11.7
 

Can we please stop this humbug crap and take that gal down!?

happends almost every round, hate this fence shit!

....!!

Re: 11.7
 

Exile in and then you'll love that 'humbug crap' and 'fence shit'. Don't hate the player, hate the game....!!

Re: 11.7
 

I'd assume that organizing a large scale attack like that is best done off the forums.
Fencing is happening because alliance HC's are shit. Truly shit.

Re: 11.7
 

Yeah it almost looks like these guys are nearly as skilled as 5.4 last round :p

Lets prove that wrong!

Re: 11.7
 

The top alliances are busy trying to secure the #1 position. Taking out 11:7 doesn't really warrant the diversion of resources.

Re: 11.7
 

That's what I thought.

You require a lot of BC time to organise anything remotely effective, or you won't get many fleets off the ground. You will be attacking the defence priorities of several alliances, reducing your landing ratio. You'll also be facing huge fleets of ingal def and the possibility of huge crashes on massive hidden production.

Besides which, their score lead is so huge that it's unlikely that anything other than a full scale war on them would do sufficient damage to bring them down from first in the time we have left, whilst attracting a lot of retals from the alliances who have people in 11:7. And you'd better be damned sure you want the second placed gal to win too.

Even if XP would be nice, I don't see it being close to break-even.


Basically, what's the point of wasting a huge amount of time and resources to achieve almost nothing (possibly even a loss) in terms of alliance rank?

Re: 11.7
 

There are 11 alliances in 11:7. It's pretty hard to find people that will actually attack them. In fact, most players are prohibited from doing so by the "can't hit a gal with a friendly in rule." But fair play to them to be honest, it's no less valid a win than any other.

Re: 11.7
 

Who lose by not hitting that galaxy and who gain…….

Nevertheless someone made a bad decision along the way…..

The one alliance with less people inside surely lose and the other way around wins…..

So who are the they….?

Re: 11.7
 

How much would any alliance gain by hitting that gal?



I don't see the benefit to anyone of wasting fleets on a pointless endeavour just because 11 7're winning by a lot. You're not going to stop them winning, you're going to waste time, effort and probably a lot of potential scoregain/enemy score loss. Given how close this round is, it could even lose you the round.

The sheer number of alliances in that gal limit the potential gains to any individual alliance. I'd expect sensible BCs to accept they've won and take apart their enemies instead.

Re: 11.7
 

To achieve any reasonable roid cap and thus also xp you'd need a multi alliance hit to be able to cover the galaxy. As gate explained, this takes time and effort and the only people willing to do it are busy fighting each other for the alliance #1 spot. Spending a whole days worth of attacks to take out 1 or 2 opposing planets in a galaxy, no matter how much they annoy you (and the 2 ND in there are very annoying!) is just not a good allocation of resources. Hitting other galaxies and ptargeting you'd probably get 2-3x the benefit, and in the end the hostiles in there only have 3 fleets so they can only do so much damage to you.

As for calling them fence sitters, this is wrong under my impression of what the term means. Afaik no one in there has pnaps, they all defend and attack with their alliances. Having a wide alliance spread just means you're protected early on due to galaxy naps, and then the galaxy turns into a fortress due to its high value and activity levels and it becomes a target no one wants to hit. Anyone is free to setup their BPs to facilitate this and with a bit of luck with exiles it can happen.

Re: 11.7
 

I'm with turtle on this one. (the fencesitting bit as well as the bit I've already said a few times)

And I'd like to add the urwins in there are very annoying too!

Re: 11.7
 

I stick with the ascendancy theme here: If you want to get it done, do it yourself. And yeah, it was Ascendancy hitting 11:7 the other night, and no our members in 11:7 were not too happy with it.

Re: 11.7
 

Yeah securing the win and all, that gal just magically got fat yesterday :rolleyes:

Besides, I thought securing the win these days was concentrating real hard on doing hardcore galraiding :(

Re: 11.7
 

How much has ND/CT gained from hitting 3:5? Huge fleetlosses, far greater than Asc got from hitting 11:7, and far less xp than we got from hitting 11:7 aswell.

Re-instate Amon as Mil HC ftw! *waves* :)

Re: 11.7
 

The fleetcrashes were, afaik, purely mistaken. Without them, losses would have been minimal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of mass breps I saw were simply asc running.

At the time Asc were believed to have a lot of hidden score and had at least one galaxy that was becoming unscannable. This was a severe threat which could be dealt with. I don't see it as too far to push it to say that Asc could have gained up to 10m extra score over the last 2 weeks if they'd kept those 10k roids and had a load of unscannable planets.

This time, we have a multiple-alliance galaxy where most allies will get huge score (thus removing any relative advantage), that is so far ahead there's no point trying to stop it. Unless you're a bit stupid.

Re: 11.7
 

hitting 3.5 was 100% a good move, however at the same time i think if the effort really went in with multiple alliances i think 11.7 would provide more base score simply from the xp (even with the lesser lands that would happen) but i'm not sure if the score gain would be THAT much more than hitting wherever the hell people do now though. (net gain)

Re: 11.7
 

The fleetcrashes were due to many of our planets being unscannable. Thus you can't argue it was a mistake.

Also, any nitwit with half a brain could have seen just by looking at sandmans that we weren't hiding that much score. Besides, even with the roids we had, our resource-production was gimped due to the large amount of disters.

Also, by mass-targeting us you managed to piss us off, incuring a quite significant disadvantage over the coming weeks as we targeted you primarily. I think that to argue you benefitted from attacking us is quite absurd, and highlights why ND isn't even in the runnings for #1 this round.

Re: 11.7
 

There are other ways to decide whether to land. Mass news scanning, spies or similar. If any of these were employed, then it was a mistake.

How? Score can be hidden in out of tag planets, or by planets hiding production. Once you're unscannable and untouchable, growth becomes very hard to slow. Nipping one of asc's machinations in the bud still seems like it was the right choice to me.

Better than waiting until you were untouchable before hitting you, and then getting hit by a much bigger pissed off alliance.

Are ND not even in the running? Looking at sandmans, as you advocate, says we're doing quite well.

I can think of two ****ups ND has made this round. Neither of them were hitting Asc the first time round.

Re: 11.7
 

Jer and I, and mostly everyone else else probably, expected we'd get hit/sked for a good while before we actually did. We actually had a poll about it pre-round.

I voted for pateam banning ascendancy but that's because i live in hope that we'll finally get shown up to be the greatest bunch of assholes in the history of planetarion.

There were a lot of fleet crashes though gate, I dunno from who to be honest, maybe ct, maybe others besides ND. For 3 days I gained more through salvage than I would have gained from keeping all my roids so it could hardly have been outrageously profitable.

I never quite convinced myself ascendancy would win this round. I don't think that the fact we won't had much to do with nd/ct hitting my gal though.

Re: 11.7
 

I was under the impression from friends in ND that any crashes on our behalf were mistaken.

I'd still like to know more.

Re: 11.7
 

I was under the impression you were running ND these days...


(I have no idea really who crashed, I haven't saved dozens of breps and co-ords of attackers. I just remember I earned more from salvage etc.)

Re: 11.7
 

I know for sure we crashed 1 wave the first or second night.

We didn't get scan / informant was asleep or something

But I dont think we crashed that much due to not being scanable.

Informants / relay was very helpfull

Re: 11.7
 

Re: 11.7
 

I would also like to big myself up for once having a relay/informant in another alliance. I am great because of this and I also would like to reiterate the fact I had a relay/informant in another alliance and because of my relay/informants (apparently they've multiplied in number since I previously pointed out I had an informant in another alliance) my alliance did really well and in no way did anything that our infinite number of relays/informants would have precluded occurring. Furthermore our informants/relays now take up 90% of aforementioned alliance and this has swelled my ego to such dangerous levels that whenever I try to post on AD my head gets in the way and I just end up smashing my fist into the keyboard which results in the inane babble I just typed out. I know that doesn't make sense but the important facts to remember here are a) informants/relays in other alliances and b) the fact I'm great.

Until next time I return to regale you all with tales of how I once got the landing ticks of another alliance's attack.

Re: 11.7
 

I take offense to that... :(

Re: 11.7
 

I want my minutes back :(

Re: 11.7
 

Oi, someone don’t want ND to win I see…..


Why not them then?

Re: 11.7
 

a little bird told me someone planned to attack 11:7 last night.

another one told me this morning that they actually did this.

Re: 11.7
 

Thread moderated.

Flaming - didn't really like it
Whining - hated it
Not using the report post function - hated it even more

Pleased people have grasped the essence of the 'no-coords' rule and not linked names and alliances to coords though.

carry on.

Re: 11.7
 

6.3 tonight, 3.5 tomorrow and 8.6 day after? :)

Re: 11.7
 

So who did that today to 11:7?

Re: 11.7
 

Because they are by far the biggest alliance in terms of score when you count the 15+ million score they got out of tag?

Maybe someone wants the round to be more interesting instead of just giving them the win?

Re: 11.7
 

I was there though :D

Re: 11.7
 

Out of tag score is irrelevant if the tag itself is full though.

Re: 11.7
 

I believe the net gain is still significant though, nothing to stop them dumping out a few scanners and adding the high score out of taggers. That said, CT have hidden score aswell so it's closer than one might think still. I really don't think anyone else has a viable shot at #1 at this point. Since those two alliances seem to have essentially formed a block I imagine they will roid race it out for the victory.

Re: 11.7
 

What Alki said + the fact that the tag in question isnt even full.

Re: 11.7
 

Alki :(

Re: 11.7
 

Ah ha ha haaaa confused with Alki, the shotgun is on the second door on the left, you know the drill etc....

Re: 11.7
 

:banana:

Re: 11.7
 

Because that would mean they would be the third alliance (to 1up and eX) to win 2 rounds in a row in PAX? I've heard some people argue that they don't deserve that honor.

Re: 11.7
 

How much "honour" is in winning two rounds in a row these days is debateable. In all honesty its not a big difference which of the top 4 win in my book, neither off them have played very well and the general quality seen in most of those alliances havent been very high in my book(some of them have crashed ALOT(as usual?)).

Hats off to ND if they win again but face it, noone with a clue will compare them to the likes of 1up and exi.

Re: 11.7
 

That ND win tells me more about the other alliances than ND.

Re: 11.7
 

This is bullshit (it tells you exactly as much about ND as it does about the other alliances), but let's for a moment assume this is true for this round. Was it then not also true of 1up and eX?

Re: 11.7
 

Probably the most sensible way to view the round.

If ND manage to win, then congratulations are in order. Urwins' defence shows them to be the more active ally, so a victory over them shows superior military and/or political maneuvringand/or luck.

But I've not seen anything to suggest that any of the current alliances come remotely close to eXilition or 1up in terms of quality.

Re: 11.7
 

If ND manages to win its cos CT felt the need to help ND for such a long time rather than going for the win themselves.

Re: 11.7
 

Here you make the error of comparing ND to 1up and eXi.

Re: 11.7
 

I'm saying one aspect of the way you look at ND can also be applied to 1up and eXi, and to every other alliance that ever played this game. Are you saying I can't do this? If so, why?

Re: 11.7
 

This lower quality ND playerbase thing isn't really true anymore. It's the same combination of pnapping defwhores and effective support planets in most tags.

Re: 11.7
 

Any evidence to back up the 'pnapping defwhore' thing?

Re: 11.7
 

Ah, I stand corrected - misunderstood you. You can say it like you do, but keep in mind that 1up and eXi were two alliances with highly skilled/experienced/"hardcore" members and the alliances below were usually (with a few exceptions) community-alliances, noob-trainers, mediocre or just noobs.