Alliances playing r16

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is just silly. VGN and Subh finished in sixth and seventh places. 1up finished in fifth place. I'd say the first two probably achieved more of their goals than 1up did. Or if 1up's only goal is "have fun" or whatever and talking about goals is a bit silly I'd say that VGN and Subh had significant benefits from their alliance with exilition. I can only imagine that if the HC of subh were told they'd finish one place behind 1up this round they would have jumped at the opportunity.

I've got to agree with Lokken disagreeing with you. There wasn't really any serious competition for those places (besides themselves) so they ended up in their 'natural' places as Lokken said. The top 5 alliances could have finished in any order so saying they finished 1 place below 1up is a bit of a pointless comment.

[robban1]

well cudos for ND for trying but as you all know its all about whos on top the the fat lady sings that counts, so all your efforts didnt mean a thing really

erm was subh and vgn just exi's puppies?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by robban1

well cudos for ND for trying but as you all know its all about whos on top the the fat lady sings that counts, so all your efforts didnt mean a thing really

erm was subh and vgn just exi's puppies?

Well yes - I was simply pointing out the entire false economy of furball's post.

[cura]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is just silly. VGN and Subh finished in sixth and seventh places. 1up finished in fifth place. I'd say the first two probably achieved more of their goals than 1up did.

I disagree, 1up is surely the alliance that had it hardest all round, and still they remained, they didn't split or anything, in my gal I had 4 1up'ers and only 1 stopped playing actively half round due to real life stuff
they kept playing, and kept playing their way
if it was any other alliance in their boots I'd say they'd have called it quits and stopped playing that round, or maybe even lost alot of members for future rounds aswell
anyway, what I'm saying, they achieved alot, they achieved showing other ppl and other alliances they are an alliance with foundations that won't break when they have it hard, while vgn and subh just showed they'll settle for a top10 spot to help another alliance to the first spot

[robban1]

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

I disagree, 1up is surely the alliance that had it hardest all round, and still they remained, they didn't split or anything, in my gal I had 4 1up'ers and only 1 stopped playing actively half round due to real life stuff
they kept playing, and kept playing their way
if it was any other alliance in their boots I'd say they'd have called it quits and stopped playing that round, or maybe even lost alot of members for future rounds aswell
anyway, what I'm saying, they achieved alot, they achieved showing other ppl and other alliances they are an alliance with foundations that won't break when they have it hard, while vgn and subh just showed they'll settle for a top10 spot to help another alliance to the first spot

1up can only do good if they control the politics, if they dont they are just average noting leet there

[pig]

Originally Posted by robban1

1up can only do good if they control the politics, if they dont they are just average noting leet there

Interesting that, considering 1up had very little effect on the politics of r15, yet exilition et al carried on focusing on us. Now if we cant control the politics, whats the point of attacking an alliance circa 4th/5th position?

You my friend as usual are speaking bs. Yes politically we can out manouvere certain allies, probably allies like subh. But military wise we are a force not to be reckoned with, im sure eXilition members and LCH members and others in the past who received incoming off us can backup that statement.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by robban1

1up can only do good if they control the politics, if they dont they are just average noting leet there

...Right. You know what you're saying there? That 1up is only good when they control the politics. Well, they do have surprisingly many wins for having no military power, or non "leetness". Though, perhaps not the best alliance in the Military Department, they have shown several times that they have what it takes to win.

Statements like this piss me off. What exactly of 1up did you witness to judge them like this? Have you played with them? I sincerely doubt it, seeing this statement. 1up played a full round, well knowing their chances of winning mostly vanished before tick 500, yet they kept going. That in itself is something not many other alliances do. For instance the morale drop in Angels and NewDawn towards the end, activity here dropped when we realized we were stuck at 3rd, and 2nd, respectively. 1up is without doubt one of the best alliances PaX has seen, and by that I mean overall, and not just politics. The fact that they got constant incomings from tick 120 to tick 400, by the best military force in the game does not make them less of an alliance, in my eyes.

We know eXilition was the strongest military alliance of round 15. However, as you so nicely put, they were very much in control of the politics, and how, mind your earlier statement about political control, do you think they would have performed in the situation 1up found themselves in? If they got roided so hard, so early, they would have lagged behind for most of the round, and been a less significant challenger for top spot - that you can not argue.

If you call a successrate of 60% (3/5 wins) "just average, nothing leet there", I'd take a look at your measures of "leetness". I doubt it can be matched, really. If you can not respect 1up for a 5th, or call that average, I recommend that you take the time to think about the meaning of the word "average".

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by qebab

...A very interesting read and almost 100% correct post...

The more interesting question would be, what is "controlling the politics"?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

In an all time shocker - I disagree with JBG.

I hope gamst scores a zillion goals against your lot tonight

If you look through the history of the rankings, an alliance like VGN actually finished more or less as normal during round 15 as an alliance that is accustomed to a ranking in the lower echelons of the top10.

I think this ignores the fact that alliance quality was significantly higher this round than it has been in a long time. There were three alliances with top of the line militaries out there and four who were thought of as potential winners of the round. Finishing sixth or seventh this round is worth a lot more than it was last round. Of course this can be considered to be a subjective judgement but I'd be really surprised if you disagreed with me here.

So I'm struggling to see any major benefit to VGN unless you are seriously going to suggest that VGN are going to start finishing behind F-Crew and HR in today's universe without this agreement, if you look at today's rankings. I believe they're good enough to finish above those on their own merits.

You're slightly off track here. For many alliances it's considered a success to go through the round and finish as a single solid entity. Avoiding the sort of internal problems that Insomnia and ToF (obviously different types of internal problems) had is a success. If you read back over the r15 predictions thread you won't find a huge number of people predicting top ten finishes for subh (not sure about VGN here). I think one of the things that really helps alliances is having targets to achieve or knowing you're involved in a war. Building a good solid team-ethic is one of the results from this and really it's one of the only ways to move your alliance forward. Only through challenging ourselves can we transcend our limitations (or something equally inane).

Whether subh benefited is open to question, but if they are considered to be of comparitive skill to an alliance like NewDawn, then it's pishtosh to say they are overperforming.

Subh were considered to be of comparative skill to ND? Really?

Originally Posted by sniborp

I've got to agree with Lokken disagreeing with you. There wasn't really any serious competition for those places (besides themselves) so they ended up in their 'natural' places as Lokken said. The top 5 alliances could have finished in any order so saying they finished 1 place below 1up is a bit of a pointless comment.

This has become some sort of begging the question approach. Firstly my post did not solely concern alliance rankings. Other factors such as alliance strength going into the next round come into play here. From this perspective, considering the number of one round wonders you get at times, I think both alliances came out very well. Of course we'll have to wait until next round to be sure of this.

In what has been a round of higher quality alliances vgn and subh both finished as the "best of the rest" alliances with solid foundations that look in good shape for the next round. I think a lot of the strength that both alliances found during the round came from the fact they found themselves involved in the main wars of the round. They did not undergo internal problems leading to a split in the alliance, they kept their members active and their officers motivated and they did not mass recruit to achieve their position. The fact that people now think so highly of them is indicative of their success this round. Allying exilition lead to more benefits, short-term and long-term (both directly and indirectly), for vgn and subh than staying unallied did.

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

I disagree, 1up is surely the alliance that had it hardest all round, and still they remained, they didn't split or anything, in my gal I had 4 1up'ers and only 1 stopped playing actively half round due to real life stuff
they kept playing, and kept playing their way
if it was any other alliance in their boots I'd say they'd have called it quits and stopped playing that round, or maybe even lost alot of members for future rounds aswell
anyway, what I'm saying, they achieved alot, they achieved showing other ppl and other alliances they are an alliance with foundations that won't break when they have it hard, while vgn and subh just showed they'll settle for a top10 spot to help another alliance to the first spot

My comment was no slur on 1up. Personally I never considered 1up as the sort of alliance that would dissolve just because it had it tough. My comment was aimed more at the relative successes of each alliance in r15. Obviously I would not say that vgn and subh are better alliances than 1up, and I cannot imagine any HCs of either alliance would. Rather my point concerns the fact that vgn and subh improved more as alliances this round than 1up did. Considering some of the comments from 1up members on this forum concerning their own strength over both this round and the last one I do not think my comment is very far off base.

To say that vgn and subh settled for a top 10 spot in order to help another alliance to the first spot is a poor analysis of the situation. How exactly did they settle for a top ten spot? VGN and Subh both hit alliances that were ahead of them. Settling for a top ten spot would be finding yourself in ninth or tenth and then hitting the alliances behind you (see r12 for where many people consider LCH to have settled for second place by hitting ND). Moving on were exilition helped by their alliance with vgn and subh? Most undoubtedly. However as I have outlined above subh and vgn also benefitted from their alliance with exilition (pausing briefly to mention tactical experience passed on from the latter to both of the former at the officer level which I did not expressly state before now). The alliance proved to be one of mutual benefit.

All in all it's difficult without HC revealing precise inner details of their alliances, which it would be unwise to make public, to outline the exact benefits of the political situation this round. Moderator advice of moving on to greener pastures with cows and sheep and small bunny rabbits named herbert (or herbie if you prefer).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Heartless

The more interesting question would be, what is "controlling the politics"?

Politics is a mental construct. Controlling the politics is 1) having goals in mind and through 2) performing, or not performing, various actions you construct 3) an image in other people's minds which 4) proves to be of benefit in your endeavour to achieve the goals you had in mind. Obviously from this you can control the politics to a greater or lesser extent. One would presume that robban means that 1up controlled the politics to the point that they had a greater percentage chance of winning the round than if they had not done anything.

Originally Posted by robban1

so why isnt it allowed to express your opinions on a subject on a puplic forum?

if he now silly enough to actually post in a place that he thinks is that stuff above it should be within his rights or?

so if you guys thinks someone stepps on a toe or something just delate the post with an explanation of your actions, its no biggie

It is, but not when it is to the detriment of further discussion. His "statement of intentions" was not of benefit to the forums and his indication of his future actions was that of further negative influence. Ergo he was banned.

and on topic, subh did great really ,,pld us

Indeed.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Heartless

The more interesting question would be, what is "controlling the politics"?

well as qebab said above after tick 500 so your shot of winning was more or less gone, with the old politic skill of the hc of 1up they would turn the uni to their win but as they didnt succeed with it, your preformance was "average"

f.ex you was orange to me most of the round

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by robban1

well as qebab said above after tick 500 so your shot of winning was more or less gone, with the old politic skill of the hc of 1up they would turn the uni to their win but as they didnt succeed with it, your preformance was "average"

f.ex you was orange to me most of the round

You mean because we still got gang banged by you and your friends we didn't have the political skill? That must be the explanation.

[Shyne]

Dont rise to robbans dribble !

[robban1]

read my post again m8

[cura]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

To say that vgn and subh settled for a top 10 spot in order to help another alliance to the first spot is a poor analysis of the situation. How exactly did they settle for a top ten spot? VGN and Subh both hit alliances that were ahead of them. Settling for a top ten spot would be finding yourself in ninth or tenth and then hitting the alliances behind you (see r12 for where many people consider LCH to have settled for second place by hitting ND). Moving on were exilition helped by their alliance with vgn and subh? Most undoubtedly. However as I have outlined above subh and vgn also benefitted from their alliance with exilition (pausing briefly to mention tactical experience passed on from the latter to both of the former at the officer level which I did not expressly state before now). The alliance proved to be one of mutual benefit.

top 10 spot was a matter of speech, since there hardly are 10 alliances left, VGN and Subh both hit alliances that were ahead of them and had the guarantee they wouldn't be hit by them because these alliances were too busy with their boss-alliance: exi, add to that exi didn't hit them either since it was in their "name" they were hitting those alliances
mutual benefit, sure, why wouldn't u have one of mutual benefit, but obviously more benefit for exi and a benefit of easy roids for subh/vgn.. it showed the community that subh/vgn don't care for a low rank with easy roids in trade for helping one of the strongest alliances to the #1 spot

[furball]

Originally Posted by robban1

well as qebab said above after tick 500 so your shot of winning was more or less gone, with the old politic skill of the hc of 1up they would turn the uni to their win but as they didnt succeed with it, your preformance was "average"

f.ex you was orange to me most of the round

You can't make something out of nothing, and 1up can't perform miracles any more than the rest of us can.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

top 10 spot was a matter of speech, since there hardly are 10 alliances left, VGN and Subh both hit alliances that were ahead of them and had the guarantee they wouldn't be hit by them because these alliances were too busy with their boss-alliance: exi, add to that exi didn't hit them either since it was in their "name" they were hitting those alliances
mutual benefit, sure, why wouldn't u have one of mutual benefit, but obviously more benefit for exi and a benefit of easy roids for subh/vgn.. it showed the community that subh/vgn don't care for a low rank with easy roids in trade for helping one of the strongest alliances to the #1 spot

In tick 600 or so (if i recall correctly) subh was in 11th place. Shortly after this VGN were in 11th place. After this point both alliances hit alliances above them and ended up in 6th and 7th places. Again how is this settling for anything? VGN and Subh were not contenders for the number one spot this round. Who ended up there is irrelevant to them. Even if VGN and subh weren't allied to exilition they probably would have gone the same way. Hitting alliances which are unlikely to hit you back with benefits in xp due to large value planets is a good idea. I should really stop posting now seeing as I advised other people to do so as well

[Proxi]

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

it showed the community that subh/vgn don't care for a low rank

I would have said a realistic, if not a slightly optimistic rank. Therefore, to re-iterate JBG's point, how were we and VGN settling for anything? Are you saying perhaps that we should have helped roid exil instead and in so doing helped a different alliance to the top spot?
The alliance was mutally beneficial, and as such I don't see how people can complain about it.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think this ignores the fact that alliance quality was significantly higher this round than it has been in a long time. There were three alliances with top of the line militaries out there and four who were thought of as potential winners of the round. Finishing sixth or seventh this round is worth a lot more than it was last round. Of course this can be considered to be a subjective judgement but I'd be really surprised if you disagreed with me here.

Be surprised, then - go look who was positioned in the bottom half of the top 10 at those rounds - they haven't changed very much in terms of quality. While there was mass collapse in round 14, several alliances benefited by being able to bring those people into their own ranks. The playing field in that region of the universe hasn't changed a good deal.

You're slightly off track here. For many alliances it's considered a success to go through the round and finish as a single solid entity. Avoiding the sort of internal problems that Insomnia and ToF (obviously different types of internal problems) had is a success. If you read back over the r15 predictions thread you won't find a huge number of people predicting top ten finishes for subh (not sure about VGN here). I think one of the things that really helps alliances is having targets to achieve or knowing you're involved in a war. Building a good solid team-ethic is one of the results from this and really it's one of the only ways to move your alliance forward. Only through challenging ourselves can we transcend our limitations (or something equally inane).

Finishing this round is hardly an achievement, first off, especially for a medium tier alliance. Being that this round didn't drag on and that the targeting in this round was particularly top heavy in comparison to others, there wasn't any back breaking pressure on the lower level as there was on an alliance like say, round 14.

Not collapsing and finishing rounds is a pre-requisite for an alliance to exist in my book, not an achievement that warrants special praise - the only reason that such alliances don't get chastised as there's respect and sympathy. Even so, you've still failed entirely to address the point that finishing above TGV and F-Crew for Subh and VGN as some kind of overperformance. For an alliances playing as they are, 6th and 7th are at their level. There aren't any worse alliances above, and there certainly aren't any better alliances below them. Is napping a large alliance a sign of ambition? I see it as more of a confirmation of status as being between 5th and 10th (which is their natural position in any case) when we have an exi sphere and a 1up sphere going at each other. Ambition would be "so we have these politics in the universe, how can we profit and cause an upset?"

As for predictions, what kind of criteria is that? The majority of them are woefully inaccurate and based on what you feel like when you post, rather than any kind of objective criteria. I don't call picking targets in a shared channel and occasionally sending defence elsewhere a "challenge".

Subh were considered to be of comparative skill to ND? Really?

This may have been an exaggeration on my part, considering we have a bc as wonderfully able as Gate (albeit part time) and we have a huge stack of political brains. Like subh, it would be fair to say that ND was below exilition, 1up, angels and lch in terms of quality, considering their horrible military performance this round. So ok, ND are a bit better than subh.

Your post was about Subh and VGN doing well out of an agreement. Since tags there has only been one key criterion - ranking. ND had the performance of its life in round 12, yet in this round where we didn't come close to that level, we nearly won against superior opposition and this will probably be regarded as our best round. The main reason we felt proud of ourselves in round 12, was because we fought our way above HR into 3rd - ranking defines achievement. 1up are a fantastic alliance, yet they finished 5th and it is on that 5th that even you yourself have chosen to judge them. Performed well? Feeling good about yourselves? No one need care for anything except ranking and on this point, exilition are bang on correct. ND could have been utter shite this round, and finished 1st, but no one would have cared how bad we are, it would be a round well played as far as everyone else was concerned - why? Because our politics would have got us an exceptional ranking. VGN/subh's politics have not achieved a 4th or a 5th which in my view would be "exceptional".

I don't think VGN or subh settled for anything or sacrificed any rank - but to suggest that a nap with exilition provided any significant impact on their achievements is an entire false economy. Moreover, I have a concession from a VGN HC on this very thread simply because he refuses to name any requisite benefit from the agreement.

[Nitros]

its fun to see how a single question of "do you play r16?" can turn out in such a flamefest.

happy newyear all !

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by pig

Interesting that, considering 1up had very little effect on the politics of r15, yet exilition et al carried on focusing on us. Now if we cant control the politics, whats the point of attacking an alliance circa 4th/5th position?

You my friend as usual are speaking bs. Yes politically we can out manouvere certain allies, probably allies like subh. But military wise we are a force not to be reckoned with, im sure eXilition members and LCH members and others in the past who received incoming off us can backup that statement.

As they say....
You underestimate 1up at your own peril (or is it roids)... And no one in their right mind can disagree with that.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by lokken

Finishing this round is hardly an achievement, first off, especially for a medium tier alliance. Being that this round didn't drag on and that the targeting in this round was particularly top heavy in comparison to others, there wasn't any back breaking pressure on the lower level as there was on an alliance like say, round 14.

Not collapsing and finishing rounds is a pre-requisite for an alliance to exist in my book, not an achievement that warrants special praise - the only reason that such alliances don't get chastised as there's respect and sympathy. Even so, you've still failed entirely to address the point that finishing above TGV and F-Crew for Subh and VGN as some kind of overperformance. For an alliances playing as they are, 6th and 7th are at their level. There aren't any worse alliances above, and there certainly aren't any better alliances below them. Is napping a large alliance a sign of ambition? I see it as more of a confirmation of status as being between 5th and 10th (which is their natural position in any case) when we have an exi sphere and a 1up sphere going at each other. Ambition would be "so we have these politics in the universe, how can we profit and cause an upset?"
.

Considering In the predictions thread alot of people didnt have subh as a top 10... I would say that subh had exceeded expectations.

Also that it was subh's first round, We had few tech problems, We had alot of new members and had to have time for the ally to gel. We did have a few people who were accepted into subh but had to work at their skills in PA. TBH I can only take on a few apprentices at a time.

NAPing was never a sign of ambition, As I keep saying it was to stop bigger alliances from bashing us (and they know who they were) when a 1v1 war would have been costly/defeating.

As for the politics Subh played it well. We profited from the bigger allys roids and xp when they had another war(s) on different fronts when we couldnt have normally roided them. If we didn't cause an upset why would alot of people calling subh "flak."

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Be surprised, then - go look who was positioned in the bottom half of the top 10 at those rounds - they haven't changed very much in terms of quality. While there was mass collapse in round 14, several alliances benefited by being able to bring those people into their own ranks. The playing field in that region of the universe hasn't changed a good deal.

Talking specifics then one would have realistically expected 1up, angels, exilition, ND, LCH, insomnia, ToF to finish ahead of subh and vgn. Alliances such as xVx who finished fourth the previous round and HR with a decent previous track-record and TGV could also have finished ahead of both alliances without it being shocking.

Finishing this round is hardly an achievement, first off, especially for a medium tier alliance. Being that this round didn't drag on and that the targeting in this round was particularly top heavy in comparison to others, there wasn't any back breaking pressure on the lower level as there was on an alliance like say, round 14.

In fairness considering how many alliances fail to do even that these days it is an achievement. Especially in the case of subh who are a brand new alliance.

Not collapsing and finishing rounds is a pre-requisite for an alliance to exist in my book, not an achievement that warrants special praise - the only reason that such alliances don't get chastised as there's respect and sympathy. Even so, you've still failed entirely to address the point that finishing above TGV and F-Crew for Subh and VGN as some kind of overperformance. For an alliances playing as they are, 6th and 7th are at their level. There aren't any worse alliances above, and there certainly aren't any better alliances below them. Is napping a large alliance a sign of ambition? I see it as more of a confirmation of status as being between 5th and 10th (which is their natural position in any case) when we have an exi sphere and a 1up sphere going at each other. Ambition would be "so we have these politics in the universe, how can we profit and cause an upset?"

I did not say it was an overperformance. I said two things, that vgn and subh probably achieved more of their goals than 1up did and that the alliance to exilition proved of significant benefit to both alliances. What's up with strawmanning me today? I did not say they significantly overachieved in terms of ranking. However their ranking was quite good, towards the upper end of the rankings they would have been expected to achieve. Your idea of an ambitious approach isn't ambitious it's insane. Subh started this round with approximately 60 members, VGN with pretty similar numbers (perhaps slightly less). In what sort of bizzare world would their HC have been outlining plans to steal a third place spot or whatever?

As for predictions, what kind of criteria is that? The majority of them are woefully inaccurate and based on what you feel like when you post, rather than any kind of objective criteria. I don't call picking targets in a shared channel and occasionally sending defence elsewhere a "challenge".

You could pretty much extend this to apply to every alliance dude.

Your post was about Subh and VGN doing well out of an agreement. Since tags there has only been one key criterion - ranking. ND had the performance of its life in round 12, yet in this round where we didn't come close to that level, we nearly won against superior opposition and this will probably be regarded as our best round. The main reason we felt proud of ourselves in round 12, was because we fought our way above HR into 3rd - ranking defines achievement. 1up are a fantastic alliance, yet they finished 5th and it is on that 5th that even you yourself have chosen to judge them. Performed well? Feeling good about yourselves? No one need care for anything except ranking and on this point, exilition are bang on correct. ND could have been utter shite this round, and finished 1st, but no one would have cared how bad we are, it would be a round well played as far as everyone else was concerned - why? Because our politics would have got us an exceptional ranking. VGN/subh's politics have not achieved a 4th or a 5th which in my view would be "exceptional".

I never said it was exceptional though. Frankly I disagree as regards ranking. Outside the battle for the number one spot and "the win" other factors come into play a lot more. The improvement of the alliance and the attitude with which it will approach future rounds are vitally important.

I don't think VGN or subh settled for anything or sacrificed any rank - but to suggest that a nap with exilition provided any significant impact on their achievements is an entire false economy. Moreover, I have a concession from a VGN HC on this very thread simply because he refuses to name any requisite benefit from the agreement.

I did not say that it provided any significant impact on their achievements to date. I said it was of benefit to both alliances. (I don't think the way I mentioned the 1up thing helped clear up my point, it was really just an offhand remark concerning one particular area). Concerning furball it's rather more about not wishing to discuss internal alliance affairs on a public forum than anything else.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Nitros

its fun to see how a single question of "do you play r16?" can turn out in such a flamefest.

happy newyear all !

This thread is probably the best thing that ever happened to AD since God knows when..

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by pig

Interesting that, considering 1up had very little effect on the politics of r15, yet exilition et al carried on focusing on us. Now if we cant control the politics, whats the point of attacking an alliance circa 4th/5th position?

You my friend as usual are speaking bs. Yes politically we can out manouvere certain allies, probably allies like subh. But military wise we are a force not to be reckoned with, im sure eXilition members and LCH members and others in the past who received incoming off us can backup that statement.

I don't think anyone in Exilition have the arrogance to deny what 1up did last round, i myself stated in previous posts my opinions of last round, a very enjoyable one at that. It's a shame how people have turned this post into one big argument when all it was asking is who will be playing next round.

Anyway everyone knows Exilitions stance, every member of Exilition will have a reason for not playing and those who might play but not under the tag of Exi is purely a decision taken as a group, anyone else outside of Exilition have no influence on that decision no matter what people say or think. The people who brought up Exi were not even people i know so this is not an attack at Pig or 1up.

So Everyone but Exi playing then??

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Rather my point concerns the fact that vgn and subh improved more as alliances this round than 1up did. Considering some of the comments from 1up members on this forum concerning their own strength over both this round and the last one I do not think my comment is very far off base.

When you're top of your game, the only way is down

I know you love pedanicism.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by sniborp

When you're top of your game, the only way is down

I know you love pedanicism.

Pedantism

And winning a more difficult round would have been "up".

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Talking specifics then one would have realistically expected 1up, angels, exilition, ND, LCH, insomnia, ToF to finish ahead of subh and vgn. Alliances such as xVx who finished fourth the previous round and HR with a decent previous track-record and TGV could also have finished ahead of both alliances without it being shocking.

In fairness considering how many alliances fail to do even that these days it is an achievement. Especially in the case of subh who are a brand new alliance.

I wouldn't consider insomnia above anyone considering they have a fantastic record for mid-round disbanding. ToF had a split, which you can put down to natural wasteage. HR have pretty much been in decline for quite a few rounds since we saw them off in r12. So, even so 6th and 7th are about right in my view.

I did not say it was an overperformance. I said two things, that vgn and subh probably achieved more of their goals than 1up did and that the alliance to exilition proved of significant benefit to both alliances. What's up with strawmanning me today? I did not say they significantly overachieved in terms of ranking. However their ranking was quite good, towards the upper end of the rankings they would have been expected to achieve. Your idea of an ambitious approach isn't ambitious it's insane. Subh started this round with approximately 60 members, VGN with pretty similar numbers (perhaps slightly less). In what sort of bizzare world would their HC have been outlining plans to steal a third place spot or whatever?

Considering 1up can only have one goal, and VGN/subh can have plenty, I'd say that's a pretty bad comparison - if 1up don't win, as far as they're concerned the round isn't worth anything - 1ups goal (1st) is far more difficult to achieve than anything VGN and subh are concerned with. Their goals just don't correlate. As for phrases such as "strawman" and "ad hominem", I just see them as phrases that people chuck in to look clever without actually addressing anything. Fortunately, you have.

Ambitious? Insane? I'd say they are pretty closely related. The thought of ambition is going for success that people thought wasn't achievable. ND started round 14 with 40 members and finished 2nd because they chose not to limit themselves and sit under someone else's wing. As you say their ranking is within the expected range, I don't see how you are disagreeing with anything i've said - if you want to quibble about one rank over TGV (who aren't very much different) in the bottom half of the top 10, it's pedantry to the extreme today.

You could pretty much extend this to apply to every alliance dude.

Perhaps because it does?

I never said it was exceptional though. Frankly I disagree as regards ranking. Outside the battle for the number one spot and "the win" other factors come into play a lot more. The improvement of the alliance and the attitude with which it will approach future rounds are vitally important.

I did not say that it provided any significant impact on their achievements to date. I said it was of benefit to both alliances. (I don't think the way I mentioned the 1up thing helped clear up my point, it was really just an offhand remark concerning one particular area). Concerning furball it's rather more about not wishing to discuss internal alliance affairs on a public forum than anything else.

What improvement? Do easy roids improve alliances? I'd tend to believe it gives them more delusions of grandeur rather than give anything towards their ability. As for furball, he's refused to talk in even general terms, so i'll presume he's got nothing to say on the topic.

[wakey]

In the discussion between JBG and Lokken I find myself in the middle ground. On one hand Lokken is right the finishing position for Subh and VGN simply wasnt 'outstanding'. Yes they both did well but the finishing positions of either wasnt that suprising. They were fighting it out for positions they were MORE than capable of acheiving with the resources they had at hand, its not like we are talking about an alliance like Orbit making top 10 after all.

On the other hand though you cant discount how agreements might have helped them acheive their ranking. We can never be totally sure how much help an agreement brings but we might have seen both alliance down a few ranks without it. I know at F-Crew we had a couple of offers from top5 alliances for such agreements and when I was looking at how that decision to say no changed things we lost around 10-15million in score by not taking them which is a couple of places difference in the rankings so its not too far fetched to say that their political decisions did earn them a few positions

[furball]

I'm in the rather fortunate position of JBG having made most of the points that I would have. But I'll add some stuff for clarification, and quote some stuff for approval.

Originally Posted by lokken

For an alliances playing as they are, 6th and 7th are at their level. There aren't any worse alliances above, and there certainly aren't any better alliances below them. Is napping a large alliance a sign of ambition? I see it as more of a confirmation of status as being between 5th and 10th (which is their natural position in any case) when we have an exi sphere and a 1up sphere going at each other. Ambition would be "so we have these politics in the universe, how can we profit and cause an upset?"

6th and 7th are seen as being at our level now that the round is over. Before the round, both Tides of Fire and xVx were considered to be in strong contention for these places. TGV were always close, proven by their finish in 8th. Perhaps your perception that VGN belongs where it finished is because of how we did this round, as opposed to any pre-round expectation.

Originally Posted by lokken

While there was mass collapse in round 14, several alliances benefited by being able to bring those people into their own ranks. The playing field in that region of the universe hasn't changed a good deal.

You're wrong there. I can understand why you're wrong, since you don't play in that 'region of the universe', but you are. Some alliances have decreased in quality (HR, xVx, ToF), others have massively improved (TGV among others). For example, we were far more comfortable taking on HR/ROCK (which was decided on a coin-flip) in Round 15 than we would have been in Round 14.

Originally Posted by lokken

I wouldn't consider insomnia above anyone considering they have a fantastic record for mid-round disbanding. ToF had a split, which you can put down to natural wasteage. HR have pretty much been in decline for quite a few rounds since we saw them off in r12. So, even so 6th and 7th are about right in my view.

You dismiss Insomnia too easily, but never mind that. ToF's split was inexcusable, however nicely everyone wants to treat them for it. Alliances split because they have major internal problems, there's no other reason. We could have split in Round 13 - we did badly enough. But what didn't break us made us stronger - proven in our recovery to the Round 15 position. And again, you're perceiving the strength of alliances by how they did by the end of this round, while ignoring the fact that you set your ambitions at the start of the round.

Originally Posted by lokken

Since tags there has only been one key criterion - ranking.

In Round 10, Elysium won the rankings but Eclipse have since been credited with being the best alliance, since Elysium recruited their enemies to get to #1. So your supposition's wrong.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I never said it was exceptional though. Frankly I disagree as regards ranking. Outside the battle for the number one spot and "the win" other factors come into play a lot more. The improvement of the alliance and the attitude with which it will approach future rounds are vitally important.

Well said.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Your idea of an ambitious approach isn't ambitious it's insane.

I'd hope that you'd know this, but...

Originally Posted by lokken

VGN/subh's politics have not achieved a 4th or a 5th which in my view would be "exceptional".

lokken, you introduced the criterion of exceptional performance and are now attacking it. A quick Google search indicates that this is what JBG describes as 'strawmanning'. Anyway, please stop . Anyway, in response to that - we would have been insane to aim for 5th - although we did give vague consideration to passing 1up near to the end of the round. Unsuprisingly, it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by lokken

ND started round 14 with 40 members and finished 2nd because they chose not to limit themselves and sit under someone else's wing.

NewDawn subsequently recruited a lot of members from the fallen Insomnia, among other collapsed alliances. One might say that you went and got your own wing instead. Oh, and attacking three of the top four alliances is limiting yourselves?

Originally Posted by lokken

I don't think VGN or subh settled for anything or sacrificed any rank - but to suggest that a nap with exilition provided any significant impact on their achievements is an entire false economy. Moreover, I have a concession from a VGN HC on this very thread simply because he refuses to name any requisite benefit from the agreement.

Originally Posted by lokken

As for furball, he's refused to talk in even general terms, so i'll presume he's got nothing to say on the topic.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Concerning furball it's rather more about not wishing to discuss internal alliance affairs on a public forum than anything else.

As everyone sane knows, I made no concession, etc. I see no reason to go into detail on how working with eXil helped us, and that's the end of it. JBG summarises things nicely.

Originally Posted by buddies

Considering In the predictions thread alot of people didnt have subh as a top 10... I would say that subh had exceeded expectations.

Actually, I did

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

I wouldn't consider insomnia above anyone considering they have a fantastic record for mid-round disbanding. ToF had a split, which you can put down to natural wasteage. HR have pretty much been in decline for quite a few rounds since we saw them off in r12. So, even so 6th and 7th are about right in my view.

That said it's safe to say that of the realistic range of expectations both alliances were in the higher range. This, by any definition, is a good performance. Not an outstanding one, not an excellent one, just a good one.

Considering 1up can only have one goal, and VGN/subh can have plenty, I'd say that's a pretty bad comparison - if 1up don't win, as far as they're concerned the round isn't worth anything - 1ups goal (1st) is far more difficult to achieve than anything VGN and subh are concerned with. Their goals just don't correlate.

A fair enough point and not one I was disagreeing with. To draw a hypothetical picture say 1up with an approximate alliance ability of 90% performed at 75% and have an expectation for next round of 80%, whereas Subh had an approximate alliance ability of 55% performed at 65% and have an expectation for next round of 70%. Note that those aren't numbers I think are right or really represent anything, just an illustration of what I mean by relative alliance ability and performance.

Ambitious? Insane? I'd say they are pretty closely related. The thought of ambition is going for success that people thought wasn't achievable. ND started round 14 with 40 members and finished 2nd because they chose not to limit themselves and sit under someone else's wing. As you say their ranking is within the expected range, I don't see how you are disagreeing with anything i've said - if you want to quibble about one rank over TGV (who aren't very much different) in the bottom half of the top 10, it's pedantry to the extreme today.

Rather different political situations wouldn't you say? Rather different alliance quality towards the top no? That said I did not claim that subh or vgn were wildly ambitious. To go back to what was originally in question I said that vgn and subh benefitted considerably from allying exilition this round. In terms of this round where it helped them do well (not spectacular just well) and in terms of how it helped the alliance grow for future rounds. All of that said and done, and referencing something zhil mentioned slightly earlier, I think most of this could have been accomplished by allying any of 1up, angels or exilition (ND less so).

Perhaps because it does?

I don't quite see how you imagine that alliances (specifically their members) improve through playing then. If you're going to call what members do effectively nothing then you're unfairly diminishing their contribution to their respective alliances.

What improvement? Do easy roids improve alliances? I'd tend to believe it gives them more delusions of grandeur rather than give anything towards their ability. As for furball, he's refused to talk in even general terms, so i'll presume he's got nothing to say on the topic.

They were hardly easy roids. Sure didn't everyone say that VGN and Subh attacked first to draw off defence from 1up/ND/Angels? Hardly the easiest of roids I'd say.


(I had a longer reply written out earlier but I took a break to go for a quick point and when I came back it was gone )

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That said it's safe to say that of the realistic range of expectations both alliances were in the higher range. This, by any definition, is a good performance. Not an outstanding one, not an excellent one, just a good one.

A fair enough point and not one I was disagreeing with. To draw a hypothetical picture say 1up with an approximate alliance ability of 90% performed at 75% and have an expectation for next round of 80%, whereas Subh had an approximate alliance ability of 55% performed at 65% and have an expectation for next round of 70%. Note that those aren't numbers I think are right or really represent anything, just an illustration of what I mean by relative alliance ability and performance.

Not going to disagree with any of this bar maybe replacing "good" with "decent", I have no idea where you plucked these figures from but I think i get what you mean

Rather different political situations wouldn't you say? Rather different alliance quality towards the top no? That said I did not claim that subh or vgn were wildly ambitious. To go back to what was originally in question I said that vgn and subh benefitted considerably from allying exilition this round. In terms of this round where it helped them do well (not spectacular just well) and in terms of how it helped the alliance grow for future rounds. All of that said and done, and referencing something zhil mentioned slightly earlier, I think most of this could have been accomplished by allying any of 1up, angels or exilition (ND less so).

Well, essentially round 15 is round 14 on a grander scale, hence its much longer staying power. I think it's fair to say ND started off in a pretty horrible position (near collapse) relative to how subh/VGN started, except we were a lot more angry

I'm someone who believes that blocking while it isn't detrimental to alliances if you are on the winner's side, isn't particularly beneficial either. I believe this round has demonstrated that beautifully. Infact I believe alliances benefit much more greatly and gain higher rankings when they entirely reject and play within their own political paradigm.

I don't quite see how you imagine that alliances (specifically their members) improve through playing then. If you're going to call what members do effectively nothing then you're unfairly diminishing their contribution to their respective alliances.

Alliances get better from learning from their mistakes and running with the ideas that work and building a team internally. Great alliances became great because they were or became great teams in the first place, rather than any political agreements they made. In blocks there is usually little experience of this, as there is usually one alliance in particular directing proceedings (in the classic strike/lesser alliance situation). Politics is making the best of what you've got, and blocking is (in my opinion) one of the best ways of ensuring that you don't pass alliances that are better than you.

They were hardly easy roids. Sure didn't everyone say that VGN and Subh attacked first to draw off defence from 1up/ND/Angels? Hardly the easiest of roids I'd say.

Can't be sure of this but i don't think i've ever claimed VGN/subh were doing early raids, only defending exilition planets as that's the only evidence ever submitted to me. I have no data on this, simply because my job was purely as a general advisor and i'm only semi active. If they took that route, then one can hardly describe any agreement as beneficial. If they were simply joining in on the feasting on ND/Angels then there were easy roids. Clearly we have no data to show either way, but if it's one then it's of no benefit at all, if it's the other, we're talking about simply taking easy roids which doesn't teach you very much and gained them all of a massive rank to finish ahead of TGV.

[furball]

To clear up the issue of co-ordination once and for all:

We had a nap, this means they didn't attack us and we didn't attack them. Apart from that we alternated between hitting galaxies and hitting those that hit us the most. When VGN and eXil hit the same targets, it was merely a coincidence as Exi hit them, they hit us and the next day we hit them and Exi hit them again and similar setups. Our BCs coordinated a bit with eXil BCs for attacks to avoid us hitting the same targets. At first this often failed because eXil only started thinking about targets when VGN had already put theirs up for claiming. Co-operation improved as the round went on, succeeding as in VGN and eXil agreed on who takes what; all the other times it had at most been VGN choosing a target and informing eXil so they didn't hit the same ones.


In that regard, you may as well regard eXil as VGN's support alliance.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Well, essentially round 15 is round 14 on a grander scale, hence its much longer staying power. I think it's fair to say ND started off in a pretty horrible position (near collapse) relative to how subh/VGN started, except we were a lot more angry

Well motivation is a difficult thing to create for yourselves. It's extremely dependent on prior circumstances and as such something that is difficult to quantify exactly. Was it due to the motivating qualities of your HC or just something random because your alliance got done the previous round? Only a wide range of samples over an extended period of time can tell.

I'm someone who believes that blocking while it isn't detrimental to alliances if you are on the winner's side, isn't particularly beneficial either. I believe this round has demonstrated that beautifully. Infact I believe alliances benefit much more greatly and gain higher rankings when they entirely reject and play within their own political paradigm.

I think in terms of blocks you have to analyse from the correct angle, namely that of the blocks or effective blocks. Say the winning block gets a certain edge by virtue of winning. This can be concentrated in one alliance or spread across all of the alliances composing that block evenly. I think this was one in between but tending towards the first slightly. That said it still doesn't mean the alliance was not a good idea.

Alliances get better from learning from their mistakes and running with the ideas that work and building a team internally. Great alliances became great because they were or became great teams in the first place, rather than any political agreements they made. In blocks there is usually little experience of this, as there is usually one alliance in particular directing proceedings (in the classic strike/lesser alliance situation). Politics is making the best of what you've got, and blocking is (in my opinion) one of the best ways of ensuring that you don't pass alliances that are better than you.

As I said, in my opinion the political agreement indirectly led to the improvement of the teams that are being built internally. Nor does it appear to have been your "classic situation" which we had in this round, judging from what furball said. I think some of our thought in this area is clouded due to previous experience with blocks in Planetarion. Similar to how many people assume they are a priori bad for the game.

Can't be sure of this but i don't think i've ever claimed VGN/subh were doing early raids, only defending exilition planets as that's the only evidence ever submitted to me. I have no data on this, simply because my job was purely as a general advisor and i'm only semi active. If they took that route, then one can hardly describe any agreement as beneficial. If they were simply joining in on the feasting on ND/Angels then there were easy roids. Clearly we have no data to show either way, but if it's one then it's of no benefit at all, if it's the other, we're talking about simply taking easy roids which doesn't teach you very much and gained them all of a massive rank to finish ahead of TGV.

Well no I don't really think that vgn/subh took all the hard targets. I think some of the time they launched earlier, and some of the time they launched later or at the same times. As furball says there was nothing precise either way. Landing on hard targets with high values for lots of xp is a very good thing, both for the immediate score and for what it teaches you for future rounds, and this was something both alliances did throughout the round when attacking the alliances above them. Nor, to sidetrack for a minute, would I define what went on throughout the round as "feasting". No alliance really got done badly until ND right in the last week, maybe two weeks, of the round. Hardly a fit thing to extrapolate for the whole round from. It was not a case of easy roids or flakalicious baby, more one of those delightful aristotelian mediums between excess and deficiency which led to an improvement in the state of the world on all fronts.

[furball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

As I said, in my opinion the political agreement indirectly led to the improvement of the teams that are being built internally. Nor does it appear to have been your "classic situation" which we had in this round, judging from what furball said. I think some of our thought in this area is clouded due to previous experience with blocks in Planetarion. Similar to how many people assume they are a priori bad for the game.

This is probably the first time that this has been addressed. The 'block' wasn't anything like the last block I was involved in, where the leading alliance chose the targets, prioritised them and usually took mass second waves and few first waves. The block pretty much collapsed by the end of the round, in part because of this.

In contrast, our relationship with eXil only went on the backburner once ND had been 'defeated' - with about a week to go.

[lokken]

6th and 7th are seen as being at our level now that the round is over. Before the round, both Tides of Fire and xVx were considered to be in strong contention for these places. TGV were always close, proven by their finish in 8th. Perhaps your perception that VGN belongs where it finished is because of how we did this round, as opposed to any pre-round expectation.

Not really, I think you'll recall me stating early on that I anticipated VGN potentially able to reach the position you ended up in here

You're wrong there. I can understand why you're wrong, since you don't play in that 'region of the universe', but you are. Some alliances have decreased in quality (HR, xVx, ToF), others have massively improved (TGV among others). For example, we were far more comfortable taking on HR/ROCK (which was decided on a coin-flip) in Round 15 than we would have been in Round 14.

So you're claiming you've moved sideways? So not much has really changed in terms of quality, has it?

You dismiss Insomnia too easily, but never mind that. ToF's split was inexcusable, however nicely everyone wants to treat them for it. Alliances split because they have major internal problems, there's no other reason. We could have split in Round 13 - we did badly enough. But what didn't break us made us stronger - proven in our recovery to the Round 15 position. And again, you're perceiving the strength of alliances by how they did by the end of this round, while ignoring the fact that you set your ambitions at the start of the round.

I think Ins' track record speaks for itself. I didn't excuse ToF by any stretch, I just put it down to natural wastage on the basis that there's always a couple of alliances that naturally bugger themselves in a round.

In Round 10, Elysium won the rankings but Eclipse have since been credited with being the best alliance, since Elysium recruited their enemies to get to #1. So your supposition's wrong.

They're the winners of round 10, despite not being the best. The best alliance doesn't always win.

lokken, you introduced the criterion of exceptional performance and are now attacking it. A quick Google search indicates that this is what JBG describes as 'strawmanning'. Anyway, please stop . Anyway, in response to that - we would have been insane to aim for 5th - although we did give vague consideration to passing 1up near to the end of the round. Unsuprisingly, it didn't happen.

Consider similarly able alliances have achieved just that, I don't rule it out by any stretch.

NewDawn subsequently recruited a lot of members from the fallen Insomnia, among other collapsed alliances. One might say that you went and got your own wing instead. Oh, and attacking three of the top four alliances is limiting yourselves?

The recruitment was only made in response to another alliance's mass recruitment - we never wanted it, but were forced to do it because we had the applicants who felt we had the reputation and wanted to join us. At the point of recruitment, I believe we had a good ranking of 3rd at the time in any case, and eventually passed reunion after engaging them in combat.

As everyone sane knows, I made no concession, etc. I see no reason to go into detail on how working with eXil helped us, and that's the end of it. JBG summarises things nicely.

As far as i'm concerned, dodging the issue is as good as no reply. I've been more than honest, while all you've done is cry about confidentiality and cling to anyone decent who wants to help you out by saying "that's gr8".

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Well motivation is a difficult thing to create for yourselves. It's extremely dependent on prior circumstances and as such something that is difficult to quantify exactly. Was it due to the motivating qualities of your HC or just something random because your alliance got done the previous round? Only a wide range of samples over an extended period of time can tell.

The only motivation we had was because some prat wrote us off, and we wanted to prove them wrong. We have those who jumped to thank. On top of that he then tried to fook us up by releasing our coords to everyone via abuse of his access to a server.

I think in terms of blocks you have to analyse from the correct angle, namely that of the blocks or effective blocks. Say the winning block gets a certain edge by virtue of winning. This can be concentrated in one alliance or spread across all of the alliances composing that block evenly. I think this was one in between but tending towards the first slightly. That said it still doesn't mean the alliance was not a good idea.

I think it's better to control your own destiny than be reliant on someone else's success.

As I said, in my opinion the political agreement indirectly led to the improvement of the teams that are being built internally. Nor does it appear to have been your "classic situation" which we had in this round, judging from what furball said. I think some of our thought in this area is clouded due to previous experience with blocks in Planetarion. Similar to how many people assume they are a priori bad for the game.

Often what will happen in successful blocks is that while there will be an agreement and concensus, the larger alliance will instigate the target selection and have a great deal of bearing on what is and isn't hit by whom. Simply because the larger alliance needs this to happen, or else it WILL be defeated. While smaller alliances will have preferences, larger alliances have necessities and will press a good deal harder and are a lot less open to concession, even though they won't appear to be dictating at all and of course they won't cos they need the lesser alliances. While all parties are pretty happy, the result is largely to the bigger alliance's benefit.

Well no I don't really think that vgn/subh took all the hard targets. I think some of the time they launched earlier, and some of the time they launched later or at the same times. As furball says there was nothing precise either way. Landing on hard targets with high values for lots of xp is a very good thing, both for the immediate score and for what it teaches you for future rounds, and this was something both alliances did throughout the round when attacking the alliances above them. Nor, to sidetrack for a minute, would I define what went on throughout the round as "feasting". No alliance really got done badly until ND right in the last week, maybe two weeks, of the round. Hardly a fit thing to extrapolate for the whole round from. It was not a case of easy roids or flakalicious baby, more one of those delightful aristotelian mediums between excess and deficiency which led to an improvement in the state of the world on all fronts.

I didn't say it went either way, simply because I don't know. Really all this says this was a bit of both, and because aristotle said so, we'll presume it to be positive. All I've pointed out is that their ranking reflects that the result was "meh" and that looking back into the history books, there doesn't appear much that alliances learn when you compare them to using their own initiative..

[lokken]

oh and one at a time, as having to reply to both at once is ****ing impossible ta

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by lokken

So actually, you've got no answer that a NAP with exilition actually gave you any real benefit in the long term. Thanks for confirming that. I'm pleased you've admitted this.

ND sadly was in a position where it was faced with two sides from day 1 and it's easier to make a gamble (ending 1up and Angels' prospects) for 1st and 2nd, than a gamble (ending exilition's) which gets you anywhere from 1st to 4th potentially. Obviously, if we had taken sides, we don't even start to discuss the potential of a #1 position, because then we make quality a higher determining factor in game. ND played an independent game and to play that game you need a class BC turning up day in day out (ND had Gate, who can only manage part time) and a key 4-5 individuals to hold everything together throughout the round. You still need military teeth to achieve anything with such huge amounts of competition. ND couldn't form it's own block, because to succeed, it needed to maximise the number of targets it can hit because everyone else in the top 4 or 5 is stronger, as being locked in to a war for more than a few days for a good length of the round is pretty suicidal.

The only way out for ND was a military one, and the lack of preparation and any real tactics in that battle is what cost us. Politics can only get you so far in planetarion, you can't win by politics alone, you need to be a hard alliance. The military collapse on behalf of ND was actually more spectacular than people think, and that some ND would like to admit. The fact that the round was won by only 4 days shows that our strategy politically was pretty canny. The key to planetarion being won and lost was in our shambolic performance. Even so we still finished 2nd. Had we been able to perform, I'm confident we could have frustrated exilition enough to run down the clock and waste enough time, despite them being an inherently superior alliance with the weight of numbers.

What ND does in the future however, is entirely open to question. There may be a different solution to future rounds.

Mmm, eventhough I agree you collapsed pretty spectacular ... if ND would have had the military strength of Exi,1up or Angels then the round could've been completely different and tbh I'd see ND end lower then they did now.

I admit that when ND overtook us, I underestimated them. I figured ... let ND grow, it'll be piss easy to kill them and catch up again. To some extend that would've worked if we didn't had to deal with Exilition and their allies.

From the talks I had with Kaifux, he shared my vision on this and Exi was indeed capable of literally breaking down ND in a couple of days. IF ND would have been a better military force, alliances like Exi and Angels wouldn't have let them build up a lead ...

This imo would have lead to a complete different political landscape. ND played the way it played to make up for the lack of military power/experience. If they have that experience (and who knows, this round might have improved it alot) then they'd play a completely different style. In r15 they relied mainly on the political situation and on the actions of other alliances.
When an alliance is confident in his own military strength, it will no longer rely that much on politics and will take more initiative themselves.

All in all, I think if other alliances would have considered ND a bigger military force ... ND would have had a far harder round and I don't think you'd have ended #2.

There is a reason why Exi went after 1up from the start and there's a reason Exi attacked Angels before they even considered hitting ND. Exi played the perfect round imo, neutralizing their main opponents and then closing the "easy" deal in the end.

I also agree with your end phrase, Lokken. I don't think ND will play another round like this. You've improved your military or atleast realized that it needs to improve. So I believe ND will focus more on their own strength in the next rounds ... and imo that's a positive evolution.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Heartless

The more interesting question would be, what is "controlling the politics"?

I would define It as the HC's (policy makers) job to ensure that the BC's (military) has the right enviroment to do their jobs.

Have a read at "the art of war" Sun Tzu or http://www.sonshi.com for further study.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

From the talks I had with Kaifux, he shared my vision on this and Exi was indeed capable of literally breaking down ND in a couple of days. IF ND would have been a better military force, alliances like Exi and Angels wouldn't have let them build up a lead ...

The others I just about agree with, but not this point.

You didn't know how good or badly we would stand up against the onslaught from eXilition. No-one knew, not even us. It's all about perception. We thought and hoped our card had been underplayed enough. Our true military strength has nothing to do with how you perceived it to be. What we couldn't legislate for is people losing 5 ticks in a day and then not logging in again, despite still being t100 and ND having a 25m lead. That was a killer for us. Of course, actions will be taken for PA:N

[qebab]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The others I just about agree with, but not this point.

You didn't know how good or badly we would stand up against the onslaught from eXilition. No-one knew, not even us. It's all about perception. We thought and hoped our card had been underplayed enough. Our true military strength has nothing to do with how you perceived it to be. What we couldn't legislate for is people losing 5 ticks in a day and then not logging in again, despite still being t100 and ND having a 25m lead. That was a killer for us. Of course, actions will be taken for PA:N

ND had an awfully high suicide rate after your members started losing roids. I saw quite some news scans in wich ND members landed on fully covered planets, I can only assume it means stamina loss, or morale loss. Perhaps a mix? I don't really know.

You also had little success with your fleetcatches, and you had some people being fleetcaught. And there's nothing more of a morale killer than being successfully fleetcaught. eXilition also simply had way better defense - as for most people I know, losing roids isn't a killer, being unable to get roids is more of a killer. When I went 9 days without being able to land on eXilition, I was really starting to get fed up, but I kept going. I know Tesla went 12 days, despite having a good fleet, and he was starting to get tired of it as well.

This would be more of a morale killer at the end of the round, when you have to sprint to make a good end rank, I assume. And I guess it had something to do with your members obvious loss of morale and dedication - really, logging on for jgp and pulling a fleet isn't all that hard when you have the morale to keep going.


And, you're right, your true military strengt had nothing to do with how we percieved it to be - but you gained a lot of political advantages due to being estimated as an easy match against "leeter" alliances.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The others I just about agree with, but not this point.

You didn't know how good or badly we would stand up against the onslaught from eXilition. No-one knew, not even us. It's all about perception. We thought and hoped our card had been underplayed enough. Our true military strength has nothing to do with how you perceived it to be. What we couldn't legislate for is people losing 5 ticks in a day and then not logging in again, despite still being t100 and ND having a 25m lead. That was a killer for us. Of course, actions will be taken for PA:N

Not really, m8 ...

Exilition thought they could break ND in only a few days. That's what their perception of ND was and they sticked to that plan. In the end they were correct. If they didn't perceive ND like that, they'd have changed their strategy to take down ND.

Nobody knows upfront how strong or weak an alliance is going to be (atleast not very detailed). It's all about perception and how YOU think the other alliance will perform. Exi took the bet that ND would Crumble under their incs and that alot of ND would turn inactive and that the moral would drop. In the end, it seems they took the correct bet.

Alliances act on how THEY perceive you. How you perceive yourself or what your actual quality is, has nothing to do with this. Nothing at all even. If they feel you're strong, they'll act upon it, regardless if you're really strong or not at all.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Alliances act on how THEY perceive you. How you perceive yourself or what your actual quality is, has nothing to do with this. Nothing at all even. If they feel you're strong, they'll act upon it, regardless if you're really strong or not at all.

In general I couldnt agree more... When subh did intel exchanges with some other alliances, there was a pattern to what allys were a threat to them by the amount of intel on a certain allys. Wether intel was easy to collect on them or not.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by lokken

The only motivation we had was because some prat wrote us off, and we wanted to prove them wrong. We have those who jumped to thank. On top of that he then tried to fook us up by releasing our coords to everyone via abuse of his access to a server.

Nothing worse than being screwed up from the inside.
As with having "man utd/old firm fans" in your alliance it is best they jumped as they arent the people you want in your ally when the chips are down.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Not really, m8 ...

Exilition thought they could break ND in only a few days. That's what their perception of ND was and they sticked to that plan. In the end they were correct. If they didn't perceive ND like that, they'd have changed their strategy to take down ND.

Nobody knows upfront how strong or weak an alliance is going to be (atleast not very detailed). It's all about perception and how YOU think the other alliance will perform. Exi took the bet that ND would Crumble under their incs and that alot of ND would turn inactive and that the moral would drop. In the end, it seems they took the correct bet.

Alliances act on how THEY perceive you. How you perceive yourself or what your actual quality is, has nothing to do with this. Nothing at all even. If they feel you're strong, they'll act upon it, regardless if you're really strong or not at all.

You just wrote exactly what I was saying. You previously said that had ND been better militarily equipped you wouldnt have let us take a big lead, and here you say otherwise. It's all about perception.

And qebab I agree 100%

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

You just wrote exactly what I was saying. You previously said that had ND been better militarily equipped you wouldnt have let us take a big lead, and here you say otherwise. It's all about perception.

And qebab I agree 100%

You lost me ... Yes if we perceived ND to be better military equiped, we wouldn't have let you take such a big lead ... How am I saying things otherwise in my previous post? Sorry but this makes absolutely no sence to me, so plz tell me where I contradicted myself

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

The only motivation we had was because some prat wrote us off, and we wanted to prove them wrong. We have those who jumped to thank. On top of that he then tried to fook us up by releasing our coords to everyone via abuse of his access to a server.

As I said, it's difficult to credit your alliance for the motivation provided by something like that. Obviously you have the definite plus factor in your favour that your alliance didn't just collapse, however beyond this aspect, which is not all that rare, it's very much an external stimulant.

I think it's better to control your own destiny than be reliant on someone else's success.

This is a very unanalytical approach to the situation. One could equally offer the rather trite line that "it's better to use others to assist you than expend all the energy yourself". You can't really offer sensible short summations of the situation like that. For example like it or not but ND's political strategy was reliant on someone else's success. It depended on 1up and angels continuing to fight. If that hadn't happened then it's a fairly safe bet that (precluding other extreme political developments) ND would not have come so close to winning the round or spending a significant amount of time at number one in the alliance rankings. Any political stance is pretty much inherently reliant on what others do. Unless you're talking about some insane situation where you're effectively wasting your alliance to help someone else I wouldn't really say you've lost control of your alliance's destinty. VGN/subh's analysis of the situation was spot on, more so than ND's (of course these were in part self-fulfilling prophecies from both perspectives).

Often what will happen in successful blocks is that while there will be an agreement and concensus, the larger alliance will instigate the target selection and have a great deal of bearing on what is and isn't hit by whom. Simply because the larger alliance needs this to happen, or else it WILL be defeated. While smaller alliances will have preferences, larger alliances have necessities and will press a good deal harder and are a lot less open to concession, even though they won't appear to be dictating at all and of course they won't cos they need the lesser alliances. While all parties are pretty happy, the result is largely to the bigger alliance's benefit.

I'd be very dubious of whether this is the case this round. As furball outlined VGN target picking frequently occurred prior to exilition's and without argumentative consultation. I'd say it was much closer to a happy coincidence of circumstances with regards to targets [not] chosen. I really don't see how vgn or subh could be said to be losing out here. Perhaps exilition are gaining more here but I'd say vgn/subh are gaining more in the exchange of tactical expertise area I mentioned earlier.

I didn't say it went either way, simply because I don't know. Really all this says this was a bit of both, and because aristotle said so, we'll presume it to be positive. All I've pointed out is that their ranking reflects that the result was "meh" and that looking back into the history books, there doesn't appear much that alliances learn when you compare them to using their own initiative..

It's only either "meh" or "exceptional" with you deus guys It has been a good (or decent) result with other benefits in less immediately obvious areas. Generally I don't like drawing conclusions from prior sets of circumstances and drawing definite conclusions from the future for them (inductively speaking I dislike induction then ). Unless you're talking about very specific actions and results such as the fact that in a block you never finish ahead of the alliances that are militarily stronger than you are it's difficult to draw broader conclusions. Maybe in the past few alliances have come out much stronger from a block situation, but this was not your typical block situation.

[The_Fish]

You never said about perception in the paragraph I quoted. You said if ND was better militarily, you wouldn't have let us get a big lead. What I said was that you didnt really know if we were better militarily or not, it was just perception that we weren't good. If we were going to stand up to eXi better you would have taken the same actions as you did.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

You never said about perception in the paragraph I quoted. You said if ND was better militarily, you wouldn't have let us get a big lead. What I said was that you didnt really know if we were better militarily or not, it was just perception that we weren't good. If we were going to stand up to eXi better you would have taken the same actions as you did.

Obviously I meant "if we perceived ND as being stronger" ... I figured that was obvious. I mean, why on earth would I first claim that we acted on your real strength and then the next post make a statement that actual strength is pointless since it's how other alliances perceive you that decides their actions.

Sorry if I didn't manage to make my post clear enough, but I think you just missunderstood my post.