R17 - Let's Get It Started

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kargool

TGV will play r17. After being extremly bored and lazy because of a crap round (round 16) we are hoping that r17 will actually be abit more fun and balanced.

I've seen nazi war criminals that were less spite-filled than you.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

TGV will play r17. After being extremly bored and lazy because of a crap round (round 16) we are hoping that r17 will actually be abit more fun and balanced.

hmm...hmm...hmmmmmm I agree with Kargool (sorry all). Round 16 actually was boring. But that's not because of the game mechs, but because I'm tired of sending numbers around the universe Alliancewise it was fun though \o/

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

When 1up won, they allied/blocked.

Careful

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Careful

Hehe, My middle name is 'Careful'

[Legator]

Originally Posted by noah02

I thought most of exil are in ascendancy so if exil do come back then there wont be much left on ascendancy for them to play.

Maybe they will do a round on/off with exil.

Swapsies ftw.

intel ftw

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Do you see a pattern? The winners will ALWAYS be put in a bad daylight no matter how they won a round.

This applies to planetary and alliance victories, both respectably. To be honest, if someone wins a round without the public finding him/the alliance nasty cheaters, blockers, stagnaters, abusers, game killers, or anyting related, he/the group should be worried because something's seriously wrong.


So, with rumors saying eXilition won't be around, will Ascendancy (should they play) be challenging 1up and Angels on the level of more conventional play or will they (regardless how statistics go) attempt another round of XP-hunting?

[Banned]

Ascendancy will be playing regardless of whether or not EXilition do.

[Tietäjä]

That's good to hear. I don't see Ascendancy playing with conventional tactics, though. Any hints on that side to it?

[Rc mayhem]

Originally Posted by Razgriz

as far as i know VanX will be making a return, and i also need not mention that F-Crew will be there. Nice to see Insomnia back in the mix /me waves

F-crew may be there but if the other ally HC have their way the game will be coded so that F-crew can be lucky to get top 10. Not a lot of love for F-crews R15 top 5.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

That's good to hear. I don't see Ascendancy playing with conventional tactics, though. Any hints on that side to it?

At the start of this round the ruling was "do what you want to do". To be honest even if jester changed that ruling none of us really listen to him enough to change what we decide to do. Unless he codes it into munin or something, then we'd all be done for

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This thread has reminded me of Touriquet and a little piece of me just died.

Yeah he was a tosser ...

P.S. Which little piece of you just died, out of curiousity?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Yeah he was a tosser ...

P.S. Which little piece of you just died, out of curiousity?

Respect for mankind.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Respect for mankind.

Phew, was afraid it was the 'undying love and respect for Kj' piece that died

[furball]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

F-crew may be there but if the other ally HC have their way the game will be coded so that F-crew can be lucky to get top 10. Not a lot of love for F-crews R15 top 5.

There's a general appreciation at the moment that Total Alliance Score doesn't equal Alliance Skill/Alliance Strength. This means that alliances with large numbers of members have artificially high scores.

So the question is: should alliances be ranked according to their total score, or by their skill/strength?

Let's look at Round 16. F-Crew and my own alliance, Vengeance, finished above NewDawn in the alliance rankings. Was this a fair representation of the comparative skill and strength of F-Crew vs NewDawn and Vengeance vs NewDawn? I don't think so.

This is why I suggested that only the top x members of an alliance should count towards its score. Say, you can have up to 80 members but only 70 can count towards your actual score. The top 5 could be limited to 60/65 members anyway.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by furball

This is why I suggested that only the top x members of an alliance should count towards its score. Say, you can have up to 80 members but only 70 can count towards your actual score. The top 5 could be limited to 60/65 members anyway.

Again I strongly disagree and think the alliance limit should be the same for all alliances, regardless their quality, rank or goals.

[Kargool]

I would love for the membercount was given abit more balance. 65-80 members is in my eyes a good suggestion for how many people in an alliance for r17

[Mystical]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

That's good to hear. I don't see Ascendancy playing with conventional tactics, though. Any hints on that side to it?

playing smart in stead of muscled ftw;/

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Mystical

playing smart in stead of muscled ftw;/

You just keep failing to make any sense. Yes, when we hit the point where the system sits on mighty score formulaes and supporting ship statistics, and the whole universe beats the shit out of the XP douchebag (excuse the harsh wording), we'll all be playing smart and fun.

What I was refering to, was, if Ascendancy would be able to compete on serious level should XP whoring not be such an option it was made for r17.

Apres ski, anyone?

Originally Posted by Kargool

I would love for the membercount was given abit more balance. 65-80 members is in my eyes a good suggestion for how many people in an alliance for r17

Was any alliance last round larger than 80 members? A limit of 80, if you are talking about limits, would be obsolete as nobody would exceed it anyways; yeah, perhaps Hidden Agenda would take it off by two whole members.

I agree with Kjeldoran here. I feel it'd be ridiculous to rank alliances by their top half or equals. It would encourage alliances to play more for their top quarter of players. Well, whether that would be good or bad, and what else would follow, is discussable.

[Mystical]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

You just keep failing to make any sense. Yes, when we hit the point where the system sits on mighty score formulaes and supporting ship statistics, and the whole universe beats the shit out of the XP douchebag (excuse the harsh wording), we'll all be playing smart and fun.

What I was refering to, was, if Ascendancy would be able to compete on serious level should XP whoring not be such an option it was made for r17.

Apres ski, anyone?



Was any alliance last round larger than 80 members? A limit of 80, if you are talking about limits, would be obsolete as nobody would exceed it anyways; yeah, perhaps Hidden Agenda would take it off by two whole members.

I agree with Kjeldoran here. I feel it'd be ridiculous to rank alliances by their top half or equals. It would encourage alliances to play more for their top quarter of players. Well, whether that would be good or bad, and what else would follow, is discussable.

Since when does playing smart equals xp-whoring;/

[furball]

Originally Posted by Mystical

Since when does playing smart equals xp-whoring;/

When XP-whoring gives you the highest score. That's smart, dude.

[Mystical]

Originally Posted by furball

When XP-whoring gives you the highest score. That's smart, dude.

So playing smart this round equalled xp whoring, but in the dictionary is not playing smart is synonym for xp whoring.. thats all i wanted to point out. so next round you can still play smart and mayb you are not xp whoring then:-)

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Was any alliance last round larger than 80 members? A limit of 80, if you are talking about limits, would be obsolete as nobody would exceed it anyways; yeah, perhaps Hidden Agenda would take it off by two whole members.

I agree with Kjeldoran here. I feel it'd be ridiculous to rank alliances by their top half or equals. It would encourage alliances to play more for their top quarter of players. Well, whether that would be good or bad, and what else would follow, is discussable.

Both ROCK and Hidden Agenda had more than 80 members last round.

I may have been unclear in my reply earlier, allow me to clarify.

The limits should be put to 65 for the top 5 and 85 for the rest. That was we can be pretty sure that size wont matter.

I also agree to with Kjeldoran (big AD shocker) about that alliances shouldnt be ranked by half their members.

[JonnyBGood]

Next round I'm going to argue on AD that ascendancy can't be beaten until everyone else gives up and quits the game. This has the plus point of taking even less time than this round.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Mystical

So playing smart this round equalled xp whoring, but in the dictionary is not playing smart is synonym for xp whoring.. thats all i wanted to point out. so next round you can still play smart and mayb you are not xp whoring then:-)

Playing smart is adopting the winning strategy. This round there were two winning strategies: XP whoring or distorter-whoring for value. JBG and many Ascendancy players adopted the former, rain and Gate both adopted the latter.

Now, smart play isn't just winning. It's also about winning properly (fairly?). For example, Elysium won Round 10 - but their method of winning (mass recruitment/ship-jumping) was held by AD to not reflect the true round. That's why few people argue that Elysium were a great alliance - because they never won a round properly (in most peoples' eyes).

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

P.S. Which little piece of you just died, out of curiousity?

his penis?

[qebab]

Good luck to everyone who plays, and may the new round bring lots of fun, and new blood into the game. (Old blood as well, would be good)

[lokken]

Originally Posted by furball

There's a general appreciation at the moment that Total Alliance Score doesn't equal Alliance Skill/Alliance Strength. This means that alliances with large numbers of members have artificially high scores.

So the question is: should alliances be ranked according to their total score, or by their skill/strength?

Let's look at Round 16. F-Crew and my own alliance, Vengeance, finished above NewDawn in the alliance rankings. Was this a fair representation of the comparative skill and strength of F-Crew vs NewDawn and Vengeance vs NewDawn? I don't think so.

This is why I suggested that only the top x members of an alliance should count towards its score. Say, you can have up to 80 members but only 70 can count towards your actual score. The top 5 could be limited to 60/65 members anyway.

While I can't disagree with a lot of this, and that in fact having a top 65 or 70 means mass recruiting counts for lots less (while being representative of a lot of the alliance) there are a few points that I feel need making here.

F-Crew still:
- were able to have sufficient pulling power to get those recruits
- were excellent tag managers
- weren't hit adequately if people were that bothered about finishing ahead of them

There are ways you can look at it to say that they've 'earned' that 5th by playing within the parameters set, their attraction to more players and using the very nature of their alliance as a political vehicle for success (intentionally or not).

[furball]

I can't disagree with much of what you've said. I didn't intend to cast any negative aspersions on F-Crew itself, more on the alliance rankings themselves.

I think that F-Crew will probably be targetted more in future rounds. They've established themselves as a serious alliance who train players, as opposed to a well-performing training alliance. A lot of alliances probably underestimated the worth of hitting F-Crew this round, and I feel that it's unlikely that the same will happen again.

F-Crew earned their 5th, there's no doubt about it. If anyone thought that I meant the opposite - they stand corrected.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Both ROCK and Hidden Agenda had more than 80 members last round.

I may have been unclear in my reply earlier, allow me to clarify.

The limits should be put to 65 for the top 5 and 85 for the rest. That was we can be pretty sure that size wont matter.

I also agree to with Kjeldoran (big AD shocker) about that alliances shouldnt be ranked by half their members.

You agree with something I'm not claiming. I want ALL ALLIANCES to have equal amount of maximum members, whether that alliance is #2 or #17 ...

Fact is, if you say top5 can have 65 and others 85 ... then for instance if (like happened this round) F-crew is #6 with 80 members and are about to overtake #5 ... then they have to kick 15 members to be able to be #5?
That's not realistic m8

[furball]

I don't think that's what Kargool meant. What Kargool meant was that instead of the 55/100 limit this round, we move to 65/80 instead. No other changes.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by furball

I don't think that's what Kargool meant. What Kargool meant was that instead of the 55/100 limit this round, we move to 65/80 instead. No other changes.

No.. He did mean 65 for top5 and 80 for everyone else

[furball]

Alright then. Doesn't make a lot of sense though.

[Razgriz]

Slightly off-topic but seen as it's already been mentioned; whatever the alliance limit outcome becomes i believe it will not hamper the F-Crew drive. Of course there's a possibility that we could poorly in R17 but it matters not to me personally. I doubt the hardcore PA player in me will die but i find it more satisfying helping those in need and i'll carry on doing it in the top 10 or bottom 50.

I hope some light will be shed on the alliance limit in the CH this evening (?) or is it still open to discusion in the community (?).

I think there's going to be an interesting race for that number one spot in R17, seeing as this round was a freebie i can understand how some alliances didn't take it too seriously. I wouldn't like to predict at this stage who the top 5 will be in the end. Anyone care to?

[furball]

Until eXilition make their statement and we're sure which alliances are playing and which are not, I'm loath to make any predictions.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

No.. He did mean 65 for top5 and 80 for everyone else

exactly

[gzambo]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Both ROCK and Hidden Agenda had more than 80 members last round.

I may have been unclear in my reply earlier, allow me to clarify.

The limits should be put to 65 for the top 5 and 85 for the rest. That was we can be pretty sure that size wont matter.

I also agree to with Kjeldoran (big AD shocker) about that alliances shouldnt be ranked by half their members.

INdeed we did have over 80 members i believe it was 84 at its highest for ROCK ,

personally i feel limiting the alliance limit to 60/65 for top 5 and 70/75 fo those alliances outside top 5 would be better for the game as for the likes of ROCK HA and F-Crew and there willingness to take on new players and train them is benefical to the game , reduceing the upper limits will restrict these alliances from doing this and this would not be good for the game no matter which way you look at it,

regarding F-Crew they did a fantastic job this rd achieving the rank they did but reducing the alliance limit to prevent a "training" alliance from being top 5 would create more problems than it would solve
if the so- called top alliances cannot achieve a better ranking than a "training" alliance then they need to look inside not outside to solve this

[LukeyLove]

Originally Posted by Razgriz

Slightly off-topic but seen as it's already been mentioned; whatever the alliance limit outcome becomes i believe it will not hamper the F-Crew drive. Of course there's a possibility that we could poorly in R17 but it matters not to me personally. I doubt the hardcore PA player in me will die but i find it more satisfying helping those in need and i'll carry on doing it in the top 10 or bottom 50.

I hope some light will be shed on the alliance limit in the CH this evening (?) or is it still open to discusion in the community (?).

I think there's going to be an interesting race for that number one spot in R17, seeing as this round was a freebie i can understand how some alliances didn't take it too seriously. I wouldn't like to predict at this stage who the top 5 will be in the end. Anyone care to?

#1 Exilition
#2 1up
#3 DD
#4 ND
#5 Angels

Fairly un-inspiring but hey this is just my prelim predictions figured someone shud lay it down with a guess!

[Veedeejem!]

equal memberlimits for everybody!
all this t5 this much members, outside t5 that many members is just silly imo.
I suggest 70 members max for all (doesn't matter if you're 1up/angels or hidden agenda/every1 welcome)

[ReligFree]

Originally Posted by LukeyLove

#1 Exilition
#2 1up
#3 DD
#4 ND
#5 Angels

Fairly un-inspiring but hey this is just my prelim predictions figured someone shud lay it down with a guess!

The two alliances that fight it out for #1, more than likely 1up and exi again next round will not end #1 and #2. ND wont me top5, Angels will be higher and DD may be 2nd imo

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by LukeyLove

#1 eXilition
#2 1up
#3 DD
#4 ND
#5 Angels

Well, eXilition seems out of the race (though, purely out of speculative basis, they probably have their loyals spread among every other reasonable top drive alliance, and might emerge midround) and Daous Dava hasn't opened up on whether they will be playing or not, so are we expecting a race between 1up, Angels, and ND? I'd put it this way:

#1 1up
#2 Ascendancy
#3 Angels
#4 ND
#5 F-Crew

The sole size of F-Crew gives them extra edge, and Ascendancy, whether for Xp-playing or conventional gaming, is a group that can do great.

[jerome]

#1 Ascendancy of course!! & the rest are irrelevant, as always.