The Round from CBA's perspective

[Mikee]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Correct me if i am wrong, but Ultores did not win this round by taking fang 1 on 1 in the last week. Of course Fang blew it, but CT played a big part in ults victory. In the end though, both CT and Fang blew it, because they started targetting each other before ult was completely beaten.

truth is fag had such a ridiculous value lead over ultores there was no way ultores wouldve taken them out one on one...... i guess thats where good old politics come into play, even now its still not that easy to roid fag and yet they STILL HAVE MORE VALUE then ultores or CT.........

[Kaiba]

Originally Posted by Howzat

To get salvage, you need ships as the basis. So it's ships donated. You don't have the salvage on you to give someone, you have the raw material that makes it. Try someone else if you want to twist your words. Not working here buddy

I thought top planets didnt get salvage?? or is that just killed ship salvage from the opposing team. I woas under the impression that change was put into place to stop ship donations on the top planets

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by VenoX

Is it too painful to admit Ultores might win that you have to say CT/Ultores as if it makes losing from Fangs ridiculously strong position less embarrassg and more bearable? Face facts, you blew it, get over it and try harder next round. Maybe take a short break in a psychiatric unit between rounds.

Ult/CT are allied, im sure r7 victory ie was a furgion block victory not just one alliance?
Clearly when relationships and cooporations is so close, the victory must clearly be given to more than only one part? or do you claim that this win was only due to ult?

[neroon]

lol..

whatever makes u feel better

<3

[Mzyxptlk]

CT is just like Fury.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

CT is just like Fury.

And FAnG is just like Xanadu/Elysium/NoS/Wolfpack

[Colt]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> Before i bother replying to your post
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> You claim that FAnG did not target CT at all last round?
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> like
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> before they naped against Ult
[15:54] <Colt> fang didnt tgt ct no
[15:54] <Colt> i should no
[15:54] <Colt> i bc'd most attacks
[15:55] <Colt> know*
01[15:55] <B-Butch3r> Well why do i remeber hitting CT last round?
[15:55] <Colt> u memory is crap then
[15:55] <Colt> or u solo'd

oh oh oh! The mighty Colt is backheeling now!

I honestly have no idea what your point is here...I said in that pm, as you have now showed twice, that FAnG didnt target CT, nothing you have said on here contradicts what i said...

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Colt

I honestly have no idea what your point is here...I said in that pm, as you have now showed twice, that FAnG didnt target CT, nothing you have said on here contradicts what i said...

We did how ever hit CT didnt we?
As i read it you say we didnt target or hit them, if i hit a CT planet i had to be soloing?
Now what is it?

[Killeah]

please you're milking the cow, its been screaming already for hours.

just agree to the fact that "hitting CT" in the used sentence is alike with targeting CT - not random hits in random gal raids.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Howzat

Indeed is, and would be one of, if not the best, current DC going around at the moment. Unfortunately gets shouldered with the bulk of the work

I am the best

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Connovar

You truly are too stupid for words, haha. Should have stayed retired, clearly your brain needs a rest.

FAnG have had a better round than CT

Based on what?

[Forest]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Ult/CT are allied, im sure r7 victory ie was a furgion block victory not just one alliance?
Clearly when relationships and cooporations is so close, the victory must clearly be given to more than only one part? or do you claim that this win was only due to ult?

Ult and CT were hitting each other for majority of round, napping one week from the end hardly means their co-operation meant Ult won.

[[DDK]gm]

FAnG Backstabbing us too early means Ultores won!

[Influence]

Originally Posted by [DDK]gm

FAnG Backstabbing us too early means Ultores won!

CT switching sides too early while you were on training contributed to it badly too. In fact i reckon it was a more important switch for Ultores morale.

[[DDK]gm]

as soon as i got back, ct and tgv both tried hard on ults but as you saw, we really needed help.

[CBA]

Let's conclude

As I am the opener of all good topics on AD, I think I should start closing them..

As stated by myself in the OP, Ultores are the best of a bad bunch (in fact, let's go with awful)

Ultores won this round because they are better than the other alliances.. Not just with politics/not just with individual skill/not with morale and leadership, but a combined attribution of everything. Ultores are the best alliance playing this round, in terms of going for rank #1 ally etc anyhow.

I pray to god that Jagex advertises, we see more alliances reforming, or a huge influx of players from external sources.. I did hear izverg's family were coming back so that's 20+

23:46:27] <@CBA> .quote lith army
[23:46:27] -LDK- <carDi> i think next rnd <carDi> iam bringing lith army back <carDi> heard izverg cousins wants to play <carDi> there is 20 of them or so <carDi> they wont talk to much on irc <carDi> but active in ingame

Anyway I just hope the standard stays like this so I don't need to be very active and don't have to wake up much in the night!!!

I know this won't be the last post on this thread, but it damn well should be!

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Colt

You're just an idiot...everybody but you "gets" it..

Baaaaaaackheel!

[Wouter]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Baaaaaaackheel!

if you got 1m value per braincel you have..
you'd still be a shitty planet

[Psi_K]

Originally Posted by [DDK]gm

FAnG Backstabbing us too early means Ultores won!

Oh i'm sorry, our ****ing bad.
Maybe if you didn't turn on us first like cowards our member base wouldn't have felt the need to get back at you.

[Knight]

Bloody-idontknowwtfimtalkingabout-butcher Colt saying that you solo'd is not backheeling, its giving a reason for why u may have hit ct while Fang were not putting up ct targets on their attacks, so to put it to you as simply as possible, because it seems that you clearly dont understand **** all on here..
CT targets were not put up on Fag target list
Bloody-idontknowwtfimtalkingabout-butcher solo'd targets that were CT
There are your reasons for why u remember hitting CT planets (possibly)
Of course i dont know any of the actual facts of this as i was not in Fag, but i just felt the need to say this to you and save Colt the hassle of trying to get a little information into a dribblers mind

[Clouds]

This round has been an interesting round, with 3 alliances playing for the win. The Conspiracy/FAnG block has enabled this round to be a fun, competitive and close round.

It was quite predictable that a block would form against Ultores pre-round, due to the amount of consecutive rounds won, being headed by Conspiracy/FAnG, but I did however underestimate the block's incompetency to cooperate, though. The sole aim of the block was to stop Ultores from winning at any cost, but it seems greed deterred that aim.

I don't know the actual facts of the dispute between Conspiracy and FanG, but because of their incompetency to cooperate, they allowed Ultores to slip through the net. Both sides turned on each other too early in my honest opinion. A declaration of war should have been made by either side WHEN Ultores were permanently paralysed.

As previous posters have stated, the hostiles on Ultores should have lasted for 100% of the round or until the block was confident that Ultores didn't have a chance for a shot at #1, leaving personal goals aside, as opposed to lasting for 2/3 of the round, considering the block was originally formed to stop Ultores from winning in the first place.

TGV setted out, as Conspiracy/FAnG, to deter Ultores from winning, and throughout the round they have kept to their word by avoiding conflict between Conspiracy/FAnG by not siding with the other when they had opportunities to profit from current political events. Unfortunately, due to their integrity and honesty, they haven't done as well as other mediocre alliances.

As a consequence of assisting Conspiracy/FAnG in their goal in stopping Ultores from winning, TGV were p-targetted and hit pretty hard for three consecutive nights by Ultores. I think RexDrax's decision to not get involved in block wars in future rounds is a good move, especially for a small mediocre alliance containing 25~ members who cannot defend themselves efficiently against retaliative attacks, and as the Conspiracy/FAnG block spat in their face when they decided to dispute over something silly.

There is quite a lot of trolling towards FAnG, but the truth is they're a newly reformed alliance and are new to today's Planetarion politics. Of course they're going to make mistakes, nobody is perfect, and I'm sure they will learn from mistakes made from the current round.

I think Conspiracy played politics extremely well this round, avoiding hostiles for 2/3 of the round. Although GM and Monroe are more than competent at doing politics, they made a mistake of turning their back on their only long-term allie when being threatened to be hit by Ultores.

Conspiracy rely heavily on doing good politics, due to their poor defence culture, and I still strongly believe that if Conspiracy’s defence culture improved, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

This round reminds me of the round when a block was formed to stop Apprime from winning, which ended in the same scenario as the current round, ending with Apprime finishing on top and the block collapsing.

Ultores is indeed a force to be reckoned with, and events that occurred from the current round has proven this.

I've read a lot on AD, claiming that Ultores has the best players in Planetarion, I disagree. Ultores is based on teamwork, following alliance strategy, obeying HC orders and commitment. Not everyone in Ultores responds to calls/sms messages, but that minority are still assets to the alliance.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Clouds

It was quite predictable that a block would form against Ultores pre-round, due to the amount of consecutive rounds won, being headed by Conspiracy/FAnG, but I did however underestimate the block's incompetency to cooperate, though. The sole aim of the block was to stop Ultores from winning at any cost, but it seems greed deterred that aim.

This is straight from game theory. It's a version of the classic prisoner's dilemma. Given two alliances of roughly equal quality (CT and faNg), refusing to end your NAP with the other competing alliance is a strictly losing strategy. At best, you keep the NAP, but a roidrace only gives you a 50% chance of victory; at worst, your enemy gets some alliances to join them, ends the NAP, and kills you. On the other hand, finding some allies and ending the NAP yourself is a winning strategy. At best, you catch your enemy unawares and kill them; at worst, your enemy was planning the same thing, found some allies, but a war still gives you have a 50% chance of victory.

Cooperation is only a rational strategy until you've reduced the odds that the stronger third alliance (Ultores, in this case) will win to below the odds that the other opponent (CT or Fang) will. Whether anyone ****ed up at any point between when the block fell apart and now I don't really know, but if you allow me some speculation: the fact that CT could no longer win might indicate they did something wrong, and the fact that CT joined Ultores against faNg might indicate either Ultores did something right, or fAng did something wrong.

This scenario has played itself out many, many times in PA. In my opinion, it's one of the better ways for a round to develop. Sometimes the stronger alliance wins (Ascendancy, r31), sometimes one of the other competitors does (Evolution, r37). The more competition there is in a round, the more interesting it tends to be. Several people have stated that they think this round is the best in recent history, and I completely agree. It would have been much more boring if Ultores had been completely destroyed by a block that lasted from tick 0 to tick 1177.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Knight

Bloody-idontknowwtfimtalkingabout-butcher Colt saying that you solo'd is not backheeling, its giving a reason for why u may have hit ct while Fang were not putting up ct targets on their attacks, so to put it to you as simply as possible, because it seems that you clearly dont understand **** all on here..
CT targets were not put up on Fag target list
Bloody-idontknowwtfimtalkingabout-butcher solo'd targets that were CT
There are your reasons for why u remember hitting CT planets (possibly)
Of course i dont know any of the actual facts of this as i was not in Fag, but i just felt the need to say this to you and save Colt the hassle of trying to get a little information into a dribblers mind

Im glad that you see it this way.
CT targets were not put up on FAnG raids according to Colt.
Can Colt confirm that Knight is correct?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Ult/CT are allied, im sure r7 victory ie was a furgion block victory not just one alliance?
Clearly when relationships and cooporations is so close, the victory must clearly be given to more than only one part? or do you claim that this win was only due to ult?

Amusingly you picked a dreadful round for anyone who has a clue. First of all in round 7 Fury were widely acknowledged as the winning alliance, due to being comfortably better than the rest of their block. Secondly that block dissolved before the round ended and at pretty much the same time that Ultores and CT started working together again towards the end of this round the FLTV block was busy tearing itself apart.


So no. They're nothing alike at all.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Given two alliances of roughly equal quality (CT and faNg)

I very much disagree with that after attacking both those allys alot the last 2 rounds, CT is way easyer to land on than FAnG. I'd say FAnG is more like a light version of Ultores and CT is more lika a improved, offencive version of ND. Maybe CT and xVx would be more about equal quality (with more equal membercount.. according to round 45 results)

[Mzyxptlk]

I have to say, I kind of like that depiction of CT. It fits.

I've never fought FaNg, so I can't comment there.

[RexDrax]

.... and Ultores has now a 8 mill score lead. Fang still has a value lead over Ultores 364Mill vs 322Mill but since thats for the whole alliance and not the top50 dont think they can use the 40mill value lead to convert it to a score lead.

Originally Posted by Clouds

TGV setted out, as Conspiracy/FAnG, to deter Ultores from winning, and throughout the round they have kept to their word by avoiding conflict between Conspiracy/FAnG by not siding with the other when they had opportunities to profit from current political events. Unfortunately, due to their integrity and honesty, they haven't done as well as other mediocre alliances.

As a consequence of assisting Conspiracy/FAnG in their goal in stopping Ultores from winning, TGV were p-targetted and hit pretty hard for three consecutive nights by Ultores. I think RexDrax's decision to not get involved in block wars in future rounds is a good move, especially for a small mediocre alliance containing 25~ members who cannot defend themselves efficiently against retaliative attacks, and as the Conspiracy/FAnG block spat in their face when they decided to dispute over something silly.

Considering we were outnumbered we didnt do too badly when you guys targeted us. Not sure if you sent all of your attack fleets or not since we had some random gal raids from HR and other alliances over those 3 days. I think it was about 90-140+ hostile fleets. We lost about 10% of our roids and picked our battles carefully. Not sure how accurate my memory is but I think we stopped about 50-65% of all incoming waves but not 100% certain on that.

[Colt]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Im glad that you see it this way.
CT targets were not put up on FAnG raids according to Colt.
Can Colt confirm that Knight is correct?

I will just state that this is not backtracking (i assume that is what you mean when you say "backheeling"??)

I also thought you had a braincell, which would have made my point easy to understand, but obviously i was wrong to think that!

I never said CT targets were not put up on FAnG raids. What i said was in reference to your question:

01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> You claim that FAnG did not target CT at all last round?
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> like
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> before they naped against Ult
[15:54] <Colt> fang didnt tgt ct no

I said, that we didn't target CT, no. CT were NEVER targeted by FAnG. To make it as clear as i can, this means that we didn't specifically hit Ct at any point in the round!! Anything within the first 100 to 200 ticks is pretty much gal raiding and so the likely-hood is that everyone will hit everyone (unless allied ingame) even if they have agreements not to etc (mistakes happen..). This is no doubt where you get your stats in the bot from!

When someone asks me if we hit so and so I assume you mean specifically target them, not one or two in a random gal raid now and again at the beginning of a round...

If you still persist on being brain dead and insisting stuff happened that never did then please feel free to go jump off a bridge...

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by VenoX

You're not wrong no but you don't seem to be disagreeing with me either, so *shrug*, not sure why you made out like you were countering my point when you were just saying something else.

I was disagreeing with you partially, given that your point, or part of it was when you said:

Originally Posted by VenoX

Is it too painful to admit Ultores might win that you have to say CT/Ultores as if it makes losing from Fangs ridiculously strong position less embarrassing and more bearable?

Given that fang lost fighting vs 2 of the top 3 alliances, it does make losing less embarrassing and more bearable.

The really embarrassing part is: Fang should never have put CT in a position where they decided that making sure Fang didn't win was more important than making sure Ult didn't win. Bad politics and bad timing.

[VenoX]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Given that fang lost fighting vs 2 of the top 3 alliances, it does make losing less embarrassing and more bearable.

I would be inclined to agree with you if this was the case for the duration of the round but it simply wasn't. They had the support of 3 of the top 4 alliances for over of 60% of the round.

No doubt Fang did well to use politics to get themselves into a position that by military strength alone they wouldn't have been able to obtain, but this is a war game, at some stage you're going to have to fight for the win and if you come up short, you're going to lose and no amount of blaming x, y and z is going to detract from the fact you simply weren't good enough.

Originally Posted by Gio2k

[CT] decided that making sure Fang didn't win was more important than making sure Ult didn't win

CT didn't decide they wanted Ult to win more than Fang, they decided they wanted to win more than Fang or indeed Ultores, the fact they attempted to take the opportunity when it arose, however misguided in hindsight, shows balls to me and long may alliances continue to take their chances to win rather than idle out for #2 as has been the case in so many rounds in the past.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by VenoX

I would be inclined to agree with you if this was the case for the duration of the round but it simply wasn't. They had the support of 3 of the top 4 alliances for over of 60% of the round.

No doubt Fang did well to use politics to get themselves into a position that by military strength alone they wouldn't have been able to obtain, but this is a war game, at some stage you're going to have to fight for the win and if you come up short, you're going to lose and no amount of blaming x, y and z is going to detract from the fact you simply weren't good enough.



CT didn't decide they wanted Ult to win more than Fang, they decided they wanted to win more than Fang or indeed Ultores, the fact they attempted to take the opportunity when it arose, however misguided in hindsight, shows balls to me and long may alliances continue to take their chances to win rather than idle out for #2 as has been the case in so many rounds in the past.

This is bullshit.
CT knew they couldnt win when they joined Ult the last week.
Keep telling urself that is not true, but its still a fact.

[VenoX]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

This is bullshit.
CT knew they couldnt win when they joined Ult the last week.
Keep telling urself that is not true, but its still a fact.

Your use of the word fact is awful, and yet, no matter how much misguided and ill-informed opinion you troll AD with, doesn't change THE FACT that Fang lost this round.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by VenoX

Your use of the word fact is awful, and yet, no matter how much misguided and ill-informed opinion you troll AD with, doesn't change THE FACT that Fang lost this round.

Yes, FAnG lost, im pretty sure everybody knows that now, even though nobody understood it one week ago

[ManiacMagic]

Originally Posted by CBA

As I know you all have been awaiting my opinion on a few subjects here on AD I have decided to make a little topic of my own.

<rest of post>

And that's my 10min round up peoples!!! Follow me on twitter #CBAowningPAsince2006

hmmm I need to make a comeback if CBA has permission to talk in here

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Colt

I will just state that this is not backtracking (i assume that is what you mean when you say "backheeling"??)

I also thought you had a braincell, which would have made my point easy to understand, but obviously i was wrong to think that!

I never said CT targets were not put up on FAnG raids. What i said was in reference to your question:

01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> You claim that FAnG did not target CT at all last round?
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> like
01[15:54] <B-Butch3r> before they naped against Ult
[15:54] <Colt> fang didnt tgt ct no

I said, that we didn't target CT, no. CT were NEVER targeted by FAnG. To make it as clear as i can, this means that we didn't specifically hit Ct at any point in the round!! Anything within the first 100 to 200 ticks is pretty much gal raiding and so the likely-hood is that everyone will hit everyone (unless allied ingame) even if they have agreements not to etc (mistakes happen..). This is no doubt where you get your stats in the bot from!

When someone asks me if we hit so and so I assume you mean specifically target them, not one or two in a random gal raid now and again at the beginning of a round...

If you still persist on being brain dead and insisting stuff happened that never did then please feel free to go jump off a bridge...

I dont need to argue anymore with you, im pretty sure any poster not in cohorts with u guys should know u are backheeling, and that you were lying all along.

[lokken]

Do FAnG think they are an attractive proposition as a coop/alliance partner? Do FAnG players think the way they go about politics genuinely helps their cause? Would love answers from FAnG HC/players on these points.

[CBA]

Originally Posted by lokken

Do FAnG think they are an attractive proposition as a coop/alliance partner? Do FAnG players think the way they go about politics genuinely helps their cause? Would love answers from FAnG HC/players on these points.

Surely, for these answers to mean anything we firstly need to have a good understanding of the hierachy and command responsibilities within Fang. Because I believe this is slightly different to other alliances and will better our understanding of why Fang did what they did / act as they do.