keep fighting, over and over.

My own personal view of Fury is particularly high, because even in the rounds we were being dicked, a core of us continued to play as active as we played in rounds that we were winning - launching attacks/defence every day, despite the lack of hope. Whereas on the other end of the scale, other (unnamed) alliances will quit after one bad night of incs and will go into hibernation for the next round. Or disband, or 1/2 the members will alliance switch, or the members will only continue playing when things are looking good.

Or in short, the thing that seperates the best from the rest, is resilence.

FAnG never quit after 1 bad night, don't make such assumptions.

And what Fyodor said, you seem eagerly biassed towards Fury and co (Eclipse, 1up) and rather low speaking about other alliances.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Why is that when 1up wins by an astronomacal margin, its because they where uber 1337, yet when fang does it, there was no real competition?

Like everyone keeps saying, the other alliances r11 NEVER put up a real fight towards 1up. But when it happens to FAnG, it seems to be our fault. when it happens to 1up, it's because 1up is so damn good ...

Kinda unfair imo (due to the many anti FAnG feelings).

[Kileman]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Why is that when 1up wins by an astronomacal margin, its because they where uber 1337, yet when fang does it, there was no real competition?

Because 1up won 100 vs 300 - 300 from what I understand as skilled/older players. With 1 of the 3 alliances being bigger than 1up for a (all be it short) point of the round, and the total score of the 3 combined being greater than 1up for most of it.

Again, I can not fully comment on R9, 10, 10.5 as I was not around.

And Kj, no alliance ever quits, but members in the alliance often dont play as actively.

Also, ofc im going to be biased, I can speak best on the experiences ive had, those of which have all been in Fury.

[alch]

Because 1up won 100 vs 300 - 300

AS far as i am concerned, i heard there was some planetary NAP which mean no key planets and top100 planet were able to attack 1up planets, which mean basically that you take the top100-150 planets who are able to knock 1up and put them in some side where you dont allow them to attack you, i mean i dont deny 1up took it all the way and nicely, but please dont start to shout that 1up took it all alone, and there were fighting from all the other alliances against them, im sure some political move were made, not between alliances, but some personal moves in-galaxy making sure that the biggest players wont be able to hurt 1up being on top, and letting 1up attacking the smaller class.
That somehow smart and succeed because all the players left today are somewhat very very selfish and care about their own ranks, while if they would have cared about their own alliances, they wouldnt have accepted any personal planetary NAP with 1up and their HCs would have denied theses planetary/selfish/personal NAP and ordered them to attack.
So i dont see any difference in having planetary NAP with 100 planets than having a NAP with 1 or 2 alliances holding the top spot.

[jerome]

Planetary-NAP`s were singular decisions, do you think 1up members never had offers for planetary NAP`s from other alliances ? and furthermore, our HC weeded out any possibilites of anyone accepting such proposals and we listened to their instructions- thus, if we could do it, then why couldn`t other alliance hc`s manage to make their members uncowardly. Don`t blame us for playing with a general interest of our alliance`s good at our hearts and following HC orders, blame enemy members for accepting similar policies as they were not resilient nor brave enough to go it with their own alliance.


Mind you, it could also be said that, the alliance hcs did have the alliance`s good at heart and thought of how if they had gone all-out, they would have probably ended how MISTU did and aimed for 2nd or 3rd rank - but then again, if this is their 'excuse' then why exactly give up hopes for #1 that early on?

if people are unable to see how planetary naps and mass-blocking to win a round ie last and many others differ then - 'heh', Alliance policies, the make-up of alliance, character-wise are two different things completely.

[alch]

i am not blaming your alliance, i would say it one of the best move to make it up that there is no alliance NAP anymore, but stating that 1up did it all alone? i dont think so.
you still had theses planetary NAP which is in my views just deteriored the strenght of the alliances outside.

what would happen if alliance C had 100 players which 49 of them are NAPPED to 1up thru their planetar NAP? Alliance C decide to launch an attack toward 4 top 1up galaxy , lets say that 60% of the alliance is awake at picking and launching, that around 25 players who arent napped to 1up and another 25 who are napped to 1up.

lets assume that at least 10 or 15 of the napped to 1up are indeed hitting 1up , and they are ordered to recall, they will recall just because they are selfish and later claims that the planet had some defense or "i couldnt make it - i had to wake up early and go to work so i recalled" that mean the same attack loose around 30-40% of the effectivity, link to it that other players seeing theirs members recalling will recall aswell, some will forget to recall and will land blindly as always. 1up having much fleet ingalaxy to spare and in alliance to spare will crush the oppopent.

To sum it up, the alliance lost his strenght and his effectivity in attack, the alliance lost some of its players morale, the alliance just lost several attack ships in the actions.

Now think about that, and multiply this to more than 1 alliances.
this is the fact why not all alliance could have gang banged on your alliance, and that how 1up managed to win a round without allies and without napping "real" alliance, but when you take almost the top100 planets NAP to them and NAP to the galaxy players aswell, then you obtain something more powerfull than NAPPING just a specific alliance, you nap several top influencable players in all the alliances, (shame on them to accept this NAP if their HC didnt approve, and shame on the HCs if they knew about this and letted them NAPPED while their alliance were at war against 1up) these influencable players and lets say biggest players in their alliances by not attacking 1up just somewhat lead unconsciencly the attack department to attack somewhere else because they know that an attack will fail on 1up anyway and they seek for free roids to stabilize themselves in the top2 or 3.

again , congrats for 1up for such malicious political move, i am not sarcastic and i do not blame it on you, you just proved that political move are the biggest part of this game, and i blame it on the one who accepted the NAP on themselves, some for selfish reasons, some for cowardice, some other because their alliances lacked leadership. etc

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Don`t blame us for playing with a general interest of our alliance`s good at our hearts and following HC orders, blame enemy members for accepting similar policies as they were not resilient nor brave enough to go it with their own alliance.

No blame at all, 1up won a monster victory. I just was questioning the idea that 1up runs away with the round and its due to skill, and fang does the same thing and its due to lack of comp.

[Jester]

1up blatantly won because everyone, including FAnG, was shit. While there were plenty of good players in 1up, their achievement in itself doesn't prove anything.

[Vaio]

FAnG should be proud of having won a round. Not many alliances can stand up and say that they did. On a similar note, I am proud of having won an arse kicking fight with a one legged man

~Vaio~

[Tis]

god, you sad twats are still going on about planet naps?

let me explain a couple things, since alch, your intel and 'reasoning' are as shit as usual.

there was no such thing as a planet nap for the first couple weeks, we just didnt hit our own gals, period, which meant they attacked us at will. i dont think anyone will object to this, tho some (Hi mistu, attacking my gal the first week or so nearly made my mistu galm8 quit.) may have taken a different approach. the first weeks are absolutely key, and yet we survived without any of these 'naps' that you seem to think won the round for us.

when it became clear that we had to do something about the planets from 1up gals that were attacking us 3 times a day (can we agree this isnt something good?) we decided to change to an individual nap system for gals with hostiles (this was to allow people with no alliance or a little noob alliance to continue to avoid 1up inc, fair i think), fully expecting the members of main alliances to not take the deal.

as we know, however, several did. but your numbers are rediculous. of #2-4 alliances, there were MAYBE 25-30 COMBINED with naps after the first week of the new policy, and most of them were not in the t100. now, naturally by the end, most of them were, since we smashed anything that wasnt napped. because sid is a man of his word those who never attacked 1up were able to farm their way into the t100 in peace. check the thread on the t100 to see how many from mistu/vision/lch are listed with naps, its really not as many as you think (10 or so by the end iirc.).

also remember that even these napped planets were contributing to the war effort by defending. (tho some were more selfish than others) i can think of one napped mistu planet who pissed teh hell out of me, he ruined, no joke, about 8-10 attacks over the course of a week for me as an individual.

and kj, since you know shit about how hard we worked, and since the outcome of this round was in doubt for about a month longer than last round, shut the **** up about it being easy.

you sound like a bunch of six year olds trying to convince yourselves that the only reason the school bully was able to beat you up was because you werent wearing your special superman underpants.

[lokken]

1up won because everyone shat their kecks instead of focusing on taking 1up out. The simple fact is that it's obvious that 1up could out work everyone else, and grind out a victory regardless of how difficult it was. It was moderately difficult, and 1up deserve their win.

Anyone who suggests galaxy NAP's are out of line is quite honestly, naive. Attacking your own galaxies when you don't have to is a waste of time, and they are the best way forward if you want to remain an efficient unit - to understand that you have to have experienced the mindless red tape retals have entailed during the Fury/Legion era. The fact is that good player DON'T accept NAP's and throw caution to the wind and play for their alliance - a player that accepts such a NAP might as well sign up for the very alliance he NAP'd with. Alliances won't waste their time attacking their own gals unless they have to.

The only misguided idea 1up have put forward is that this round of Planetarion would have been better without blocking - although in theory its correct, the best way forward for other alliances would have been to focus totally and wholeheartedly to run 1up out of the game, and then take things from there, as the alternative was to let 1up work for their victory, which they showed to be more than capable of - the agreements formed were thoroughly inadequate.

The fact is that other alliances weren't up to scratch, and they didn't see the extent of the threat that any alliance headed by Sid would posed - alliances need to look at themselves, and see how they can improve because standards have been falling - the first thing they can do is to hurl these fencesitters out the door post haste.

[Kjeldoran]

you're funny Tis. You completely made no sence at all and I'm even being nice to you atm. This thread isn't about 1up. The world doesn't evolve around 1up and tbh I got no clue why you even bother to waste your bullshit in this thread.

What Alch and Fyodor tried to tell you, which you have a hard time to comprehend/understand, is that if 1up does something good or whatever alliance, it's based in skills. While in FAnG's case, it's based on the LACK of skills of other alliances.
This has probably alot to do with the massive anti FAnG feeling that alot of pple seem to have. Which imo isn't that bad after all.

But some pple should try to read the dictionary and look up what the word "hypocrit" means, it would solve alot of your own problems.

Dunno why this thread even exists. I don't need to justify what I think is true towards the rest of you lot. Yet for some strange way I am, probably my bad.

[jerome]

Fully-allying other alliances, reducing targets, causing total stagnation, involves much skill, eh? I mean, it`s totally wrong to say that when other alliances win by not having any sort of direct relation with another alliance, but just planning some policies to enforce depending on how the universe turns out during a round is much sillier, especially when the policies still give players of the said alliance targets to hit, keeps other alliances within a chance of overtaking them as they are still not involved in any osrt of deals, except a player-to-alliance offering which is just plain sensible, and nothing more.

[Nadar]

I don't understand this tbh.. FAnG won last round, well deservedl. Other alliances knew how strong they'd be, but still they didn't fit themselves for a battle against FAnG & Co. 1up won this round, well deserved aswell. Other alliances knew how strong they'd be, but still they didnt fit themselves for a battle against 1up.

I don't really wanna pick a 'side of the fence' in this matter, but those who speaks in FAnG's favor is right; FAnG's victory last round isn't less deserved than 1up's victory this round.

/me waves to 1up propaganda train as it drives by.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Fully-allying other alliances, reducing targets, causing total stagnation, involves much skill, eh? I mean, it`s totally wrong to say that when other alliances win by not having any sort of direct relation with another alliance, but just planning some policies to enforce depending on how the universe turns out during a round is much sillier, especially when the policies still give players of the said alliance targets to hit, keeps other alliances within a chance of overtaking them as they are still not involved in any osrt of deals, except a player-to-alliance offering which is just plain sensible, and nothing more.

again, what is wrong with it? If the rest of the universe was too retarded or whatever you trying to point out, what has it got to do with us? Are we now responsible of the failing of others? Should we be less proud because the rest lacked all skills (as you seem to bring this)?
So we are not the 1up hero's who could do it all solo, does that give you the right to judge our victory, which imo is just that, a winning of a particular round.

It's not like FAnG has been the first alliance that won a round through blocking now is it? It's not the first time that a block overpowers the entire universe is it? But when FAnG does it then you lot need to whine about it?

I'm getting tired of the hypocrits are are roaming these boards. Most of you pple never even understood the dynamics of politics in an alliance simply because you never had to deal with em or never got the trust to be dealing with them.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

again, what is wrong with it?

nothing? you people were the ones who brought up comparison between the 2 roudn wins, not me. I don`t care if last round was won through blocking or not in the end, as every other round apart from r11 was won by blocking.

If the rest of the universe was too retarded or whatever you trying to point out, what has it got to do with us? Are we now responsible of the failing of others? Should we be less proud because the rest lacked all skills (as you seem to bring this)?

wow doesn`t this sound exactly like the replies i and other 1up have been giving to people`s use of our planetary-nap policy being detrimental.

It's not like FAnG has been the first alliance that won a round through blocking now is it?

who said it was?

It's not the first time that a block overpowers the entire universe is it?

no its not.

But when FAnG does it then you lot need to whine about it?

what? you were the one who compared the styles of round wins, not me, and i gave my opinion of who won the round in a better fashion.

I'm getting tired of the hypocrits are are roaming these boards. Most of you pple never even understood the dynamics of politics in an alliance simply because you never had to deal with em or never got the trust to be dealing with them.

maybe you just don`t know some of these people well enough, as they usually had something to do with their time than post around in almighty AD.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

you're funny Tis. You completely made no sence at all and I'm even being nice to you atm. This thread isn't about 1up. The world doesn't evolve around 1up and tbh I got no clue why you even bother to waste your bullshit in this thread.

What Alch and Fyodor tried to tell you, which you have a hard time to comprehend/understand, is that if 1up does something good or whatever alliance, it's based in skills. While in FAnG's case, it's based on the LACK of skills of other alliances.
This has probably alot to do with the massive anti FAnG feeling that alot of pple seem to have. Which imo isn't that bad after all.

But some pple should try to read the dictionary and look up what the word "hypocrit" means, it would solve alot of your own problems.

Dunno why this thread even exists. I don't need to justify what I think is true towards the rest of you lot. Yet for some strange way I am, probably my bad.

I wasnt the one who mentioned 1up first, and i wasnt the one who posted a 6 paragraph collection of drivel on our nap policy (which, as far as i can tell, had nothing to do with fang). You seem to have the right to defend your alliance from baseless statements but i dont?

Not having played last round i have no opinion on the topic of the thread and my reply had nothing to do with fang, it was replying to subjects already brought up. Your ability to take things personally is truely astounding.

Oh, and since youre being so 'clever' and 'cool' and bringing up the dictionary, its spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.

[alch]

Tis, my point was that every alliance had won a round, no matter what happened. you cant blame and tarnish FAnG victory by saying, "hey their adversary were crap" , the few weeks were hard and we had a fight with other alliances, and kept it good until the good phraktos declared war on us to bring some good kicking to the game, ofc they did it a little bit late some people would think, but its not like we sat for 3 months and did nothing, now this is a victory, same as any other alliances won the round, and no matter what, no one can argue with this,
As the planetary NAP, i dont know what really happened, and im sure you better know than me, because 1) you were HC if i reckon right and you knew your own politics better than me 2) you played the round and i did not - so either you lying all the way and feeding us with the wrong intel just so we can shut up, or either you are right and i owe you an apology for stating Wrong facts.
The right answer i guess we will not know as everyone is claiming everything else, i didnt state that i had this intel and i knew everything, i just stated what some 1up member told me at end of round and stated some fact which seems were from the list and from what jerome' said aswell about the Planetary NAP. If i did offend you i apology, it wasnt meant to undermine your victory but just prove that 1) you werent only yourself against the whole world like jerome tried to justify 2) that your did win a round in another style and no one can come and take your victory or our victory by saying that one style is better than another one.
Of course i do understand that its a free country and that everyone has its own views, so feel right to fire away your own biased propaganda. and good luck in round12 aswell.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by alch

jerome'

` != ' fs!


ps. can some of you people realise, we didn`t bring up the r10.5 topic, it was kj, go read up. Kj firstly overreacted on a post by Hicks, fs it was HICKS, that noob couldn`t post a non-troll/flame if he got offered sex for it (love you still though, hicksie-poo xxx) and then Treveler posted something of a nature such as "yeah you won r10.5, but i thought you played better r10, after all, you played tougher opponents and came out on top for a while" etc, he didn`t undermine the win by comparing with ours, you assumed he did, he just compared FAnG`s round in r10.5 with r10.

[Kjeldoran]

Well, I'd like to see how you'd react when pple like Hicks and his buddies and other trolls have nothing else to do then repeating their endless, useless and pathetic hatred towards an alliance. Even after we've quit, it seems it'll be a very long time untill those trolls find either a real life or worse, another alliance they can troll at.

And no offense Treveler, but the way you're trying to make it look like FAnG did do shit in r10.5 is unaccaptable. Sure the competition was less then in other rounds but god damnit, there still was SOME competition and there still were SOME alliances who tried to fight us etc.

And I made the comparison between FAnG and any other winning alliance. I might happen to have taken the example of 1up, because well, you're the latest winner. The point is that pple use 2 standards to measure success with. 1 for all the alliances they like (deserved and skilled victories) and then FAnG (based on luck, lack of competition ...).

Even you Jerome, have taken part in that in some minor, probably unintentional, way.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Nadar

I don't understand this tbh.. FAnG won last round, well deservedl. Other alliances knew how strong they'd be, but still they didn't fit themselves for a battle against FAnG & Co. 1up won this round, well deserved aswell. Other alliances knew how strong they'd be, but still they didnt fit themselves for a battle against 1up.

I don't really wanna pick a 'side of the fence' in this matter, but those who speaks in FAnG's favor is right; FAnG's victory last round isn't less deserved than 1up's victory this round.

/me waves to 1up propaganda train as it drives by.

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.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Well, I'd like to see how you'd react when pple like Hicks and his buddies and other trolls have nothing else to do then repeating their endless, useless and pathetic hatred towards an alliance. Even after we've quit, it seems it'll be a very long time untill those trolls find either a real life or worse, another alliance they can troll at.

And no offense Treveler, but the way you're trying to make it look like FAnG did do shit in r10.5 is unaccaptable. Sure the competition was less then in other rounds but god damnit, there still was SOME competition and there still were SOME alliances who tried to fight us etc.

And I made the comparison between FAnG and any other winning alliance. I might happen to have taken the example of 1up, because well, you're the latest winner. The point is that pple use 2 standards to measure success with. 1 for all the alliances they like (deserved and skilled victories) and then FAnG (based on luck, lack of competition ...).

Even you Jerome, have taken part in that in some minor, probably unintentional, way.

No offense taken. I simply wonder who the oposition was? The only half-decent alliance fighting us was WP and once they got a few fleets through phra went and naped them. I know this is not your doing but effectivly that was a nap with fang too. At this point phraktos/fang/mistu and wp, the top 4 alliances was fighting whatever there was left. Mainly ND and Vision.

Every moron can see how such a scenario will end.

[Zh|l]

I can't believe how stupid some of you are sounding. If you had posted the drivel you do a few rounds ago, you would have been laughed off the face of the board forever with your creditbility ruined for all eternity.

Those whining about the "planet NAP" thing should really go and buy themself a clue. Look to every past round and you'll always find these exist. Those claiming it went against 1up policy are merely trying to be pedantic - 1up didnt NAP/ally with other alliances, but we werent going to attack our own galaxies that weren't being hostile to us. Some of you really should have been an MO or HC online during the nights we had multiple alliance incoming - and then you think we should attack those not being hostile to us? Where on earth did you learn logic? You people shouldn't ever gain any command position whatsoever, since you seem rather negligent and idiotic.

Also, you can't compare this round to last. Personally, I dont rate FAnG's win in the slightest - they had no competition really. Those claiming thats the same as this round are being silly - 1up had credible opposition - we had by far probably the most incoming on any single alliance in the game and had various 'agreements' made against us by other alliances to cooperate. Yes, they failed since they should have won - but you can't claim it was a lack of competition. I definately saw it as competition. FAnG/Mistu/Phraktos had won their round rather early, 1up didnt get their clear win till much later. Not to mention, FAnG rode on with allies whilst 1up didn't.

Does this mean FAnG dont deserve their win? Who cares? FPM won and out of FAnG/Mistu neither of them really shined out to claim a proper win. Not the case like some previous rounds where one alliance had obviously been the 'pack leader' so to speak. This round, it looked like Mistu must have been the strongest out the two which had been the guess before anyway.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

I can't believe how stupid some of you are sounding. If you had posted the drivel you do a few rounds ago, you would have been laughed off the face of the board forever with your creditbility ruined for all eternity.

Those whining about the "planet NAP" thing should really go and buy themself a clue. Look to every past round and you'll always find these exist. Those claiming it went against 1up policy are merely trying to be pedantic - 1up didnt NAP/ally with other alliances, but we werent going to attack our own galaxies that weren't being hostile to us. Some of you really should have been an MO or HC online during the nights we had multiple alliance incoming - and then you think we should attack those not being hostile to us? Where on earth did you learn logic? You people shouldn't ever gain any command position whatsoever, since you seem rather negligent and idiotic.

Also, you can't compare this round to last. Personally, I dont rate FAnG's win in the slightest - they had no competition really. Those claiming thats the same as this round are being silly - 1up had credible opposition - we had by far probably the most incoming on any single alliance in the game and had various 'agreements' made against us by other alliances to cooperate. Yes, they failed since they should have won - but you can't claim it was a lack of competition. I definately saw it as competition. FAnG/Mistu/Phraktos had won their round rather early, 1up didnt get their clear win till much later. Not to mention, FAnG rode on with allies whilst 1up didn't.

Does this mean FAnG dont deserve their win? Who cares? FPM won and out of FAnG/Mistu neither of them really shined out to claim a proper win. Not the case like some previous rounds where one alliance had obviously been the 'pack leader' so to speak. This round, it looked like Mistu must have been the strongest out the two which had been the guess before anyway.

haha, you slept last round? or is your judgement that poor that I start doubting you've learned anything from the allmighty Fury?

We had allmost twice asmuch score as the next alliance (MISTU), our avg score was WAY higher and we got WAY more top ranked planets. How exactly is it difficult for you realize this? This round they were idd stronger, most alliances were nway ...