Kingmakers

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Don't you see the obvious flaw in your reasoning? You start reasoning from a point where everyone has to accept 1up is the standard ...

I think 1up has set the standard for post Pax planetarion.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Heartless, who are you to define what is the best alliance or to what specific conditions an alliance should fullfill to be the best alliance?

who is anyone to be able to say it tbh?

no one can really say what the best alliance is, and i dont think thats what heartless was doing.
He was saying, if exil want to compaire themselves to 1up, they should try to achieve what 1up has achieved in its past first before claiming they are better then 1up.

you cant judge how good an alliance is on what their win % is, if you did, for example, an alliance created for one round could claim victory over another who has been around for 9 rounds if that alliance won its round, and the other alliance 'only' won 8 out of 9 of its.

clearly in such a case, the alliance who has won 8 rounds would be 'better' then the one who has just won the once but because its being judged on win %, its not being shown up.

personally, i think an alliance who stays around and keeps its members happy regardless of their rank position are 'winners' as its good for the game in general.
round wins come and go, but the community is 'eternal'.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

I think 1up has set the standard for post Pax planetarion.

They set the standard, though I think Exi has made a new standard ... My point here is that 1up is no longer the ultimate goal for each alliance to be, simply because Exi has outplayed them on the 2 confrontations they've had so far.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Phil^

who is anyone to be able to say it tbh?

no one can really say what the best alliance is, and i dont think thats what heartless was doing.
He was saying, if exil want to compaire themselves to 1up, they should try to achieve what 1up has achieved in its past first before claiming they are better then 1up.

you cant judge how good an alliance is on what their win % is, if you did, for example, an alliance created for one round could claim victory over another who has been around for 9 rounds if that alliance won its round, and the other alliance 'only' won 8 out of 9 of its.

clearly in such a case, the alliance who has won 8 rounds would be 'better' then the one who has just won the once but because its being judged on win %, its not being shown up.

personally, i think an alliance who stays around and keeps its members happy regardless of their rank position are 'winners' as its good for the game in general.
round wins come and go, but the community is 'eternal'.

Ok, so then you agree nobody in 1up can claim they're better then Exi, based on the exact same assumption? If you agree to that then fair enough.

Btw, the only remote way to compare Exi and 1up is when BOTH played a round and competed against eachother, right? How they competed and whether they were outblocked or not, isn't important because both alliances have the same set of political choices, tools etc at hand.

And when we look at those confrontations, Phil, wouldn't you agree that in both situations, Exi won?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

They set the standard, though I think Exi has made a new standard ... My point here is that 1up is no longer the ultimate goal for each alliance to be, simply because Exi has outplayed them on the 2 confrontations they've had so far.

With all due respect, are you mad?

How can you even say that given that you know first hand how the politics of thise round have worked? You have seen the methodology for eXil success and the undoubted integration of thier strategies with those of smaller alliances.

I'm not trying to be bitter here, ultimately 1up have been beten twice by eX but they certainly have not been beaten once by eX and eX alone. I'm happy to admit being beaten but I refuse to have the terms of that beating obscured to fit an argument.

[Phil^]

sure, r13 exil beat r13 1up, and r15 exil beat r15 1up, but theres no way to compaire it beyond doubt to r11, r12, and r14 1up performance wise.

thus, exil can only say that they were better in those two rounds alone, not overall. ( though if it was really just them , or the block combination which was better is up for dispute )

the real test comes in how motivated + happy exil can keep their players after playing for such a long stretch of rounds, that 1up has played, and still keep winning.
thats still to happen - so until then exil cant claim victory

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Ok, so then you agree nobody in 1up can claim they're better then Exi, based on the exact same assumption? If you agree to that then fair enough.

Btw, the only remote way to compare Exi and 1up is when BOTH played a round and competed against eachother, right? How they competed and whether they were outblocked or not, isn't important because both alliances have the same set of political choices, tools etc at hand.

And when we look at those confrontations, Phil, wouldn't you agree that in both situations, Exi won?

I think you're missing the point. It's not about who is better, it's about who is more successful.

Or at least that's the way I'm understanding whats he's saying. Actually trying to say who is the "better" alliniance is an impossible task because of the number of variables and ways one can be better than another alliance.

[JonnyBGood]

You cannot compare alliances that played in different rounds. It's just madness. You can say things like "we've won more rounds" or "we've won a higher percentage of rounds" but objective generalisations like 1up are better than exilition (or vice versa) don't make sense. If another alliance, especially one as powerful as exilition, did play in say r12 it would have massively affected the political outlook of that round. I suppose you can make some minor generalisations like r3 fury would beat r15 subh but comparing alliances with a significant chance of winning a round with an alliance with a significant chance of winning a different round is futile in the utmost. Although that said I have a sneaking suspicion that r2 Blue Tuba might win if they played now due to having 90% of the active planets in the universe.

















Not to mention 80% of the inactive ones