end of round rankings

[barney]

i assume it will be the same as last round where somebody who knows everyone posts the top 100 planets IRC nicks and alliances (once the round is over ofc). would it be possible to add to this list or start a further thread showing weather each planet in the top 100, was NAPed to 1UP or not. not to insult anyone or anything but would be really curious to find out how many/who in the top 100 fencesat and protected rank.

i feel it will show where 1UP's true victory lay this round.

[Orion Treet]

So 1up nap now equels fencesitting..... Fencesitting would be if you had a NAP with LCH and 1up, not one or the other.

[Orion Treet]

Would still be interesting to see though yeah

[barney]

[Chika]

i think they did idd do this last round. it was indicated if the planet was none napped or not. Yes, if 1up punked you this round and you didn't attack them, you sat on a great big fence.

[lokken]

Indeed, this will be happening

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Orion Treet

So 1up nap now equels fencesitting..... Fencesitting would be if you had a NAP with LCH and 1up, not one or the other.

if an LCH member has a planetory nap with 1up, you can call that fencesitting give that both alliances are/were at war.

[cypher]

anyone in a 1up gal napped to 1up (who really cares bout lch...............) is a fencesitter really

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by cypher

anyone in a 1up gal napped to 1up (who really cares bout lch...............) is a fencesitter really

I this round it would been called fence sitting, 10 rounds ago it wouldnt
I think its realy fence sitting when you dont defend against 1up and stuff...
except that, i would call it playing for the gal if a 1up planet landed in your gal randomly

[lokken]

ND are fencesitters

true story

[barney]

Well IMO fencesitting is being NAPed (either/or not attacking/defending against) to a alliance hostile or neutral to your own end of story!

you should not attack your alliance, your alliances allies, or neutrals that HC don't want to fight with.

anyone who would not hit an ally target of any alliance because of a NAP (personal or galaxy) is a fencesitter.

however i do take issue with the HC's of alliances who knew about it and allowed it as much as the players thamselves.

cowardice on all sides as far as i can see and it would be nice to know who these ppl are and how widespread in the top 100 this is. and maybe se reasons why some ppl are in the top 100 to start with.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by barney

Well IMO fencesitting is being NAPed (either/or not attacking/defending against) to a alliance hostile or neutral to your own end of story!

you should not attack your alliance, your alliances allies, or neutrals that HC don't want to fight with.

anyone who would not hit an ally target of any alliance because of a NAP (personal or galaxy) is a fencesitter.

however i do take issue with the HC's of alliances who knew about it and allowed it as much as the players thamselves.

cowardice on all sides as far as i can see and it would be nice to know who these ppl are and how widespread in the top 100 this is. and maybe se reasons why some ppl are in the top 100 to start with.

I realy disagree, not defending against an allie is one thing, but i realy disagree that a member of a gal wont hit the alliances of the gal.
It is this new way of PA that calls gal cooporation a pure fence sit.
I would avoid to attack any alliance of my gal if know of it.
gal > alliance is what i mean.
But it will allways giving you problems with your own alliance if you cannot attack an spesified aliance cus you got an member of that certain alliance in the gal, and you just want to make peace not war
Fence sitting in my point of view is when people reject attacking an leading alliance to save his own roids.

[Shev]

Anyone with a NAP with 1up that's not in 1up or ND is fencesitting tbh. Whether or not you agree with ND's stance, they are allied. Anyone else should have been happy to target 1up. Those who didn't contributed nothing really and deserve no respect for it.

[Buddah]

Originally Posted by Shev

Anyone with a NAP with 1up that's not in 1up or ND is fencesitting tbh. Whether or not you agree with ND's stance, they are allied. Anyone else should have been happy to target 1up. Those who didn't contributed nothing really and deserve no respect for it.

add wp nos tof and 1 more ally to that list

[alch]

well lets say that lot of alliance are napped to 1up, then add to this fact that a lot of individual are napped to 1up aswell so that put us (Angels) in a position which we get a lot more targeted by 1up and co because other players are just coward wanker and shameless players who prefer individual ranking than their alliances.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by lokken

ND are fencesitters

true story

Then Lokken is the first fencesitting mod

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by alch

well lets say that lot of alliance are napped to 1up, then add to this fact that a lot of individual are napped to 1up aswell so that put us (Angels) in a position which we get a lot more targeted by 1up and co because other players are just coward wanker and shameless players who prefer individual ranking than their alliances.

indeed, you tell em girl

[demiGOD]

dont think anybody's gonna claim a nap with 1up because of the mortification of being branded as a "fencesitter"..although it'll be really interesting to see, some naps with 1up posted beside these people's names on end of round rankings might just be mostly based on pure speculation..

[Gate]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

dont think anybody's gonna claim a nap with 1up because of the mortification of being branded as a "fencesitter"..although it'll be really interesting to see, some naps with 1up posted beside these people's names on end of round rankings might just be mostly based on pure speculation..

Cocteu and Elviz, 2 huge planets (top 5 for much of the round), members of LCH, who refused to attack 1up for hte majority of the round. There are plenty of fencesitters around, and they really helped to gift wrap 1up's hard fought victory.

[barney]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

I realy disagree, not defending against an allie is one thing, but i realy disagree that a member of a gal wont hit the alliances of the gal.
It is this new way of PA that calls gal cooporation a pure fence sit.
I would avoid to attack any alliance of my gal if know of it.
gal > alliance is what i mean.
But it will allways giving you problems with your own alliance if you cannot attack an spesified aliance cus you got an member of that certain alliance in the gal, and you just want to make peace not war
Fence sitting in my point of view is when people reject attacking an leading alliance to save his own roids.

So as long as you have an enemy in your gal you are quite happy to advocate leaving the rest of your alliance to fight a long bitter war and often loose. while you sit there quietly growing saving your own roids.

it is quite easy to have cooperation in a gal without NAPing everybody i have HR/VsN/ND/MISTU/NoS in my gal, i have hit ND and NoS a lot this round, on attacks with alliance and solo's. and im sure those from ND and NoS have hit VsN/LCH/ etc..., those from the other alliances know this and understand this.

yet when i need defence they are the first there, and when they need defence i am the first there are you so small minded that you can't see that most ppl look past alliances when defending ingal, it shouldn't matter what alliance they are from. it helps to be good freinds as they can get to you on ETA 5 if for no other reason.

imo alliance politics stay away from galaxy politics, and it has worked out like that in my gal, and tbh anyone who can't see that will im sure sorely miss that ETA5 def, their loss

BTW if you take that attitude and don't attack alliances with members in your gal, do your allym8's know that?, i really hope im not one of them

[Shev]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

dont think anybody's gonna claim a nap with 1up because of the mortification of being branded as a "fencesitter"..although it'll be really interesting to see, some naps with 1up posted beside these people's names on end of round rankings might just be mostly based on pure speculation..

Last round 1up stated which planets had a NAP with them - it's reasonable to hope for something similar this round.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Shev

Last round 1up stated which planets had a NAP with them - it's reasonable to hope for something similar this round.

Originally Posted by Gate

Cocteu and Elviz, 2 huge planets (top 5 for much of the round), members of LCH, who refused to attack 1up for hte majority of the round. There are plenty of fencesitters around, and they really helped to gift wrap 1up's hard fought victory.

-then we should look forward to seeing the list of these fencesitting fencesitters for this round.. be advised, a lot of them will be in denial of fencesitting, but what the heck! we'll have fun with it!

[cypher]

tbh if members are fencesitting... blame the hc's and leave them or something, get them kicked from the alliance. because quite simply. aslong as HC allows members to fencesit THEY are to blame and NO-ONE else.

they should be kicked and roided then if hc don't want fencesitters, but the HC's are playing for the ranks, cuz without the scores of those said fencesitters, their alliances are nothing.

and if members complain they should leave, i wouldn't want to be in an alliance where everyone fencesits...

[Fyodor]

There are mainly 2 types of players in PA. Those who play for their alliance, and those who play for themselves.
I think those who play for themselves out number those who play for their alliance, so their number one prioritiy will always be their planets. Hence Fencesitting. Last round a nice fencesitters list was put out and yet HC's still allowed these players back this round. (Or accepted them from other alliances)
The only way an alliance can win in this game is by sheer military might or by having 90-100% loyal members.
I think after 14 rounds HCs know this, my question is why do they keep letting these selfish fence sitters back in, or take them in from other alliances, knowing that by doing so, there is a slim chance they will be able to win the round?

[lokken]

serial incompetence

[barney]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

There are mainly 2 types of players in PA. Those who play for their alliance, and those who play for themselves.
I think those who play for themselves out number those who play for their alliance, so their number one prioritiy will always be their planets. Hence Fencesitting. Last round a nice fencesitters list was put out and yet HC's still allowed these players back this round. (Or accepted them from other alliances)
The only way an alliance can win in this game is by sheer military might or by having 90-100% loyal members.
I think after 14 rounds HCs know this, my question is why do they keep letting these selfish fence sitters back in, or take them in from other alliances, knowing that by doing so, there is a slim chance they will be able to win the round?

Would be nice to see if alliance HC's not accept them (back) this time, unless they renounce this style of selfish play, however unlikely this is.

[Colt]

actually going to be a list or is this just gonna be a discussion bout fencesitting?

[barney]

Originally Posted by Colt

actually going to be a list or is this just gonna be a discussion bout fencesitting?

twas intended to be a list which i egerly await.

seams to have been turned into a discussion tho :P

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by Colt

actually going to be a list or is this just gonna be a discussion bout fencesitting?

"<[1up]Syn_Sid> And thanks to all fence-sitting enemies - without your spinelessness, none of this would be possible."



haha - priceless....this rounds best comment :P

[barney]

Originally Posted by MotoX

"<[1up]Syn_Sid> And thanks to all fence-sitting enemies - without your spinelessness, none of this would be possible."



haha - priceless....this rounds best comment :P

agree'd i pointed and laughed at a few ppl at this point too :P


BTW any eta on the rankings / nicks / spineless list im looking forward to it

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

There are mainly 2 types of players in PA. Those who play for their alliance, and those who play for themselves.
I think those who play for themselves out number those who play for their alliance, so their number one prioritiy will always be their planets. Hence Fencesitting. Last round a nice fencesitters list was put out and yet HC's still allowed these players back this round. (Or accepted them from other alliances)
The only way an alliance can win in this game is by sheer military might or by having 90-100% loyal members.
I think after 14 rounds HCs know this, my question is why do they keep letting these selfish fence sitters back in, or take them in from other alliances, knowing that by doing so, there is a slim chance they will be able to win the round?

the same reasons most alliances accept defectors or former cheaters (fang never had issues with that) or ppl who are generally critical egos.
They can often play well and generate score / roids / activity.

Some alliances ever accept ppl back in who actively tried to ruin one round or tried to split an alliance (Irvine anyone?)
Afterall its a game.....

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

the same reasons most alliances accept defectors or former cheaters (fang never had issues with that) or ppl who are generally critical egos.
They can often play well and generate score / roids / activity.

Some alliances ever accept ppl back in who actively tried to ruin one round or tried to split an alliance (Irvine anyone?)
Afterall its a game.....

grow up you little child. With every post you make you try your best to throw cheap immature digs at fang. I'm pretty tired of that childish behavior really. Becides, this reply shows how clueless you sometimes are.

How about you let the past be the past, and stop being the little boy who keeps on giving digs over and over about something the entire world has already whined about.

I'm not even gonna dignify this with a discussion, it's just not worth it.

[jerome]

	Top	100		Planets
Rank	Coord	Irc Nick		Alliance
1	22:05:10	aif		1up
2	22:05:02	TeK		"
3	28:06:04	cypher		"
4	34:07:04	Artanys		"
5	23:07:01	Mazzelaar	"
6	03:09:01	Chika		" till last 3 days
7	30:09:03	PaPaA		1up
8	02:03:02	Kaifux		"
9	31:03:03	Titos		VGN
10	31:03:04	elviz		LCH
11	23:07:09	Kileman		1up
12	23:07:02	Synthetic_Sid	1up
13	34:07:05	mens		WP(?)
14	22:05:03	Rabbagast	WP
15	34:03:01	pdmaster	1up
16	31:03:10	Benneh		
17	31:03:05	cocteau		LCH
18	31:03:01	Nauti		1up
19	22:05:04	NitinA		WP 
20	10:10:10	Sandman		1up
21	22:05:01	Stals		1up
22	06:04:10			
23	34:03:04	Livewire	ND
24	34:07:03	cata		
25	11:09:08			
26	13:05:03	destiny		
27	05:07:01	CarDinaL	1up
28	31:03:02	Buddah		
29	03:08:10	suave		1up
30	24:01:09			
31	35:08:04	t0ne		1up
32	28:06:03	Thorm        1up		
33	22:05:09	HansA		
34	35:03:04			
35	03:06:09	DeSSe 		1up
36	29:08:02	Micka		1up
37	33:05:01	DeLoS		1up
38	05:02:05			
39	23:03:04	Exor		1up
40	06:02:06	Cameron		
41	28:06:01	panick		VsN
42	31:02:03			
43	22:05:06	Orion		
44	05:09:02	MiX		LCH
45	30:01:06	Forest		shocking I know
46	35:01:01	Almeida		HR(?)
47	05:02:02			
48	06:07:04			
49	06:02:04	NolliE		1up
50	36:02:04			
51	11:01:02	Bashar		1up
52	04:08:03			
53	36:02:01			
54	13:05:01	Snake_Eyes		
55	14:05:04	d-sun		
56	35:01:04	Spezies		
57	04:03:02			
58	33:05:02			
59	14:02:02	Late		
60	30:07:04			
61	32:10:01			
62	03:08:03	Hearne 		1up
63	10:03:02			
64	06:07:10			
65	06:07:03			
66	30:07:03			
67	27:01:03			
68	36:02:03			
69	11:02:10			
70	13:10:02			
71	05:09:01	MDK^MAN		LCH
72	03:09:04			
73	20:06:04			
74	01:07:03			
75	08:02:04			
76	07:07:01			
77	27:01:01			
78	15:06:04			
79	14:02:01	CrazyMike		
80	32:03:01	Azurewrath	1up
81	11:02:01			
82	31:03:07			
83	35:01:05			
84	24:08:05			
85	16:10:08			
86	30:01:01			
87	13:05:05			
88	22:05:05	yupster		1up
89	22:02:01			
90	35:03:03	jesterina	1up
91	21:02:04			
92	22:03:02			
93	07:05:07			
94	26:07:01			
95	16:04:05			
96	30:10:03			
97	10:10:04	Gio2k		
98	31:09:04			
99	15:06:08			
100	35:01:03

just basic stuff i knew etc, add & update at your leisure

[Orion Treet]

43 22:05:06 Orion <--- ND

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Razorback

the same reasons most alliances accept defectors or former cheaters or ppl who are generally critical egos.
They can often play well and generate score / roids / activity

But they rarely if ever win the round which is the goals of most alliances , no? So again my question, if an alliance wants to win, why would HC's take them in?

(fang never had issues with that)

Many alliances never had problems with that, im not nor have i ever been Fang HC, so i dont know why you bring this up.

Some alliances ever accept ppl back in who actively tried to ruin one round or tried to split an alliance (Irvine anyone?)
Afterall its a game.....

Once again why the digs at Irvine? tbh he is one of the most loyal people i know and I dont believe could be called a fence sitter, which was what my post was about, loyalty/selfishness and fence sitting....

[mens]

omg use the other thread

[jerome]

any actual need for this thread?

[barney]

yea can someone close this thread for me plz it was ment to be asking a question but ended up with the same name as the alliance rankings thread :P

/me slaps barney around a bit with a large trout

[lokken]

in a shocker, Lok does something by 'popular demand'