Are these Alliances around anymore?

[AV.]

Can anyone fill me in briefly on what happened to BT? I remember almost joining at one point but I think I was badmouthed by a 'friend' just before it got sorted and yet they've still remained close to my heart ever since..

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by Nadar

just like Anubis (recruits) and Illuminati (core).

*sniff* The good old days eh Nadar?!

[Exode]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

It's probably got to do with the fact that after so many rounds - what have you got to show for it ingame? At least Newdawn have actually been playing in the top levels (even if successful) and getting involved more into the game.

Noone cares F-Crew may be the oldest alliance in the game right now, it's still a tertiary level of alliance that no HC seems to take seriously.

This post annoyed me greatly. The fact that F-crew has managed to stick around countinuously since round two is for me a greater accomplishment than many of the "Alliances without soul" that has won one or two rounds and then disbanded. Even ND hasn't managed to stick around for as many rounds...

Blast you and your obvious focus on performance based achievements

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Exode

Even ND hasn't managed to stick around for as many rounds...

They would disagree I think.

Blast you and your obvious focus on performance based achievements

I'm reasonably sure Zhil's point was much more that F-Crew never involve themselves in politics or show any ambition to do so. I don't see how you could deny this is true.

[Talin]

Originally Posted by Exode

This post annoyed me greatly. The fact that F-crew has managed to stick around countinuously since round two is for me a greater accomplishment than many of the "Alliances without soul" that has won one or two rounds and then disbanded. Even ND hasn't managed to stick around for as many rounds...

And to me, my local football club is the best in the world (and I'll vouch none of you ever heard of it).

This game measures ranks based on score, victories based on ranks, and success based on victories. Additionally, some alliances will also be noted for their political and military abilities, as those are the direct means to achieve results.

Some alliances are also noted for their longevity, but don't expect some major credit for it if there's nothing else to show. Being around that long is above all a respectable community success, but what does it have to do with the game? Not much.

Out of curiosity, which round-winning alliances (bar Concodrium) do you consider "soulless"?

[Exode]

Easier for me to mention the ones I believe was not soulless. This is only personal opinion, but i believe (without even being in them) that alliances such as Fury, Legion, WP etc., in general the earlier "versions" of the ones popping up now had alot more heart put into it than many other alliances. I consider current/recent alliances like F-crew, ND, Rock and HR the same. I just look at the rankings, i dont draw conclusions solely on which rank a certain alliance achieves. To me the value of an alliance is much more than that, and I stand by that statement no matter how poetic or gay it may sound.

My point is that the focus on achievements by some members of the general pa public, almost up to the point of ridiculing other alliances, is dispicable. F-crew deserves recognition, not a kick in the balls.

[Mzyxptlk]

The problem is, longevity is not a goal, it is a means. Being shit for 20 rounds is not something to be proud of (illustratory example, not referring to F-crew).

[Exode]

read my post again please...

[Talin]

Originally Posted by Exode

read my post again please...

Same advice.

You're taking offense unneccessarily, really. We (well, I) do understand that you have your own criteria for rating an alliance. And I have my own, subjective criteria as well. It basically comes down to likes and dislikes. Which I have absolutely nothing against, until someone starts using them as objective arguments and absolute truth (like you just did).

You can't expect everyone to defer to your own views, and claim that an alliance you see as "good" deserves unquestionable recognition, despite the fact that it is only successful in something that is completely unrelated to actual gameplay.

When we're talking about alliance rating or quality, we can only ever objectively (to some extent) talk about how good they are at playing the actual game. I mean, every random group of people can find something they're good at, and demand recognition for it. And there are many alliances who will claim that they have the best "community and atmosphere" on the internet, or have existed for 5 to 7 years. It's pretty pointless to talk about that, and even more pointless to bring it up in discussions (unless that's the actual topic).

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm reasonably sure Zhil's point was much more that F-Crew never involve themselves in politics or show any ambition to do so. I don't see how you could deny this is true.

I think they fought a day or two with ROCK some round.

Also, they posted some mindless drivel on AD earlier this round.

So I guess you could call that involving themselves in politics.

[Coltaine]

Had Fury or VtS not cared about things like rank and reputation, wouldnt they still be around?
I mean, VtS is still a gaming community - with founding members.
I think your motivation to use "leaving pa" as a sign for being soulless is just as superficial as you claim others are.

[_Kila_]

Why are F-Crew so pretentious?

You've been consistently shit for 20 rounds and you're asking for people to acknowledge you as a good alliance?

Now just to wait for CM or Wakey to point out that F-crew were slightly significant in the early rounds and had a big battle at one of their planets in round 2.

[Ceadrath]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

Why are F-Crew so pretentious?

You've been consistently shit for 20 rounds and you're asking for people to acknowledge you as a good alliance?

Now just to wait for CM or Wakey to point out that F-crew were slightly significant in the early rounds and had a big battle at one of their planets in round 2.

i wonder wether you actually have any basis for the shit you come out with or you just pull it out of your ass?

nowhere has anyone asked for [F-CREW] to be acknowledged as a 'good' alliance in regards to performance.

What Exode said was that he valued continuity and the community aspect of certain alliances over their rank, and how little this seems to mean to some people.

Do try to keep up.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Ceadrath

i wonder wether you actually have any basis for the shit you come out with or you just pull it out of your ass?

nowhere has anyone asked for [F-CREW] to be acknowledged as a 'good' alliance in regards to performance.

What Exode said was that he valued continuity and the community aspect of certain alliances over their rank, and how little this seems to mean to some people.

Do try to keep up.

Nobody is under any illusions as to the true meaning of his post.
He was trying to tell everyone that F-crew are in their own special way better than everyone else just because they've been around and surviving longer than everyone else and have a "good community".

He's claiming that sticking around for 20 rounds and being consistently wank is better than playing well for a few rounds and dissolving (eXi being a prime example of this, having played 4 rounds). It really isn't.

Lots of alliances like eXi still keep the community even after their alliance dissolves. I know for one that despite SiN not playing for however long (round 18 was the last round wasn't it?) our "core" members are still in our private channel organising defence and attacks. Community doesn't stop just because the alliance is no longer around.

[Ceadrath]

you realise that Exode has no connection to [F-CREW]?

therefore why on earth would he be trying to make out that [F-CREW] are 'special' or better than all the other alliances out their.
He judges alliances based on different parameters to yours and he mentions [F-CREW] amongst others as an example. I realise you need to jump on the [F-CREW] :hating: bandwagon but at least try to actually make sense.

You somehow decide to make up some crap, flame certain people who had no involvement with the discussion, then decide to speak for everyone including exode himself by interpreting his own post in a rediculous manner.

Try to think about what you write next time before plowing straight in.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm reasonably sure Zhil's point was much more that F-Crew never involve themselves in politics or show any ambition to do so. I don't see how you could deny this is true.

There's been many alliance in this game that for some reason are held in fairly high regard, but very few of them have done anything to really earn this. The reason they get this status is because they ride on the coattails of other alliance often being little more than 'puppets'

Now if they want to play in such a way that to gain high regard then that's fine but its insulting to claim that we don't get involved in politics or show an ambition to do so just because we don't fall out the feet of the dominate alliances worshipping them when they come knocking.

We fight on our own terms and no-one else's, if we feel that its something that's in our interest and we aren't just being used as someone else's pawns then we are happy to get involved, something which Forest for one can attest to.

So fine if you want to continue slagging us off, but don't go slagging us off because we fight on our own terms and because most alliances only want our help when they want want to use us for their own personal gains

[Achilles]

I had a nice 14 line reply written for this before I realised that all I would be doing is arguing with an idiot. A pedantic, blinkered one at that. So I'll leave you this ad hominem instead, it's approximately all the effort you are worth. No doubt you'll read into it whatever suits you best and ignore the actual prose anyway.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Achilles

I had a nice 14 line reply written for this before I realised that all I would be doing is arguing with an idiot. A pedantic, blinkered one at that. So I'll leave you this ad hominem instead, it's approximately all the effort you are worth. No doubt you'll read into it whatever suits you best and ignore the actual prose anyway.

I don't care if he is an idiot, you can either argue with him or just not post. I appreciate that arguing with wakey might be like pulling your teeth out with a set of pliers but posting shitty ad hominems serves no one. There are arguments I have not enjoyed (the early years of 1up for example) but still I have done it - because I wanted to make my point.

[Talin]

Originally Posted by wakey

There's been many alliance in this game that for some reason are held in fairly high regard, but very few of them have done anything to really earn this. The reason they get this status is because they ride on the coattails of other alliance often being little more than 'puppets'

Or alternaively, because they get actively involved in the main political scene, and hence influence the round to a certain extent. And wheter they are actually held in "fairly high" regard still depends on their own ability and performance.

Originally Posted by wakey

Now if they want to play in such a way that to gain high regard then that's fine but its insulting to claim that we don't get involved in politics or show an ambition to do so just because we don't fall out the feet of the dominate alliances worshipping them when they come knocking.

That's just an overly dramatic statement which in fact says nothing. When have you been involved in the round-deciding political arrangements?

Originally Posted by wakey

So fine if you want to continue slagging us off, but don't go slagging us off because we fight on our own terms and because most alliances only want our help when they want want to use us for their own personal gains

When has anyone "slagged off" F-Crew in this thread? People have said they don't hold F-Crew highest regard, and they have said why. Most of what they said is factually correct, wheter you like it or not.

No one has a problem with you playing your own way, but people will have a problem when you play your own way and yet get offended every time someone points out that you aren't among the greatest ever alliances.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Talin

No one has a problem with you playing your own way, but people will have a problem when you play your own way and yet get offended every time someone points out that you aren't among the greatest ever alliances

Point out Where on this thread (or any thread for that matter) that anyone from F-Crew has got offended when "someone points out that you aren't among the greatest ever alliances". You wont be able to because it doesn't exist

And tbh for people who have no problem "with you playing your own way" and hold us in such low regard alot of people seem awfully eager to put us down for no reason. If we were yelling things like "F-Crew are the greatest alliance ever" then fine but we haven't yet people take pride in slagging us off and abusing our members for being members both on the forums, irc and ingame. Thats what annoys me personally.

Originally Posted by Talin

Or alternaively, because they get actively involved in the main political scene, and hence influence the round to a certain extent. And wheter they are actually held in "fairly high" regard still depends on their own ability and performance.

That's just an overly dramatic statement which in fact says nothing. When have you been involved in the round-deciding political arrangements?

Why should we join in the #1 battle. While being #1 might be every alliances eventual aim for many its not the be all and end all. They have their own battles to win and arent playing to be the pawns of the top few and no alliance should be expected to play the role of puppets or face abuse about "how shit they are".

Round 13 is a good example. APA, an alliance outside the top 10 started working with Exi and helped them win the round. They got alot of props for it, even got a thank you in the EoRC and it was probally this that lead to them recruiting Kargool and his group and ultimately led to them becoming TGV. However the deal was horrid, exi told them what galaxies to hit, told them what planets to focus on and gave them their launch times, launch times which were as early as 11pm and easierly defended. exi would hit the same targets but a few hours later when APA had used up defence and when those around to defend were at their lowest anyway.

How do I know this, well the main reason being APA were second choice. We were approached first and their offer was clearly laid down, we werent happy with it told them we would be happy to help but as partners not their pawns and it would be done in a way that was mutually benifical to both parties as we had our own members to think about who had their own goals and we had our own battles which weren't just going to go away. They told us it was their way or no way, so we took the no way.

Its this kind of offer that alliances not fighting for #1 directly normally get and are we really ' a shit alliance' because we stick to our guns and dont take such offers. Surely was an alliance our duty is to OUR MEMBERS not some other alliance members and it seems abit below the belt to attack us based on showing some integrity by sticking to what we believe in.

And when serious offers which treat us as equals and not just something to be used by others we have always been willing to listen and try and get something sorted out. Take Round 19 for example, exi pulled the "we arent playing seriously card" which most people bought, Forest however didn't and approached all the alliances about getting them before they could make a charge. Forest would tell me a couple of days later it was off as F-Crew were pretty much the only alliance who expressed any interest in trying to get something going. And if we were approached more often with serious offers and not just requests to run flak perhaps we would be more involved, after all its hardly our fault if we aren't approached to get involved in round changing schemes and instead focus on our own battles .

The simple fact is to be around this long and to have completed every round we are doing something right and while we may not have set the the game alight we deserve a bit more respect than being constantly told how shit and insignificant people think we are just because we havent played in the 'conventional' way

[Talin]

Originally Posted by wakey

Point out Where on this thread (or any thread for that matter) that anyone from F-Crew has got offended when "someone points out that you aren't among the greatest ever alliances". You wont be able to because it doesn't exist

Obviously no one would say "I am offended", but alright, have it your way. It was my personal perception.

Originally Posted by wakey

And tbh for people who have no problem "with you playing your own way" and hold us in such low regard alot of people seem awfully eager to put us down for no reason. If we were yelling things like "F-Crew are the greatest alliance ever" then fine but we haven't yet people take pride in slagging us off and abusing our members for being members both on the forums, irc and ingame. Thats what annoys me personally.

Then again, F-Crew isn't exactly the only alliance that had its members verbally "abused". Such stuff are pretty common in Planetarion.

Originally Posted by wakey

Why should we join in the #1 battle. While being #1 might be every alliances eventual aim for many its not the be all and end all. They have their own battles to win and arent playing to be the pawns of the top few and no alliance should be expected to play the role of puppets or face abuse about "how shit they are".

I never said that "joining in the #1 battle" is a sole requirement for being held in high regard. Especially not by being there to basically support another alliance to win.

Originally Posted by wakey

Round 13 is a good example. APA, an alliance outside the top 10 started working with Exi and helped them win the round. They got alot of props for it, even got a thank you in the EoRC and it was probally this that lead to them recruiting Kargool and his group and ultimately led to them becoming TGV. However the deal was horrid, exi told them what galaxies to hit, told them what planets to focus on and gave them their launch times, launch times which were as early as 11pm and easierly defended. exi would hit the same targets but a few hours later when APA had used up defence and when those around to defend were at their lowest anyway.

And APA was held in high regard, and given credit as a good alliance, when exactly? They might have gotten a "thank you" from exi (which makes sense, no?), but that's about it. So no, being flak for an alliance certainly isn't something that will raise the reputation of any alliance, quite the opposite actually.

Being a significant alliance and involved in politics does not mean only waitng for, and then taking or refusing offers from a "bigger" alliance.

It means being the bigger alliance, and starting things yourself, offering others various political arrangements, and taking a proactive part in setting up the scene for the round. To have the power to make the game revolve around your decisions (to an extent), and then making the right decisions. And last, but not least, being good at actually playing the game (activity, organization, etcetra).

Such alliances will be significant, will get noticed, and if they live up to certain standards, will be generally held in high regard.

Originally Posted by wakey

The simple fact is to be around this long and to have completed every round we are doing something right and while we may not have set the the game alight we deserve a bit more respect than being constantly told how shit and insignificant people think we are just because we havent played in the 'conventional' way

You are certainly doing something right, but it's not enough - or not enough in certain areas - to complain when you're told that you're "insignificant". I mean, I've played for years, and I'm still insignificant (and rather shit, for that matter).

I think that your reactions have more to do with being offended by such statements, than actually believing they aren't correct.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

*sniff* The good old days eh Nadar?!

indeed the good old days ^^

i just dropped by these forums and wanted to say hi (although i doubt anyone remembers poor old Darkness) to all the Woofers, ex NoSers and evildoers still hanging around here.


PS: Seth is indeed female

[Nadar]

Hello there, Darkness! Feel free to pop by on IRC now and then

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Darkness

PS: Seth is indeed female

Correction; shemale

Hey Darkness

[Exode]

Heya Darkness