Maybe I am just cranky because it's early and no caffeine yet, but I noticed something in this thread.

Every time Sov posts it makes me miss the old days, because back then when an alliance leader got too fluffy their alliance got fluffed up.

Especially when all that bravado is backed up mainly by allies.

Fortunately for Sof they are huge which makes the enemies either need a multipronged hit or for Sol/MD to hit and they also have strong allies atm. Oh and their enemies seem completely incapable of forming a solid plan to kill them despite how many of them are being made.

As I pointed out before, Rival's performance is pretty lackluster. Except for those techers with their RD tech pacts and FA...they're kicking some serious ass.

I'm going to address some bias issues here.

Its been pointed out that these rankings were biased, and designed to Troll SOF.


Well, if that was the purpose, mission accomplished. Sov has posted more on here than he posts in a reset on any thread:), and maybe at all. You'd think Sov was Leading Evo the way he's acting.

(Now, that's trolling.)

But that's not the purpose of this thread. I can troll a hell a lot better than this ranking thread if that was my goal.

I write these, as I try to do my best to be as honest and fair as in them as I can. I am occasionally wrong, I'll rank one alliance ahead of another, and the following set there's a war between the 2 alliances, and I'll hear about how I was wrong. Then, I'll admit I was wrong:) (I particularly remember Rival leadership giving me a hard time once after proving me wrong, then again she can give me a hard time anytime!)

Sometimes I go out on a ledge. When Son Goku took over LAF< and as LAF was getting beat down I made LAF number 1 on these rankings.

I got beat up mercilessly, by SOL/EVO posters over doing that. In the end, I was right.

Many people request these rankings, as they are percieved as being unbiased and fairly accurate. I don't know that anyone can claim to be purely unbiased, but I do my best to look at things and keep my bias' in check. I also refuse to post a lot of what I do know, or suspect on here, in my reasons for the rankings. Out of respect for friends, and people I enjoy chatting with. I do my best not to share any of those reasons, or even hint at them.

I have many many various reasons for the rankings as I put them. And After a day of reflection, I think I'm right.

RD should be higher, but RD needs more numbers, SOL wasn't at 75 during the previous wars with RD. if RD was at 75 I'd have them at #2.

I am absolutely convinced I'm right about MD @2.

The issue is SOL vs SOF at 3 and 4.

As everyone knows I'm not a Makinso Fan. I think SOL should perform better than it has under his leadership. And none of his "plans" seem to work:). Though they do make the game more interesting. And I am going to chalk this reset up as a marginal victory as far as Maki planning goes, as if SOL had waited for SOF to hit them, this reset wouldn't be nearly as close as it has been so far. IN the end SOL will most likely lose.

But the only reason SOL is losing, is LAF.
The only reason SOF keeps winning is LAF.

A number 2 alliance on the server should be able to stand on its own. And right now SOF without LAF, is dead.

So yes, these rankings do represent a fall of SOF. It is not an endorsement of Makinso's SOL. It is quite possible, in a set or two SOF reclaims the 2nd place in the game behind LAF it has occupied for 2+ yrs. It wouldn't shock me.

But even as SOV has admitted, internally, SOF Leadership has gone awol. The SOF war performance this set is lackluster. It was lackluster without logistical support against MD. This isn't the SOF of a year ago.

And if I were wrong, Sov would've taken his initial advice and not responded to all this.
but he knows I'm right:) So he's defending to cover it up. Attacking my character and my repuation of trying to do my best to produce fair and honest rankings. Ad Hominem attacks only prove one thing Sov:)

Helmet is an old old friend of mine, I love SOF historically. Its out of this friendship, and desire to produce fair rankings that I'm willing to say SOF is number 4, against the logic and readily apparent easy to see facts of the game.

So Sov, please quit acting like Evo leadership on the boards, that's not SOF style leadership. And, its unbecoming of you. (ooops, I think that's a troll.)

I resent that :(

Edit: Unless you are referring either to me or to Evo leadership over a year ago, I think you might be under false impressions regarding Evo.

If you think SoF's warring performance against MD was lacklustre then you are really downright stupid. The SoF vs MD war during MD's reunion was probably one of the best wars this game has ever seen. 111 MD vs 93 SoF and SoF won comfortably. SoF and MD fought 4 wars in a row which all resulted in MD's defeat. Only 1 of those 4 wars involved a SoF ally.

SOL is not out-performing SoF, if you think that is the case then you know very little about warring.

SoF was FSed OOP by 3 Alliances at turn 200 when most of our countries were 180 CS and not much else. We decided to spend a few days building countries rather than killing in a futile fashion.

Here are the warstats from the time of the FS:-
http://earthgraphs.com/...f29cd0675a3f41c1679613f37

Now let's take out the first 2 days when SoF was not actively killing (and no SoF allies had joined by the start of this either):-
http://earthgraphs.com/...f29cd0675a3f41c1679613f37

Oh.... What is that? Can't be...

- SoF highest HPM
- SoF highest HPC
- SoF highest total HITS

Oh but wait, we are doing so badly right? ;)

So Servant... Answer this, are you a troll, just biased or do you just invent stories whilst ignoring facts, statistics and history?

See unlike most people here I know you have an agenda Servant. I could quote you over the past couple of months and use your own words to prove my point. I admire your effort and determination but you'll need to try a little harder ;)

Oh Mr. Servant, you still haven't defined what "logistical support" is, how SoF received it from their allies, and how it helped them win the war against MD (after all it's not like SoF told MD to pick bad targets or to have a lower hit output).

You peddled this idea that SoF/Rival were receiving massive FA at the time of your original post. Nothing you have said backs up this claim.

You complained that SoF can't take out SoL 1v1 (although they had a friendly war sometime back), but yet SoF didn't FS SoL/Monsters/Evo this set. Obviously SoL doesn't think they can take SoF 1v1 or they would have tried. But ofc, most of us that have been playing for the past 3 resets (unlike yourself) know that one of Maki's "plans" this set failed ;)

Now you say the SoF war performance is lackluster...no mention of iScode's numbers. Now you have Sov's numbers to refute. Don't skip over them this time.

With all of these objections remaining unchallenged, I see good reason for someone to say "that these rankings were biased, and designed to Troll SOF."

Personally, I think you are more misinformed than a troll. Well, initially I thought that was the case...but I haven't seen a good rebuttal of any of the points mentioned thus I'm more inclined to think you do have some sort of agenda.

LAF overly tilted things. Gave you the top ground.

Everything since then is skewed.

Of course you should have top hits when hitting from the top.

I don't base these rankings solely on stats. I use a lot more factors. if this was a simple war ranking, SOF would be no 2. But its not:)

Sof's fight isn't a strong performance. Well know in time if I'm right or wrong. It took a while to prove I was right about LAF, for my critics to acknowledge it, and for the trolls to stop flaming me.

If, I'm wrong. I'll publicly acknowledge it. It is afterall a subjective art, and sometimes I am wrong:)

Funny how the war MD would've beat SOF in, involved your allies lol.

PS our reunion set we would've FS'd you but It would've broke our pact with Laf and would have allowed them to enter if we were winning.

Sof couldn't beat MD if MD got the FS, nor could MD beat Sof if Sof got the FS. Then again, I also agree LAF couldn't beat MD if we got the FS as well so it's not just Sof/MD.

I'd say gangbanging an Alliance oop overly tilted things. You forget that SoF has been fighting with restarts since the very start of this fight yet you complain about Evo being restarts? If SOL and allies had nothing to respond to LAF with then that just shows a weakness in political standing which you claim also makes basis in your rankings.

So what then are you basing SoF at #4 off? Can't be political strength. Can't be warring performance because SoF has out-performed clearly by a LONG margin in the stats.

But I thought MD was netting, and MD didn't expect a war from SoF? hmm interesting

If i were to do rankings where is what I'd say:

1. LaF
2. SoF
3. MD
4. SOL
5. RD

Beyond top 5 it doesn't matter.

So many people fluffing... Why don't you all make your own rankings thread...

SOV, people said the same thing, when I said LAF was no 1.


I maybe apologizing down the road.
IF I am, I am.

I apologized to PG for being wrong about a year ago:)

Servant, I think you may be the first person to win the best troll thread of the set award without actually trying to post a troll thread. Well played sir, well played.

the point, servant, is that you are placing SoF at a low rank because

a) they are receiving FA
b) they couldn't meet the challenge on there own.

However, you placed SOL above sof whereas SOL

a) is receiving FA
b) was not able to win the fight on their own (thus had to FS with allies).

Why do such things affect SoF's ranking so dramatically but apparently have negligible affect on the ranking of others?

That is why I call bunk and say you are being bias heh.

I would be surprised if he answered any of your objections. He is obviously trolling.

Ok, ok...

Laf
MD
Sol/Sof

Now we can stop all the arguing :p

LOL I like your rankings :p But... MD is ranked too high.

If you want to be #2 and SoF #3 ok but no way SoF and SoL are on the same peg. SoF is clearly better than SoL right now.

SOMEONE THINKS DIFFERENTLY THAN ME. TROLL!

And Servant you get out of here with your hidden agenda! This post is so damaging to everyone! How will they recover?!

SoL is ranked too high

How exactly did you prove people wrong with your rankings Servant? Even in my rankings at the time I placed LaF as number 1.

I'm pretty sure back then all the fluffing came from SoF, because they were seen as lapdogs two plus years ago and absolutely nothing has changed.

I like how the longest paragraph is about SOF. :P hater is all you are and your rankings are inaccurate and stupid.

try again/.

I have my reasons. Time will prove me right, or wrong.

These rankings are supposed to be relevant to the here and now.

I can post Omega as being number 1 alliance and then make a fluffing dumb statement: "Time will prove me right, or wrong".

If these rankings are not relevant to the current game climate, then rename them 'Mystic Meg's Alliance Rankings' and be on your way.

That was the story iMag got too.....
now the truth comes out. LMAO.....

SoF ranks themselves too high.

RD is ranked too low.

These ranking are close to accurate.

You cannot use #s as be all/end all in war performance when other clans are involved.

Each clan on either side has roles so #s will be skewed accordingly.

Let's not let logic get in the way of trolling though...

MD wasn't even pacted to imag that set. Why in the fluff would we tell imag anything?

well if he would answer some of the objections....it would be hard to call him a troll....if not impossible.

Most Rival members wouldnt have had countries capable of breaking most Evo countries even if they joined the war later.

Its a combination of Evo being good netters and RIVAL being an absolutely terrible alliance.

I think SoF are ranked so low for the same reason, sure they have the numbers but they are really not good netters and quite lacking when it comes to warring also. The saving grace for SoF is aside from LaF who are at worst the 2nd best netting alliance in the game and the best warring alliance is that the other big alliances don't really excel at either netting or warring either.

Maybe they are ranked a bit too low in these rankings but that doesnt make SoF any better.

evo's just a bunch of restarts no threat to us anymore they just look good red and dead.

servant clearly knows nothing about warring.


KJ you clearly know nothing of war also, sof is the best warring alliance in this game.

I do admit evo are putting out a tremendous effort this set though.

I warred with Rival last set and they have a few very good players who could easily run a country in Evo or Laf and not be out of place.

Would you like to do some "hits per kill" analysis of LaF's attacks on Evo this reset? Please feel free to take out and ignore all ABs. Please also feel free to ignore any/all attacks after the first 2 weeks since one could argue larger population numbers on countries affect the number of hits.

I was being sincere, i actually do think evo is putting out a tremendous effort this set.

Please refer to all previous posts regarding Laf's impact on this war.

Despite the extra week of netting and stocking unmolested that Rival got, Evo was almost dead even on NW when Rival FSed, despite being in the war from day 1.

Also, I'd personally rank Laf above Sof in terms of warring, but I don't know if we'll ever see that happen. Sof should be ranked higher based on politics, not ingame performance. The solidity of their allies is what makes them dominant.

PS: I love how Rivals is getting mass-FA, and they also happen to be massively cross-pacted to Sof countries, but Sof isn't getting FA at all :)

haha laf above sof in warring, thats a little far fetched you dirty little snitch.

I did tell you to compare LaF's hits per kill versus SoF's. Remember to take out all the ABs!

Funny how anyone can rank SOL above SOF for one reason only, I don't play in SOl anymore - so by default, SOL is ranked below SOF

plain and simple

Lol, laf would be farming Sof by the third week. It would not even be close, sof is great at what they do - beating down the rif raf - but beat Laf? Assuming no FS for either side, laf would massacre Sof.

The best 2-4 war builders in Sof would not have a top 30 war country in laf. I've warref both tags almost non-stop for 3 years, I've been a head on the war teams for 2 different alliances war prepping against sof/laf. I've spent more hours studying laf and sof countries than I have spent helping my kids with their homework.

Sof war builds are pretty primitive, laf builds are always strong and always taylor made for the war they are planning for.

Know thy enemy.

You know what's great.

The above comment, being made, by a guy who ran a "warring alliance". That couldn't get a single kill, for a week, while losing 20 countries, against arguably the most peaceful netting oriented alliance in the history of the game.

At least they finally identified the one inactive and killed it off to break the embarrassing streak:)

Scode knows his warring!

This assessment is spot on.

Despite most Sofers abhorrence for netting, it's essential to war effectively. Why do you think Evo is doing well at all, despite getting flattened by Laf?

lol tella we weren't netting and you could have easily grown you were 105 against 76 from day 1... also you don't gain NW that much in the 1st 12 - 14 days you build up your country... you as a netter should know that.

Then why do Sof keep fluffing so much about an 'unfair oop FS'? Aside from lost turns, there's not much difference between a Day 5 country and a restart...

And we WERE growing. We were matching your growth while spending thousands of turns hitting. That's my point :)

they arent getting FA, those are friendship pacts. :P

i will agree with the sentiment that a good netter can build a better war country then a warrer. economy and production are key to having a strong country.

they keep fluffing because the FS was (should i really remind you) 105 against 76 that's about 39% more members meaning 39% more hits that means that growing would be hard really hard

So, here is my 2 cents

If Sof and laf fought week 1-2 it would be a close war
If SoF FS'ed Laf in week 3-4 it would be a close war
But other then that, Laf makes better countries. Sof might be better at target selection, but once laf has 50 breakers and sof has 25 its way to hard to win that.

Rawr

I understand that, and they called you guys in to even the numbers. We don't want an even war, nobody does. We went in KNOWING that you guys would be called in, and that Laf probably would as well.

It's the fact that they continue to fluff about an OOP FS despite getting an 80 member Laf to completely demolish our best netters and breakers who were focused on continuing to get bigger...And they keep fluffing despite the fact that they're winning and widening the NW gap thanks in part to Aid from RD.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I've never seen winners cry so damn much...