round 14 predictions

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Gate

Snippety blip

I'd never let my alliance down to make sure other alliances had an enjoyable round at the cost of my alliance. Alliance HC's ARE supposed to be: Selfish and greedy. It got absolutely nothing to do with being short-sighted. It's like I would sacrifice my relationship to my gf so Kj could get laid for once. (FOR ONCE!) As I said in another post Gate, it's a war-game, not a charity-game. If you wan't your alliance to play around as the UN or whatever, then fine, do it.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Now there's an agreement i'm not surprised by;D

You don't agree? You don't do what's best for your alliance, but instead sacrifice it to make sure every other alliances gets a good round? If so, I'm happy I'm not a member of HR.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Totally agree, NoS should have been battered last round.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

The first thing you should have done is pm'ing your own HC asking them not to nap NOS in the first place. Maybe then and ONLY then can you point a finger to the rest for not bashing NOS (as if all alliances play to make sure ND has a good round nway ...)

Im sure The_Fish made his feelings clear to his HC, as people have said there was dissagreement inside ND over what action to take. Infact all he stated was that he thought NoS should of been battered, at no point did he blame it on other alliances or his own. Good job at making a mountain out of a mole hill though.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

Im sure The_Fish made his feelings clear to his HC, as people have said there was dissagreement inside ND over what action to take. Infact all he stated was that he thought NoS should of been battered, at no point did he blame it on other alliances or his own. Good job at making a mountain out of a mole hill though.

As if you know better then another person what he really meant .... I think he was just trying to take the **** out of NOS, ifnot then I apologize towards him.
I'm just tired of the tons of pple bitching at an alliance because their own command NAPPED them aswell. A NAP is a 2 way agreement, 2 parties are equally right or wrong.

And tbh, if you disagree with your own alliance's policy and decide to criticize others, be so kind to mention that your own command is equally wrong.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

tbh I FULLY agree and support the statement Hook made. I play this game for Angels, nobody and nothing else. If you wanna judge the person I because of this then be my guest, just don't forget it's a game and we, the customers, pay for it.

P.S. If a Formula 1 team pays to race in the tournament (yes they have to pay for it) then they don't give a fk about the tournament and everything around it. They care about their car and their drivers and the publicity/money they make (if they do).

Ill try and make this short and simple, as my last post doesnt seem to of been understood.

The success of F1 directly effects the success of all the teams that take part. It is in every teams interest that the F1 is the most popular and successful it can be. Although there are bad feelings inside the F1 currently, letting the F1 fall apart and stop running would not be a sensible move for any of the teams.

In Planetarion the relation is simple. The game is struggling to survive, it is in every alliances interest (unless they no longer intend/want to play) that the game carries on and also makes progress. The more successful and popular Planetarion is the better basis each alliance has for a fun and challenging round.

[Zo0f]

Also, at no point does that mean you need to have a terrible round so others have fun. Amazingly it is possible to help the game be more interesting and have a fun, challenging and generally enjoyable round for your alliance. It is a balance, and it is yours to decide. Not even concidering it is just like hiding your head in the sand. It is your choice though.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

Ill try and make this short and simple, as my last post doesnt seem to of been understood.

The success of F1 directly effects the success of all the teams that take part. It is in every teams interest that the F1 is the most popular and successful it can be. Although there are bad feelings inside the F1 currently, letting the F1 fall apart and stop running would not be a sensible move for any of the teams.

In Planetarion the relation is simple. The game is struggling to survive, it is in every alliances interest (unless they no longer intend/want to play) that the game carries on and also makes progress. The more successful and popular Planetarion is the better basis each alliance has for a fun and challenging round.

I agree with everything you say, but I think you missunderstood me.

My point is that I (Kjeldoran) do not care if PA survives or not. I stopped enjoying this game 3-4 rounds ago (the pure game aspect). I attacked 10 times in the last 2 rounds added together...

I do however enjoy talking to my fellow Angels, do alliance stuff and play politics and such. that's the part of PA that makes me spend abit of time to it. If PA ceased to exist, then that's be sad but not really a big issue to me.
Pple will stick on IRC, do other stuff and all, I'm not worried about that.

And I realize you and a few others find me utterly selfish here (atleast I just say where it comes down to rather then avoiding the subject or wrapping it nicely) but that's simply my rough view on this game.
I have no intention to actively try and improve this game at the cost of my alliances (even if that cost is neglectable). that's what I'm trying to say and for that I 100% agree with Nadar and Hook etc.

And Kargool, you're right, we need to get back to the initial topic.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

My point is that I (Kjeldoran) do not care if PA survives or not. I stopped enjoying this game 3-4 rounds ago (the pure game aspect). I attacked 10 times in the last 2 rounds added together...

It seems I did indeed misunderstand you. I was under the impression Planetarion failing would be bad for your alliance and its members. It does seem that you are claiming wether Planetarion carries on or stops does not matter to Angels? If that is so, you are indeed acting in your alliances best interests.

If that is true, you must understand that is a unique view and most alliances would rather Planetarion kept running (I think anyway). Thus understand that compared to other alliances your actions are selfish.

[Kjeldoran]

Squidly, eventhough you deleted your post (but I read it), do not mistake on this:

we are NOT an alliance that happily settles for #2. We play to win aswell, but our realistic goals are different from our "desired" goals.

The mistake we made last round is to nap an alliance which played a better round then us. Each round we learn from our mistakes, every round so far we improved greatly and rest assure that we've learned from that mistake aswell.

Unrelated to the fact that we will have naps or not next round, if an alliance takes the bet and naps Angels and with that assuring they'll win (as you so nicely put it) then let that alliance try.

As I mentionned in alot of other posts, my job is to get angels to improve and only care about Angels. If at some point the only option to improve is to screw over a nap, then so be it. but I prefer not to.
Also, I do what's in best interest of Angels. Breaking that nap last round was (after deliberation with the entire HC) NOT in the best interest of Angels.

Is it that hard to understand and not throw a cheap "you settle for #2" shot?

[Squidly]

Yep, I felt it needed re-wording... So I took it off and decided to re-type it up

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Nadar

I'd never let my alliance down to make sure other alliances had an enjoyable round at the cost of my alliance.

There seems to be some confusion over my post; I'm saying that HCs should try to get the maximum possible enjoyment for their members and themselves. I'm just suggesting that perhaps the best way is not always the most selfish way.

For instance, if alliance X have a fun round NAPping the majority of the major alliances, then the next round they get smashed; a round their members don't enjoy because they get hammered by the entire universe.

Alliance X might lose players or commitment, and therefore be worse off overall, when they could have had 2 fun but challenging rounds instead.

What I'm getting at is that maybe the best course of action is something that will deliver constant, long term rewards (in this case, of enjoyment for your members) than something which gives you a quick burst now and leaves you to repay it...

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

It seems I did indeed misunderstand you. I was under the impression Planetarion failing would be bad for your alliance and its members. It does seem that you are claiming wether Planetarion carries on or stops does not matter to Angels? If that is so, you are indeed acting in your alliances best interests.

If that is true, you must understand that is a unique view and most alliances would rather Planetarion kept running (I think anyway). Thus understand that compared to other alliances your actions are selfish.

did you miss the " I (Kjeldoran)" part? At what point did I say that Angels doesn't care about PA?

this is all stretched out of context, the initial point I tried to make was that is isn't my job to keep Pa alive and enjoyable. It is my job for Angels to perform at best and for Angels to enjoy this game. Last round we enjoyed the game, whether any other alliance did that or not ... I don't really care tbh

It is only a game, in real life issues things are completely different.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

we are NOT an alliance that happily settles for #2. We play to win aswell, but our realistic goals are different from our "desired" goals.

The mistake we made last round is to nap an alliance which played a better round then us. Each round we learn from our mistakes, every round so far we improved greatly and rest assure that we've learned from that mistake aswell.

Unrelated to the fact that we will have naps or not next round, if an alliance takes the bet and naps Angels and with that assuring they'll win (as you so nicely put it) then let that alliance try.

As I mentionned in alot of other posts, my job is to get angels to improve and only care about Angels. If at some point the only option to improve is to screw over a nap, then so be it. but I prefer not to.
Also, I do what's in best interest of Angels. Breaking that nap last round was (after deliberation with the entire HC) NOT in the best interest of Angels.

Is it that hard to understand and not throw a cheap "you settle for #2" shot?

I'd actually prefer to start up the olde pm on irc bit again, as this could be an interesting debate actually =) And yes, I realize I'm probably the most off-topic here =p

My last bit on this is...

One. You are an alliance to happily sit at second. You advocated whatsisface's handing first to his friend quite openly, you openly claimed exilition was better without even considering your own alliance's skill level. Do you honestly think exilition would have been able to completely shrug off a full out angels hit? is this the image you're trying to portray angels as no firepower, no ability, and no sway in planetarion politics?

Two. Wasn't in the best interests? Fair enough. Hence why you took #2. As a result of that decision. Your call ofc.

Three. Why not? Exilition did it. Again, Angels is striking the chord of "Favorite Lackey". Don't get me wrong here... having honesty and integrity is a good thing.... But Angels were a sure bet last round. They were guaranteed to not become a hassle to exilition. You were easier to read than a kids story book. (but that dr. seuss... my poor brain =/)

Four. Angels looking out for angels etc. Valid. You did what you felt was best, and you still believe it was. I think your reasoning is flawed when #1 was in your grasp, but that's not for me to say. I'm not angels, I never would try to be angels, and thus I will never fully understand how exactly you lot work. Fair enough

Five. It's not a cheap shot, it's called the stating of facts. Whether you wish to take offence to it or not is completely up to you. If you take offense to it, then maybe you shouldn't play a round that gives people that ammunition to play with.

/me wanders off to find KJ on irc

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

did you miss the " I (Kjeldoran)" part? At what point did I say that Angels doesn't care about PA?

I got the Kjeldoran part. You did however claim to make decisions based on your alliances best interests not your own. As per:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I play this game for Angels, nobody and nothing else.

Would Angels enjoy the game if it was no longer running? Would Angels enjoy Planetarion more if it had a larger playerbase and more competative alliances?

I dont see how the defence of such actions can be that you personally do not care, but your alliance does. Then claim you play solely for your alliance and its best interests. It seems we are at the end of this disscussion.

Both sides views have been expressed and are taking over the topic (as you and Kargool have said), so ill stop replying and take this up in a new thread as it truely interests me.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Jonas, am I missing something or are you counting ND out of the top 11? Just wondering, any particular reason?

I heard alot of things about ND, and one of them were they had lost most their decent members and command. I know now that it might not be as bad as I had the impression of, tho I decided to leave them out as I did not know what they would look like, or if they would survive at all. YOu may put ND where I had put VsN on my list (soimething like that)

-Jonas-

[lokken]

round 14 predictions

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by lokken

round 14 predictions

we predict there will be alot of off topic posting on AD for round 14, therefore we post off topic.

[lokken]

laff

[Wolfeh]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

we predict there will be alot of off topic posting on AD for round 14, therefore we post off topic.

wishmaster for teh win \o/

[Jonas]

hahaha nice one wish

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

Im sure The_Fish made his feelings clear to his HC, as people have said there was dissagreement inside ND over what action to take. Infact all he stated was that he thought NoS should of been battered, at no point did he blame it on other alliances or his own. Good job at making a mountain out of a mole hill though.

Excellent post Zo0f. You are completely right. I always wanted the nap to be dropped, and so did some others, but the deciding call was with someone who wanted the nap to stay.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I play this game for Angels, nobody and nothing else.

I have to pull you up on this point. If this was true, you would have attempted to win last round, instead of settling for 2nd place, similar to what LCH did the round before.

If all you cared about was about how Angels did, you would have got some friends and attacked Exilition. You could have won R13, you chose not to even try doing it.

You do not solely play for Angels, if you did, your alliance might have won last round.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by lokken

round 14 predictions

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Nadar

You don't agree? You don't do what's best for your alliance, but instead sacrifice it to make sure every other alliances gets a good round? If so, I'm happy I'm not a member of HR.

You know exactly what i meant by that and my remark was in noway stating HRs approach to the game. I just found it funny a Noser jumping on Hooks amazingly basic, simple, generalised comment, as if to justify your actions from last round in one foul swoop.

On topic, if politics are as free & open as many on here suggest, then 1up will win again, followed by the ally who kept themselves to themselves (probably Angels). Hydra, hmm, they will be hit early on by the traditional #1 seekers, they will finish top5 im sure unless they collapse (which is always a possibility with such an ally - no offense intended).

Nos, well they wont have the element of surprise they had last round, they will truley be tested and they will be well aware of any possible fallout from last round.

I doubt this new round will be open though, HCs will never be able to play a truley solo game in PA, i aint sure why people on here suggest the next round will be so open. Each top10 ally will have at least 2 alliances lined up for napping/ allying when/ if needed and this alone shapes the new rounds wars.

However, I think 1up will win whatever happens, they are certainly the wise bet. Im sure either 1up or Angels will force a block war too, be that publically or the usual behind the scenes.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

but a nap / alliance doesnt have to last entire rounds.

No, of course it doesn't, but you don't have to forsake your honour and integrity to end it. By discussing the issue with your allies, you may find they are happy to end arrangements too.

[Squidly]

I predict that wishmaster will make a rather funny post, and then Lokken will quote himself and....

Crud! Too late! :/

On topic though... anyone have some thoughts about the rank 10-15 people? The big alliances aren't the only ones that should get all the attention.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Bashar

No, of course it doesn't, but you don't have to forsake your honour and integrity to end it. By discussing the issue with your allies, you may find they are happy to end arrangements too.

I would actually argue that staying in a nap is often more of a case of forsaking your intergrity than breaking it. While a nap might be made because it helps you acheive your goals and might stick by your beliefs theres normally a point where the nap no-longer does this and infact often stands in the way of doing it and by sticking it out your actually sacrificing your goals and beliefs which is hardly having integrity. Selling out isnt having integrity in my book atleast

Originally Posted by Squidly

]On topic though... anyone have some thoughts about the rank 10-15 people? The big alliances aren't the only ones that should get all the attention.

Thats tough to answer. theres alot of alliances whom could concevable snatch one of the last places in the top 10 let alone 11-15

However I would say that it would probally include the following in no particular order,
F-Crew
APA
Subh
Insomnia
Rock

One of these 5 might just grab the last top 10 place at the expense of Veneratio, NewDawn or ToF if they get lucky and no doubt behind them Coven, hidden-agenda, G-!! will be pushing hard

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

You know exactly what i meant by that and my remark was in noway stating HRs approach to the game. I just found it funny a Noser jumping on Hooks amazingly basic, simple, generalised comment, as if to justify your actions from last round in one foul swoop.

I just said what you meant. Why wouldn't I jump on Hooks comment? It's as close to truth as it could be for any alliance HC. If an alliance HC plays for the game and not the alliance, the alliance HC should be fired, immiedately. Being seflish is what wins an alliance the round, not being a charity pe0n running around with Santas xmas hat.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Bashar

No, of course it doesn't, but you don't have to forsake your honour and integrity to end it. By discussing the issue with your allies, you may find they are happy to end arrangements too.

I doutb that both parts will ever want to end a nap.

There si alywas one side which is stronger.


OFC it would be fking ace if both could agree to end the nap, but as too many focus on ranks, I doubt this could ever hppen.

[Mr Person]

The area of the rankings I have my own eye on is from about 5-10, and I do believe there could be a lot of competition down there, with NoS, ND and Insomnia quite possibly down there with Veneratio, ToF, WP, Vgn, maybe F-Crew or APA....

Personally I think this is where the most interesting battles will be fought (of course I am biased), and I only hope ToF can keep its head above water. Barring involvement from the big guns via blocks etc (though there most likely will be some ) this battle really could be quite open.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Nadar

If you wan't your alliance to play around as the UN or whatever, then fine, do it.

Doesnt work. I know from experience.

Most alliances dont care that there members cheat, as long as they dont get caught.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Forest

Most alliances dont care that there members cheat, as long as they dont get caught.

I don't think that's true really. Some alliances might give a shit about it, but I'm sure most takes action if there's a cheater inside. I know for sure that NoS does and I'm pretty sure most others does too.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by wakey

I would actually argue that staying in a nap is often more of a case of forsaking your intergrity than breaking it. While a nap might be made because it helps you acheive your goals and might stick by your beliefs theres normally a point where the nap no-longer does this and infact often stands in the way of doing it and by sticking it out your actually sacrificing your goals and beliefs which is hardly having integrity. Selling out isnt having integrity in my book atleast

I agree with the general point you are making here, although I think I would phrase it along the lines of "it's not the ending of a NAP that affects honour and integrity, it's the way it's broken". That is where my point lies. To just attack someone who is NAP'd, or to boot them out and roid them for easy roids etc. is in my view dishonourable. If there are problems with the NAP (specifically it not being properly observed, or there being disharmony), then breaking it is not necessarily dishonourable, equally, if it is no longer needed, and both sides can agree to that then it is not dishonourable to end it. There are many ways to end a NAP that would not be dishonourable, and they basically don't involve screwing the other side over.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Forest

Doesnt work. I know from experience.

Most alliances dont care that there members cheat, as long as they dont get caught.

I find that rather insulting, I know I don't tollerate it ...

to The_Fish, what exactly are you insinuating? That I have a 2nd agenda, that I don't solely play for Angels? Maybe the "not trying to attack Angels" was the decision WE (Angels HC) thought was the best one to achieve the best POSSIBLE result for Angels?

Whether it was a good or bad call, that'd discussable, but you claiming my Hc isn't trying their best to do what's ONLY in best interest of Angels ... that's quite rubbish.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I doutb that both parts will ever want to end a nap.

It does happen, although it is extremely rare, probably too rare.

There si alywas one side which is stronger.

OFC it would be fking ace if both could agree to end the nap, but as too many focus on ranks, I doubt this could ever hppen.

It does happen, but the rarity of it isn't much of a problem as I believe NAP's can still be ended in an amicable way without forsaking honour. Sometimes one side might decide to whinge on the boards about it, but that's just them trying to find excuses to use when they lose, or ways to make their victory appear even greater.

The whole point behind NAP's is to serve a purpose, it is to keep alliances safe from attack from certain directions. If NAP's just start being broken for the sake of it, and without honour, nobody would enter into them, which is very much a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. The self preservation society runs strong throughout PA, and alliances who broke NAPs in a way that was genuinely dishonourable would suffer long term for it.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Bashar

I agree with the general point you are making here, although I think I would phrase it along the lines of "it's not the ending of a NAP that affects honour and integrity, it's the way it's broken". That is where my point lies. To just attack someone who is NAP'd, or to boot them out and roid them for easy roids etc. is in my view dishonourable. If there are problems with the NAP (specifically it not being properly observed, or there being disharmony), then breaking it is not necessarily dishonourable, equally, if it is no longer needed, and both sides can agree to that then it is not dishonourable to end it. There are many ways to end a NAP that would not be dishonourable, and they basically don't involve screwing the other side over.

I would agree on all parts BUT the fact that both sides have to agree. There is nothing dishonourable about breaking a NAP because you feel its gone beyond the scope it was originally intended as long as you dont abuse the situation. For example back in the old days when agreeing NAP's you would always have a notice period specifiied in the agreement. At any time one of the parties could cancel the NAP but it would actually dissolve until the notice period had expeired. This meant you werent really able to abuse the situation by decalring the NAP ended just as you launch an attack on your allie. I see no dishounour whatsoever on ending a nap that you dont feel is right any more as long as you give warning, not even if the other side doesnt agree

[Bashar]

I didn't say that both sides have to agree.

[lokken]

This thread has gone so insanely offtopic.

There's another thread for this, created by Zo0f.

Use it. I don't want to close this thread.

[themast]

then dont. a lot of threads go off topic

[Foxman]

Originally Posted by Squidly

Don't agree with that. Bet you 95% that if someone came up to join angels, but could only be on 2 hours a day... Angels would say no. Again... Not an expert on angels recruiting policy here... But I'm willing to make a guess that you would say "sorry. not accepted"

There are other alliances that would accept that so long as the person was a fun person to be around. Since angels likely would not... you therefore do demand your members to be 'uber active' as you put it

they had me as somekinda hc/asshole/something last round, and my activety was hardly more then 2 hours a day most of the round, even less at the end

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Nadar

If an alliance HC plays for the game and not the alliance, the alliance HC should be fired, immiedately. Being seflish is what wins an alliance the round, not being a charity pe0n running around with Santas xmas hat.

Your whole approach to this argument (as Hook's was), is too simple and un-flexible. For one, there are different levels to every HC quality, each HC have different priorities which they believe are best for their alliance. Just because HC A has a different gaming ideology to HC B, doesnt mean they are failing their alliance and should be fired. Its this kind of narrow thinking that can kill an alliance.

There is not one path to glory but many and a good HC will choose a path that benifits the alliance on more then one front. Having foresight in this area can prevent numerous negatives to an alliances gaming policy, Nos's R13 policy for instance (while effective in finishing top3), has for many dented Nosers image and this without doubt will effect their future political fluency.

Lol @ "being selfish is what wins an alliance the round" btw, like thats all is needed to be successful in PA and you highlight this quality in such a typically blunt & clumsy way.

It will be very interesting to see where NoS finish in r14, im truely interested in how other alliances react towards them.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Your whole approach to this argument (as Hook's was), is too simple and un-flexible. For one, there are different levels to every HC quality, each HC have different priorities which they believe are best for their alliance. Just because HC A has a different gaming ideology to HC B, doesnt mean they are failing their alliance and should be fired. Its this kind of narrow thinking that can kill an alliance.

There is not one path to glory but many and a good HC will choose a path that benifits the alliance on more then one front. Having foresight in this area can prevent numerous negatives to an alliances gaming policy, Nos's R13 policy for instance (while effective in finishing top3), has for many dented Nosers image and this without doubt will effect their future political fluency.

Lol @ "being selfish is what wins an alliance the round" btw, like thats all is needed to be successful in PA and you highlight this quality in such a typically blunt & clumsy way.

It will be very interesting to see where NoS finish in r14, im truely interested in how other alliances react towards them.

I never said being selfish is the only thing that wins an alliance the round, ofc quality and tacticts plays a role too. And it's not always an alliance needs to be selfish throughout a round, but at one point or another it has to be selfish/greedy to provide what's best for its members. And I doubt any winning alliance can say they never were selfish/greedy to give the alliance what it needs.

Also, NoS politics wouldn't have upset anyone if we in example ended #11 last round, but because we ended #3 people got sore in the arse and started whining about it simply because we ended above you

And yes, it's up to every alliance HC how they want to run their alliance. I'm not telling you how to run your alliance, if you want to run it elsewise than i.e I would then I respect that, just because it's your choice. Too many have tried telling NoS HC how to run NoS, but it's not really any of their business. Politics might be completely abnormal and differ 100% from other alliances politics, but that's not really our problem. It's your problem how you want to cope with it. Whining about it on forums surely won't help at all.

Edit: Quote/reply and post in Zo0f's thread please. I forgot to ;p

[DrunkenViking]

lol, all the ppl throwing critics at nos for carrying out grudges from previous rounds are gonna do the same next round. Calls for a conclution: If you havent got anything else that double-standards and crap to post, then shut your sour-grape pieholes

/me goes to drink more

[Seth Mace]

Your just dragging the discussion on with posts like that drunken:P

[Mek]

1st) 1up
2nd) Angels
3rd) LCH
4th) Hydra
5th) HR
6th) Newdawn
7th) ToF
8th) Veneratio
9th) VGN
10th) APA

i think that probably the most likely top 10 lineup imho

lets see if im right :P

[lokken]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

lol, all the ppl throwing critics at nos for carrying out grudges from previous rounds are gonna do the same next round. Calls for a conclution: If you havent got anything else that double-standards and crap to post, then shut your sour-grape pieholes

/me goes to drink more

Personally I have no problem with what NoS did, I believe it is one of the most incoming-averse strategies I have seen, but if people want to hit them because of that, that's fine. The only objection I have is people from NoS that might claim they were the 3rd best alliance in the game, as that is false - the only truth behind that ranking is that they made the most of the vast opportunities that happened to be available to them at the time, big up to them for that.

You reap what you sow. Happens to ND, 1up, LCH happens to everyone. I personally am not too bothered by grudges. The only grudges I bear are against what I call good targets.

[DrunkenViking]

sethy felt touched

Tbh, i dont give a ****, i'm a happy pe0n in my dream-alliance. And last round we were the 3rd best alliance in the game(lo lokken -If you really want an explaination, pm me on irc)

[lokken]

1up are better than NoS
Angels are better than NoS
Exilition were better than NoS
ToT were most certainly better than NoS

I don't need an explanation. To claim that NoS is better than those alliances listed above is plain ridiculous - the difference is that NoS is less offensive and generally less successful and more numerous or lower ranked than those above, hence isn't high on people's priority lists. Put simply, NoS made the best of their position in the food chain by not tying their mast to anyone in particular, securing NAP's with 2 of the main threats, and were happy to skirt round the edge of major hostilities. That contributes to a clever alliance, but not necessarily a 'better' one than those listed above.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by lokken

1up are better than NoS
Angels are better than NoS
Exilition were better than NoS
ToT were most certainly better than NoS

I don't need an explanation. To claim that NoS is better than those alliances listed above is plain ridiculous - the difference is that NoS is less offensive and generally less successful and more numerous or lower ranked than those above, hence isn't high on people's priority lists. Put simply, NoS made the best of their position in the food chain by not tying their mast to anyone in particular, securing NAP's with 2 of the main threats, and were happy to skirt round the edge of major hostilities. That contributes to a clever alliance, but not necessarily a 'better' one than those listed above.

I agree that those alliances are/were better than NoS, but saying we were less offensive isn't the right thing to say. We were offensive against our enemies and I don't really care if our enemies (WP/HR) lacked the quality 1up/Angels/Exilition/ToT did. Everyone has a set of own goals, but it seems that most people think NoS isn't allowed to have their own goals.

(Last post in this thread about this, really!)

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by lokken

NoS sux

Well, playing politics helps define how good your alliance is to me :P Napping, tap-dancing, ducking etc are all tactics that makes ones alliance better. We may not be the best individuals, we may not be the most active, but as an alliance, we were the 3rd best alliance last round.

Oh and before you jump our membercount contra 1up/angels/tot/exil: We had a great recruitmentteam(also a part of how good your alliance is).

You make your own possibilities. NoS made them better than many of those you listed, and took them.

My last post on AD till xmas