|
|
11 May 2014, 16:06
|
#101
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
CT have more alliance wins than vikings also
|
True that CT are a better alliance based on politics, but Vikings are better military based. Maybe today's PA is all about politics, but I personally rate alliances on their overall quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
in order to land on spore planets in the first place we needed twice the value of the target planet to break emp. stats were very poor for fi
|
One should question as to why you chose an FI strat in the first place.
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:06
|
#102
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
I apologise, I should have said to isolate Ultores and hit them first. I figured because all my other posts have repeated this that it would be known.
Ultores wrong move IMO was NOT to support Faceless. They should have supported Faceless (and to some degree I expected they would) which is why our "block" was ready to counteract it.
The way things played out were perfect for Spore, but don't think for a minute I did not anticipate WHAT IF Ultores had supported them.
|
had faceless not backstabbed the round before, we prolly would have supported them
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:07
|
#103
|
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 622
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Did Vikings also have a round ending deal with Ultores?
That wouldve been more like 1 v 1 from pt0.
I dont care if its Apprime, Vikings, TheFallen, or FAnG who is doing preround full NAPs that last for the entire round, i will advocate to hit #1 no matter what it cost my own planet than letting the top two alliances run away with a massive lead over everyone else.
|
i agree pre round agreements are ruining rounds making them stagnate but they are a part of this game from its begining.
I am also pretty sure spore and vikings werent the only allies with pre round agreements.
__________________
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
BANANA ALLIANCE!!
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:08
|
#104
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
True that CT are a better alliance based on politics, but Vikings are better military based. Maybe today's PA is all about politics, but I personally rate alliances on their quality overall.
One should question as to why you chose an FI strat in the first place.
|
for fun as we knew we would get gangbanged from tick 200 onwards, had we not had a leak of gal status page then we would have lost a lot less roids early on
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:09
|
#105
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
Another way to put it is ... would you prefer to join vikings or CT?
|
I have played in both and I prefer CT as they play for the win
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:10
|
#106
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD
Have you ever played for planet rank?
And what does playing for ranks have to do with stagnating the round?
Think before you speak!
|
I do remeber a deal with Zwans where the allie i was in got full NAP in return for his gal/planet was not to have incs.
So yes, it has A LOT to say sometimes
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:11
|
#107
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
Wow ... The Spore lads remind me of a bill hicks Joke about sucking your own Dick, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixzg73tSm2w )
Yes you played good politics and had good command and active members to EARN yourself the win... Have a wee party / celebration then focus on the next round as excessive Gloating won't win you popularity for next round.
Now The Viking Lads / Ultore lads ... assess where you went wrong this round I.E. Ultores it was early round and Vikings it was the latter part of the round. Whilst having reasonable military strength Ult and Vikings were out gunned in the Politics section (versus Spore)
Something I would suggest is the POSSIBILITY of taking ULTOREs 30 best players and VIKINGs 30 best players and consider a merger.
Would on Paper / screen would make an alliance that would rival Spore.
|
Ultores is fine the way it is, i wouldn't touch any more than maybe the top 5 of vikings, they're mainly ex ult as it is...
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:13
|
#108
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
I have played in both and I prefer CT as they play for the win
|
I would have to agree with CT playing for the win as they did try in R40
(that was a Fun round)
However I would easily say that Viking's Defence culture is Superior to CT's
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:14
|
#109
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I do remeber a deal with Zwans where the allie i was in got full NAP in return for his gal/planet was not to have incs.
So yes, it has A LOT to say sometimes
|
crap excuse and example, come up with something better please.
Zwan's way of doing politics in the past, has nothing to with what i asked you.
And you answered neither of my questions!
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:15
|
#110
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
had faceless not backstabbed the round before, we prolly would have supported them
|
This is reasoning which is poor IMO. So what about last round?
Ultores can't really complain about noone willing to help them when you conduct politics in such a brutal and "f you" way to other alliances.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:20
|
#111
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD
crap excuse and example, come up with something better please.
Zwan's way of doing politics in the past, has nothing to with what i asked you.
And you answered neither of my questions!
|
Yes one time recently, but never while being HC.
The zwan example is a good one.
Id even say that R49 was decided partly on a HC in a top gal.
R55 Delgado was attacked a lot, due to being in a Ult fort, wich i would also claim made up FAnGs choices
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:20
|
#112
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
Ultores is fine the way it is, i wouldn't touch any more than maybe the top 5 of vikings, they're mainly ex ult as it is...
|
The only ex (core) Ultores in Vikings is me. The rest who you might call ex Ultores only played in Ultores for 1-2 rounds.
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:28
|
#113
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Great to see AD busy by the way
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:41
|
#114
|
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 622
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
Another way to put it is ... would you prefer to join vikings or CT?
|
I played in both too. Got kicked out of vikings. With so many retarded rules etc its a surprise they end top5 every round.
__________________
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
BANANA ALLIANCE!!
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:46
|
#115
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunterrrr
i agree pre round agreements are ruining rounds making them stagnate but they are a part of this game from its begining.
I am also pretty sure spore and vikings werent the only allies with pre round agreements.
|
Round ending agreements between two major alliances?
Is that normal?
Ive never ever seen it in the alliances ive been in.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:47
|
#116
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Round ending agreements between two major alliances?
Is that normal?
Ive never ever seen it in the alliances ive been in.
|
Weren't you in RB?
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:51
|
#117
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunterrrr
I played in both too. Got kicked out of vikings. With so many retarded rules etc its a surprise they end top5 every round.
|
Ive read their terms and conditions to join but that is to make sure there isn't any grey area for recruits/members that lack common sense like
If you're gal mate is on the alliance defence page of your alliance and they get retal incoming you Don't defend versus your own tag I have seen feats of this stupidity from Mark (the yank) in omega as an example.
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:55
|
#119
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
The only ex (core) Ultores in Vikings is me. The rest who you might call ex Ultores only played in Ultores for 1-2 rounds.
|
Regardless, the only good ones id take have already played in ultores, there are others who have played more rounds than you in Ultores residing in Vikings
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 16:59
|
#120
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunterrrr
|
That ND/CT got a preround deal to work together, every round, or to the extent that im talking of, round long NAP is an myth.
And your examples are from 15+ rounds back, and im not sure if u said that the deals back then was set to be NAP, no return, from pt0-pt1177.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 17:01
|
#121
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
there are others who have played more rounds than you in Ultores residing in Vikings
|
Like who? I played 6+ consecutive rounds in Ultores, and I am not aware of anyone else who has played more than who are not currently in Ultores.
Last edited by Clouds; 11 May 2014 at 17:29.
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 17:24
|
#122
|
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 622
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
That ND/CT got a preround deal to work together, every round, or to the extent that im talking of, round long NAP is an myth.
And your examples are from 15+ rounds back, and im not sure if u said that the deals back then was set to be NAP, no return, from pt0-pt1177.
|
R31 http://www.clawofdarkness.com/pawiki/index.php/Round_31
Quote:
xVx, Ascendancy and ROCK all did in fact go into the round on relatively friendly terms, although not NAPed as some believed.
|
They did nap pretty soon into the round.
R38 top 2 allies were fully naped for 90% of the round
Quote:
Round Summary
Widely regarded as the worst round in PA history, any actual summary of events here would probably cause anyone reading them to never ever, ever play PA. As such this section shall not be updated and Round 38 shall be stricken from the records as a minor misunderstanding between various pateam members.
|
__________________
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
BANANA ALLIANCE!!
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 17:33
|
#123
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
Actually, Spore / Vikings / Ultores all (more or less) have the same quality playerbases. Bar the fact that Ultores have the tenancy to DC their own incomings, whereas Spore and Vikings primarily have certain people to DC the whole alliance.
Spore won, not because of the quality of their memberbase (which did contribute) but because of their outstanding politics and fleet strategy.
|
I tend to disagree. Without downplaying or wanting to insult anyone in Vikings, we do not have the same quality players Ultores has, and we do not have the activity Spore had this round. Regardless, I am very happy with the members we have and wouldn't change them for anyone. However, realistically you are showing some of the same arrogance you are accusing Forest of if you claim otherwise.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 18:04
|
#124
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
I tend to disagree. Without downplaying or wanting to insult anyone in Vikings, we do not have the same quality players Ultores has, and we do not have the activity Spore had this round. Regardless, I am very happy with the members we have and wouldn't change them for anyone. However, realistically you are showing some of the same arrogance you are accusing Forest of if you claim otherwise.
|
Maybe Clouds is onto something, the biggest difference that makes Spore better than Ultores if their memberbase is at the same "quality Level"(what ever that means), is that Spore dont allow you to DC your own incs.
As long as you have DCs that arnt top planet holders, this would be the best way to organize def as long as you always have a capable DC alive
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 18:40
|
#125
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Maybe Clouds is onto something, the biggest difference that makes Spore better than Ultores if their memberbase is at the same "quality Level"(what ever that means), is that Spore dont allow you to DC your own incs.
As long as you have DCs that arnt top planet holders, this would be the best way to organize def as long as you always have a capable DC alive
|
Unless the rules have changed since i was in spore, then you're free to dc your own incs if you feel like it
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 18:47
|
#126
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
Unless the rules have changed since i was in spore, then you're free to dc your own incs if you feel like it
|
I wernt allowed to do that
Guess you got special threatment as always
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 18:56
|
#127
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I wernt allowed to do that
Guess you got special threatment as always
|
rather think it was you that got special treatment
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 19:03
|
#128
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD
rather think it was you that got special treatment
|
YEah, but i am special.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 19:12
|
#129
|
1Up
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 302
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I wernt allowed to do that
Guess you got special threatment as always
|
That is because you ignored the deforders we gave, and you defended your own planet against all alliances and not just the ones we wanted to stop.
__________________
[Fury] Exec
[Eclipse] HC
[1up] HC
[Spore] HC
Former Public Relations Officer of QQ
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 20:35
|
#130
|
old spy
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: norway,oslo
Posts: 122
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
I tend to disagree. Without downplaying or wanting to insult anyone in Vikings, we do not have the same quality players Ultores has, and we do not have the activity Spore had this round. Regardless, I am very happy with the members we have and wouldn't change them for anyone. However, realistically you are showing some of the same arrogance you are accusing Forest of if you claim otherwise.
|
iam allso not spore anymore, but for the record i think vikings have some good members i just think that the ppl running Vikings lost all of the honor and respect and i would not play for an allaince with its current leaders.
ultores members are used to heavy inc, they know how to fake def well and there intel is good. and overall a much better allaince then vikings, but they allso have some leadership problems (backstabbers?) just look @ the information they feed to there members ;-). From there private channel i got so much "junk" information that i hope the normal member start to notice soon ;-)
but that is just me.
but it looks like ALL the ppl in here agree that BB should stfu and forget all about PA ;-)
anyway iam not going to check this site for a few weeks ;-) take care
i still hope spore does a troll round and goes after vikings for what they did this round, war CT abit small payback for the amount of inc this round and keep hiting HR so maybe they will think 2 about keep hiting spore each round ;-)
i wish all a good new round with alot of fun in a few weeks
i wont be apart of that ;-).
__________________
Aif
[1up]
played Round 1-14
|
|
|
11 May 2014, 20:35
|
#131
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillGhost
That is because you ignored the deforders we gave, and you defended your own planet against all alliances and not just the ones we wanted to stop.
|
I wernt allowed to DC only my own incs is what i meant, when i DCed my own incs i was also DCing every other incs.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 06:43
|
#132
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
What more can you want. I can't think of any other alliance that has taken on arguably the best alliance of the past 10 rounds, 1 v 1.
|
Hold your horses here, who are you talking about? Because Ultores were the best alliance 10 rounds ago, they haven't done anything of note since rd49, so who do you mean? From memory the 2 most consistent alliances of the last 10 rounds is CT and Vikings and you had both these napped for a large chunk of the round.
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 17:04
|
#133
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
Hold your horses here, who are you talking about? Because Ultores were the best alliance 10 rounds ago, they haven't done anything of note since rd49, so who do you mean?
|
And yet we are the only ones to take them on 1 v 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
From memory the 2 most consistent alliances of the last 10 rounds is CT and Vikings and you had both these napped for a large chunk of the round.
|
Really?
Well CT blocked because we wouldn't extend agreements with them.
They allied ult ingame and got ult defence when we sent SEVEN fleets at them.
We were hitting each other pretty much all round, especially CT hitting us. They could never land and we could.
We also finished above them last round.
As for vikings, well we never know, save to say that we covered all attacks on us from them whilst also sustaining incs for a lot of other places, but was never gonna be 1 v 1 from the moment they allied ult ingame and hit us with a big block.
You know my thoughts though ;p
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 17:35
|
#134
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
And yet we are the only ones to take them on 1 v 1
|
Or you were the only ones stupid enough to think they were worthy of attention. You could be sitting here telling us HR were the biggest threat to you so warred them 1v1 and won. Both alliances play at the same le el nowadays anyway, but he doesnt have the same ring if glory as ultores does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
Really?
Well CT blocked because we wouldn't extend agreements with them.
They allied ult ingame and got ult defence when we sent SEVEN fleets at them.
We were hitting each other pretty much all round, especially CT hitting us. They could never land and we could.
We also finished above them last round.
As for vikings, well we never know, save to say that we covered all attacks on us from them whilst also sustaining incs for a lot of other places, but was never gonna be 1 v 1 from the moment they allied ult ingame and hit us with a big block.
You know my thoughts though ;p
|
I have no idea what your waffle has to do with anything said , maybe I should have spoke slower for you.
Vikings and CT have been the consistently best ranked alliances of the last 10 rounds, they normally finish t4, I can't be assed to check but every other alliance has more up rounds and down rounds than these two, every round they are real threats to any contending alliance and you were napped to both.
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 17:58
|
#135
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
Or you were the only ones stupid enough to think they were worthy of attention. You could be sitting here telling us HR were the biggest threat to you so warred them 1v1 and won. Both alliances play at the same le el nowadays anyway, but he doesnt have the same ring if glory as ultores does it?
|
Really? So after being battered by an alliance like spore, that had a LOT more value than them, they still come back, finish third and have top planet.
To suggest they play at the same level is insulting at best, and pure trolling tbh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
I have no idea what your waffle has to do with anything said , maybe I should have spoke slower for you.
Vikings and CT have been the consistently best ranked alliances of the last 10 rounds, they normally finish t4, I can't be assed to check but every other alliance has more up rounds and down rounds than these two, every round they are real threats to any contending alliance and you were napped to both.
|
We were napped with Vikings.
We entered the round with no agreement with CT, we had a fort avoidance with them for a period (during which they hit us anyway).
Regardless, if we have to consider Ult as playing at the same level as HR (sic), and looking at the way CT play now (they are a shadow of themselves from 3 or 4 rounds ago too) then we should probably only count the past three rounds.
And Spore is by far the consistently best ranked alliance in the last three rounds.
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 21:41
|
#136
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
We entered the round with no agreement with CT, we had a fort avoidance with them for a period (during which they hit us anyway).
|
Did we not honor the agreement? you make out as if we didnt!
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 23:23
|
#137
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
Did we not honor the agreement? you make out as if we didnt!
|
He said that they hit their none fort i suppose, but you can read it any way you like
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
12 May 2014, 23:49
|
#138
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
And yet we are the only ones to take them on 1 v 1
|
to say you took us 1 v 1 is nonfactual. you accounted for at best 70% of our incs during the time period you were p-targetting.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
13 May 2014, 06:28
|
#139
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
Did we not honor the agreement? you make out as if we didnt!
|
Yes you honoured it, sorry I didn't mean otherwise
|
|
|
18 May 2014, 01:56
|
#140
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 98
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
So...
Spore had more members,
Decent quality players,
Very good politics,
They didn't have much incs for the first half of the round so gained high value
= Win!
Congrats, Spore were good, every one else sucked.
__________________
Apprime
|
|
|
31 May 2014, 20:03
|
#141
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunterrrr
|
Meh. You even played that round as a HC and remember ****ing nothing? Also from wiki r31:
Quote:
Some 3 weeks into the round, Asc attacked a number of big xVx planets. xVx, both concerned for their top planets and seeing a chance of a #1 alliance ranking joined the block. With the lack of formal agreements between xVx and Ascendancy this occurred in the space of one night. Ascendancy, now under attack by almost every active alliance in the universe bar ROCK, lost 25% of their roids over the space of the next 5 days.
|
So yeah, that nap was at most the last 3 weeks (7 week round). That length of nap happens _every_ round, so a terrible choice to compare to a pre-round full round nap.
The whole nap thing is becoming hilarious though, fort avoidance is a form of nap too and can be much more effective because of less political repercussions and less negative publicity. Most of the times members don't even know of these "shadow naps" Back in the day fort naps happened because an alliance had 8-10 members in a single gal. Now the requirements are mostly 3 members per gal.. And yet people who "only" had fort avoidance are throwing mud at people who had guts to go for a full nap. Cry.me.a.fking.river
PS: r31 EORC is the best ever!
__________________
Golan - Ascendancy
Planets.
Zik: 3rd(r30), 4th(r52), 7th(r27), 9th(r26), 31st(r51)
Ter: 3rd(r50), 4th(r53), 4th(r37), 5th(r31) 7th (r58)
Xan: 3rd(r36), 40th(r57) 54th(r33), 104th(r29)
Cat: 8th (r54), 9th(r48), 12th (r55), 20th(r32), 77th(r23), 103rd(r38), 150th(r34), 152nd(r24),
Etd: 14th(r28)
Those damn emp races..
|
|
|
1 Jun 2014, 09:17
|
#142
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 14
|
Re: Round 56 Alliance Stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
The only ex (core) Ultores in Vikings is me. The rest who you might call ex Ultores only played in Ultores for 1-2 rounds.
|
once rats always rats ;p
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52.
| |