Planetarion Forums

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2005, 10:58

This is an official Angels statement ...

To stop the rumours and pple like chika from annoying other pple just for the fun of it, we decided to make an official announcement regarding the decision Angels took for r14.

Angels and LCH have merged into 1 alliance (called LCH) for r14. There is no "hiding"* going on, anyone who asked me about Angels in PM received an HONNEST reply, telling them Angels isn't playing as an alliance. (ask Sid and multiple pple that have applied to join Angels).

Angels had too much pple on vacation and not playing round 14 and the command, including myself, is inactive and simply can't put in enough efforts to run the alliance. All of this put us, the command, for 4 option:

- Not play and skip r14 (like Exilition is doing)
- play and be with 30-40 members max, getting a top10 spot at highest due to small numbers
- be a BG inside another alliance
- merge with another alliance for 1 round (for now)

We have chosen for the last option. Why? That's basicly none of your business as that's an Angels command decision to be made. Is it the best option? We don't know, but we think it is for Angels.

This isn't some sort of block or Angels playing as a BG. We merged the command (e.g. me and irvine are a part of LCH command) and everything else. To OTHER alliances, very little changes.
There will be 1 alliance less playing and LCH will be EXACTLY the same in size. Only difference there is that they now have "other" members and "other" command.

I'm open for discussion here but mind you that Angels is not on trial here, we didn't commit a crime or anything "not done" in PA either. This all happened PRE-round aswell.

We wish all the alliances the best of luck this round and a fun and challenging round.

For any questions or more explanations, I'm willing to offer you that in pm on IRC. Plz refrain this thread from trolling as the only intention here is to make an announcement and explain the situation, so that the rumours can stop.

* Why did you consider we were hiding? Did we lie to pple about our decision? Did we intentionally try to hide it? Why is it that pple like jerome and Chika IMMEDIATLY go for the worst possible scenario? Give pple some credit and some time, and things will get explained and you didn't have to make subtle smartass remarks over it.

Alki · 24 Jul 2005, 11:00

LCH are gay, and with the numbers this round you could of easily gone solo and still done a decent job like last round, which u have yet to realise. sorry

Nadar · 24 Jul 2005, 11:02

Alki · 24 Jul 2005, 11:05

will forest ever make a decent post?

or just declare war

elviz · 24 Jul 2005, 11:06

Alki <3

Rocko · 24 Jul 2005, 11:18

sounds fair enough to me Angels,.. at least you get to be in an alliance under fire for a change

have fun,..

jerome · 24 Jul 2005, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

you didn't have to make subtle smartass remarks over it.

you didn't have to go to these lengths to try & justify yourself, but then maybe your subconscious is implying something.

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2005, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

you didn't have to go to these lengths to try & justify yourself, but then maybe your subconscious is implying something.

fair enough but you know me

DrunkenViking · 24 Jul 2005, 11:31

omgwtf Angels are trying to überblock and make the game stagnate as quick as possible....wtfomgasl?

wakey · 24 Jul 2005, 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

This isn't some sort of block or Angels playing as a BG. We merged the command (e.g. me and irvine are a part of LCH command) and everything else. To OTHER alliances, very little changes.
There will be 1 alliance less playing and LCH will be EXACTLY the same in size. Only difference there is that they now have "other" members and "other" command..

Not having a go here but how on earth can LCH be EXACTLY the same size when they have taken Angels members under their wing. Even if Angels were just 30 members the surely thats 30 members more than LCH would have had. Unless ofc it means that LCh have kicked the amount of members Angels brought with them which would be a little harsh on they members

Assassin · 24 Jul 2005, 12:10

I personaly think this is a good move tbh. Gud luck lch and Angels

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2005, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakey

Not having a go here but how on earth can LCH be EXACTLY the same size when they have taken Angels members under their wing. Even if Angels were just 30 members the surely thats 30 members more than LCH would have had. Unless ofc it means that LCh have kicked the amount of members Angels brought with them which would be a little harsh on they members

I just meant that to the other alliances, LCH hasn't grown or decreased in size spectacularly, ofc it's not the "same" but I hope you understand where I was aiming for.

Stifler · 24 Jul 2005, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakey

Not having a go here but how on earth can LCH be EXACTLY the same size when they have taken Angels members under their wing. Even if Angels were just 30 members the surely thats 30 members more than LCH would have had. Unless ofc it means that LCh have kicked the amount of members Angels brought with them which would be a little harsh on they members

As LCH also have members skipping the round, due to fact its a summer round.

mazzelaar · 24 Jul 2005, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stifler

As LCH also have members skipping the round, due to fact its a summer round.

At least you and Kjel have stopped with the piss poor effort at trying to deny it

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...&postcount=281

I'm fairly disappointed by this. I feel as though both alliances have lost their identity and it's not something I could ever do with 1up irrespective of how hard the round might be. Both alliances would have been capable of performing well even with reduced numbers and in addition to this, with fewer numbers, I think anyone could have forgiven and alliance between the "BG's".

Particularly, as they have performed well with smaller numbers in the past, I thought Angels had a bit more about them. I must have been wrong.

Guran · 24 Jul 2005, 12:55

I guess there had to be one alliance close or equal to the size/quality of 1up. The rest are quite a bit smaller in size.

Anyhow, enjoy your stay in LCH.

suave · 24 Jul 2005, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

This is an official Angels statement ...
Angels had too much pple on vacation and not playing round 14 and the command, including myself, is inactive and simply can't put in enough efforts to run the alliance.
....

This isn't some sort of block or Angels playing as a BG. We merged the command (e.g. me and irvine are a part of LCH command)

that means, you are too inactive to properly run angels but that's enough to be part of the LCH command? interesting

Treveler · 24 Jul 2005, 13:22

Thought you said Angels was Equal to FAnG r7 in member quality and command? Well well...

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treveler

Thought you said Angels was Equal to FAnG r7 in member quality and command? Well well...

Is that a good thing tho?

Treveler · 24 Jul 2005, 13:37

That depends on your point of view I guess.

lokken · 24 Jul 2005, 13:37

For handy reference

Looking in that thread, LCH were pretty ok about it to be fair.

I'll leave it for everyone else to judge what they think when reading this post and the various angry Angels rants. I don't think there's even a need to go beyond page 1.

Virall · 24 Jul 2005, 13:37

Angels and LCH have merged into 1 alliance (called LCH) for r14.

A combined-alliance called LCH eh? Original.

If you're a 'BG' and you're recieving defence (which is more than likley) from LCH. Doesn't this make it a merger?

Didn't you criticise ND and SiNN last round?

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

For handy reference .

The difference being that LCH/Angels seems to have merged between rounds instead of during (which is a positive fact in lch/angels' direction imho)

Treveler · 24 Jul 2005, 13:45

[quote=lokken]For handy reference

Looking in that thread, LCH were pretty ok about it to be fair.

Edit: I noobed it. Thought lokken was Kjeldoran :eek:

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treveler

The only reason 2 alliances would merge this late (2 low quality alliances) is to have a higher rank (which is easy with 100 members).

That was my point exactly. Seeing as angels/LCH didnt merge during a round - they didnt unfairly climb the ranks using a loophole created by wierd admins - they did it the proper way by waiting for a new round.

lokken · 24 Jul 2005, 13:55

One wonders though (when reading that thread) what they'll think if some other alliances decide to merge in response to this - the fact is they may well have started some horrible ball rolling and result in the very scenario they so despise.

Treveler · 24 Jul 2005, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRat

That was my point exactly. Seeing as angels/LCH didnt merge during a round - they didnt unfairly climb the ranks using a loophole created by wierd admins - they did it the proper way by waiting for a new round.

Well I dont have any problems with this, I`m just a bit dissapointed, and if you read this thread there is hardly any ranting going on.

mazzelaar · 24 Jul 2005, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

One wonders though (when reading that thread) what they'll think if some other alliances decide to merge in response to this - the fact is they may well have started some horrible ball rolling and result in the very scenario they so despise.

In all truth, as much as it pains me to defend Kjel, ND* and SiN* merging would be more likely to spawn the detrimental habit of merging to gain ranks which is something LCH and Angels can't be accused of by merging before the round. With it being at the beginning of the round we all know what we're fighting and have no excuses if they win through superior attacking and defending rather than merging two mediocre scores into one big one.

I have to say I have no real issues with the merge and can understand the reasoning behind it. I was just always of the opinion these alliances were much surer of their individuality and ability. To me it just reeks of safety in numbers and self doubt. I also fail to see how two such strong command teams can merge effectively without problems concerning jurisdiction occuring as I'm sure we all know the individuals involved and how they all like to run their alliances.

* - I'd also like it noted that I never took exception to this either as I understood pefectly the reasons behind it and cared little about them dropping us down one place, unlike some people who I need not mention.

lokken · 24 Jul 2005, 14:27

I have no problem with them doing it, it's a tactical decision, within the rules.

But then again so was the previous one, and they cried wolf about it. As much as they were well within their right to challenge the rules, to have a go at an alliance for playing within those rules was absurd.

Gio2k · 24 Jul 2005, 14:43

We merged with LCH. So sue us. We never started as 2 alliances ingame nor kicked any members to form a new alliance with the best of both alliances. Angels HC is not playing full capacity, so they decided to merge with lch.
Some 1up remarks are a bit hypocritical tbh. We are not the ones that keep recruiting every single quality player from other alliances, including their HCs sometimes.

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

But then again so was the previous one, and they cried wolf about it. As much as they were well within their right to challenge the rules, to have a go at an alliance for playing within those rules was absurd.

THe problem with the last one was that it was a posibility which apeared out of nowhere, and was not mentioned anywhere in the manual.

mazzelaar · 24 Jul 2005, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gio2k

We merged with LCH. So sue us. We never started as 2 alliances ingame nor kicked any members to form a new alliance with the best of both alliances. Angels HC is not playing full capacity, so they decided to merge with lch.
Some 1up remarks are a bit hypocritical tbh. We are not the ones that keep recruiting every single quality player from other alliances, including their HCs sometimes.

Then pelase enlighten me as to the reasons we should give when turning applications down:

"Cuz Gio2k sez so"?

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Some 1up remarks are a bit hypocritical tbh. We are not the ones that keep recruiting every single quality player from other alliances, including their HCs sometimes.

Recruiting quality players is indeed the ultimate act of evil.

mazzelaar · 24 Jul 2005, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gio2k

We merged with LCH. So sue us. We never started as 2 alliances ingame nor kicked any members to form a new alliance with the best of both alliances. Angels HC is not playing full capacity, so they decided to merge with lch.
Some 1up remarks are a bit hypocritical tbh. We are not the ones that keep recruiting every single quality player from other alliances, including their HCs sometimes.

In addition I do hope this means that Angels have only ever recruited players that have been kicked from F-Crew* for being crap and inactive? Otherwise this would just be a slightly stupid and hypocritical statement, no?

*By no means do I think F-Crew are crap. Just that being as they take on new players of any standard to train to be kicked from such an alliance must mean you're a pretty poor effort indeed.

Stifler · 24 Jul 2005, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virall

Angels and LCH have merged into 1 alliance (called LCH) for r14.

A combined-alliance called LCH eh? Original.

If you're a 'BG' and you're recieving defence (which is more than likley) from LCH. Doesn't this make it a merger?

Didn't you criticise ND and SiNN last round?

kj already said they are not a BG within LCH, but previous angels members are in lch this round

Virall · 24 Jul 2005, 16:41

*BG = flak

aNgRyDuCk · 24 Jul 2005, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stifler

kj already said they are not a BG within LCH, but previous angels members are in lch this round

SiN was not a BG within ND, nor the reverse, guess I'm not following your point

jerome · 24 Jul 2005, 17:04

itt, we confirm that AD needs a good lesson in comprehension.

aNgRyDuCk · 24 Jul 2005, 17:14

it was just that Virall implied that Angels did in fact criticise SiN/ND for their merge last round, and that was the response, just trying to qualify it

Nadar · 24 Jul 2005, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virall

*BG = flak

Uhm... I wouldn't say Hydra were WolfPack's flak last round, I'd rather say WolfPack were Hydra's flak

Geezer77 · 24 Jul 2005, 19:59

i don't see the problem, Angels did this in R12 with Mistu, and other alliances have done it in previous rounds. They did it before the round started so whats the problem. In my opinion 1up are only arguing because they may actually be challenged again this round. And people making some possible predictions that this may cause other alliances to merge mid round is total rubbish. One alliances actions before round start shouldn't change other alliances later in the round. Unless they have no backbone themselves like SinND.

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezer77

In my opinion 1up are only arguing because they may actually be challenged again this round.

Ive seen quite a few 1up members, even HC, defend Angels/LCH in this thread.

Geezer77 · 24 Jul 2005, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRat

Ive seen quite a few 1up members, even HC, defend Angels/LCH in this thread.

Ive also seen quite a few criticise the move taken. Also people comparing this to SinND, it is nothing like it. Maybe my comment on 1up in general was out of place, as 1up always enjoy a fight, but best leave that for another thread.

Regarding FAnG and LCH, i struggle to see any cause for argument. Maybe KJ shouldn't of bothered creating this thread, as in my opinion the move was justified in itself and needed no explanation.

alch · 24 Jul 2005, 20:47

I don't see again the problem, there is 2 alliances that arent playing FULL capacity, they talk to each other and decide to go together to have fun. From what i heard and saw, there was less than 50% of Angels wanting to play this round, Knowing what we been thru in Round12 After we split from MISTU (with 35 players) i can assure you that none of the HC in angels wanted to invest so much time in the alliance during summertime.

Round12 we managed to defend ourselves and be a beast with only 35 players, and we did that also with the help of "friends" outside our alliances, and i do remember the amount of time i invested in angels theses 2 months, This was insane.

Comtemplating this, and the fact they might have less than 35 hardcore players this round, they had 2 options: Go solo get bashed then no Real fun during summertime, and starting Round 15 with a bitter taste (which might lead most of the core not wanting to play anymore), or Not playing anymore as Angels and go wherever you want to go.

Knowing the Angels core, the last Solution was best for them, The fact that almost 80-90% sticked together and followed each other in same alliance just show their dedication to each other, The only thing i would say if i was HC this round is to announce that Angels is skipping a round and isnt playing officialy and that the remainer of the alliance is playing wherever they want.

I do agree that Angels as an alliance or BG should have gone alone (because they have the skills/activity/gutts ) if they were an alliance or BG but because less than 50% of the players arent playing, i wouldnt call this an alliance nor a BG anymore.
For me, Angels is officialy taking a round off.

But what do i know, i am not playing for 2 rounds. so..

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2005, 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Regarding FAnG and LCH, i struggle to see any cause for argument. Maybe KJ shouldn't of bothered creating this thread, as in my opinion the move was justified in itself and needed no explanation.

The intention of this announcement was not to justify our actions, it was to INFORM the community so SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS can STOP spreading rumours around and making their own little fantasies on those rumours.

Also at no point did we try to hide this, and this announcement shows that aswell. Around this time last week, I had my very first talk with Angels HC to see what the options were for r14 ...

TheRat · 24 Jul 2005, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Also people comparing this to SinND, it is nothing like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRat

The difference being that LCH/Angels seems to have merged between rounds instead of during (which is a positive fact in lch/angels' direction imho)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Maybe my comment on 1up in general was out of place

Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezer77

, as 1up always enjoy a fight, but best leave that for another thread.

Indeed, on the battlefield.

DrunkenViking · 24 Jul 2005, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

The intention of this announcement was not to justify our actions, it was to INFORM the community so SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS can STOP spreading rumours around and making their own little fantasies on those rumours.

I heard this roumor that irvine is trying to get netgamers to alter his nick to iLoveIdling, is this true or false?

Desse · 24 Jul 2005, 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezer77

i don't see the problem, Angels did this in R12 with Mistu, and other alliances have done it in previous rounds. They did it before the round started so whats the problem. In my opinion 1up are only arguing because they may actually be challenged again this round. And people making some possible predictions that this may cause other alliances to merge mid round is total rubbish. One alliances actions before round start shouldn't change other alliances later in the round. Unless they have no backbone themselves like SinND.

Will Angels do what they did in R12 and leave LCH midway through the round ?

Wishmaster · 25 Jul 2005, 00:26

Knew this for a long time...

GL to Angels and LCH for the upcomming round.

Chika · 25 Jul 2005, 00:47

Technically, a rumor is a LIE and is naturally false. Thats just to help the few that are using this word in an inappropriate manner. I think that it was a smart decision to merge for a round. I understand the entire point and the reasoning fully. Sadly, this steamed from me thinking that Nitros actually knew what was going on and he didn't, AND I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. But the situation componded when Stifler, tried to be a hero, and play dumb. I think its great that LCH/and whoever else besides ANGELS/ANGELS have come together. I think that shows that there still is a sense of togetherness about in the community. Good luck LCH team.

Jonas · 25 Jul 2005, 00:54

If the merge is for pure survival, they might have made a correct move, I doubt however thats what it was.

When SiNND merged, it seemed to me it was because SiN was dying(in which I think it can be justified)

Im dissapointed with 2 of last rounds top allies have joined tag tho, nomatter the cause. I mean, 1up have survived, loosing quite some players to vacations etc like everyone else, cannot see how LCH and Angels couldnt do the same. (there should be enough anti 1up feelings out there)

If the LCH tag win this, who will be the winners?

Edit: I think 2 of 3 alliances involved here will loose in one way or another(if they havent already)
ToT might get sucked up by LCH, if members find it comfortable there...
Angels have already lost some members who dissaproved of this move...
LCH might jsut be full of Angels spies once they "pull out"

ah well

-Jonas-