Leadership
 

I didn't play a big part in this round at all. I spent about a week helping run things day to day and another week working on tools with a certain techie friend of mine (which was actually quite fun, he made a huge difference over the course of the round). This is addressed to leaders of any alliance that might have won R19:

I was being sincere pre-round, don't think I wasn't! Certainly eXilition would've planned a lot better if it had started with intentions to win. You could say wanting to do better was inevitable, but it's only because a relatively small number of individuals really stepped up (DC & BC departments) that the alliance got such a big average advantage. I guess it says a lot for the bonds formed in this alliance. I'd just like to point out by the way, while Sandmans says eXilition's average score is about 4,800,000, it's actually a lot closer to 5,600,000 because the current scoring system discounts late joiners. Average value is about 3,300,000, Ascendancy's is about 1,900,000. Furious Omen and Vision come next.

The score race was pretty damn close, the race for military power was won two weeks ago. Why are we playing again?

These don't really matter much but someone might like to read it anyway.

I think that was about a week or so into the round, and that's the point eXilition started to think about winning. About a fortnight later, it actually started thinking about how that might happen. The alliance was never 'destined' to win. Anyone who proclaimed they surely would with a month to go yet no clue about the alliance was either being provocative or useless.

Winning alliances do some key things differently to losing alliances:

Intelligence
They change their environment if they don't like it
They plan to win

For god's sake, don't plan to be around 300 million score at the end. Plan to beat your opposition, and if you're going to spend two months trying to do it, you damn well prepare yourselves to know exactly what your competition is. It's amazing that only 1up, Ascendancy and eXilition have taken such initiative for as long as I remember. All the leaders are too busy ticking boxes to play. For leaders at NewDawn, Omen and Angels:

Stop seeing the game as static, it's as dynamic as you want it to be. If you want to be addressed as a leader, start thinking like one. No prizes go to the HC that managed to get 80 guys to work hard at completely wasting their time, no matter how many times you tell us otherwise.

Re: Leadership
 

Well said.

Re: Leadership
 

You talk about these alliances as if they have bad leaders, they don't. They have one or two good leaders counterbalanced by 3 or 4 very very bad ones. You also don't appreciate that they have a tougher job, simply because they have a membership not as good (see ND's fleetcrashes) or as dedicated to the cause (or Angels total lack of discipline) and to put it bluntly, idiots (enter a whole stack of names here) getting in the way. Their first and best step should be to cut down their leaders so they can actually have more leadership.

People may claim these people should be replaced, but where community/alliance integrate this is hard where people don't want to offend others.

Re: Leadership
 

great post

Re: Leadership
 

On the spot!

Re: Leadership
 

In my opinion, a good leader will get rid of the bad leaders.

Why was a bad leader promoted? And why not demoted?

If a bad leader is in overall control, why isnt the good leader leaving and building an alliance based around good leadership?

Using bad leaders working with good leaders as a counter-balance is imo flawed, as a good leader would of built a good team.

Surely if a good leader hasnt been able to build a good team, that makes him a bad leader?

Re: Leadership
 

Because in some alliances, 'community' and 'how long you've been there' get in the way. Not to mention the fact, that these alliances at the very top are run as a democracy - they're regularly outvoted, or have their influence curtailed. Regardless, they do a lot of good for their people.

The point is that leadership is a far larger group than it needs to be, alliances need to recognise this, strip it down to the bare minimum and let far fewer people have the ability to make key decisions if they want to be effective. But it is not the fault of the people who I think are good, they are just a part of the system they are in and aren't in a position to change it without upsetting a lot of their group.

Re: Leadership
 

All the time that gets in the way, an aliance cant make the jump to be a very top alliance capable of winning rounds.

Tell that to Sid or kaifux :)

Aboslutely.

Nothing has ever been achieved without upsetting people along the way. If you want to be the best, you have to be ruthless and have that winning attitude.

Re: Leadership
 

actually, at the very top eXilition has been a "democracy" of sorts with everything being dicussed etc, and generally majority rule.

Re: Leadership
 

I see you are accusing Ascendancy of having a leadership. I resent that. People might expect me to do stuff :(

Edit: to expand a bit: Yes, Ascendancy does have these things, but they are not focused at the top. One person or a small group of people does not come up with a special plan that the alliance as a whole follows. People don't follow orders, they live and die by their own mistakes. I think this is a much better way to play Planetarion, as a player and as an alliance. Go figure.

Re: Leadership
 

Some people play to win, some people play for enjoyment, I play for the second more than the first.

Well yes - the difference is they've been able to build on alliances from the start - ND has a legacy going back years.

Well this is the question of what is more important to you. It can be done without upsetting people, there just has to be enough people of sufficient authority wanting to do it. I don't think moving up to the next level is impossible but it's very difficult because all this results in is an improvement in the delivery of leadership, but not necessarily a more dedicated, active alliance as a whole. Who knows if it is enough.

Make no mistake, if an alliance like ND stepped up to win planetarion, it would be the biggest achievement an alliance has made, because improving to the next level is way harder than starting afresh at that top level.

Re: Leadership
 

Asc has players good enough, experienced enough and not shit enough to not need a command. They know how to do well in the game, know what to expect when they join and that's sufficient. It's a far better model than any other, but probably one that only asc could play.

Re: Leadership
 

You're wrong. Any alliance could play it. A lot of people play in other alliances like they were Ascendancy, and they get called out for not being perfect soldiers*. I say rejoice in these qualities and build your alliance around them. People want to play the game, so let them play the way they want to play.

* Doing stuff like prelaunching, 3-fleeting, sleeping at night, making planet NAPs and defending galmates.

Re: Leadership
 

[BIG] for example - we're not even as hardcore as Ascendency (our private chan is only keyed, not +i and has the same key the whole round!), we use the in game attack planner and basically have no other support systems, yet we do pretty well and above all we enjoy playing.

Re: Leadership
 

Ascendancy don't even use an attack planner, they can't be bothered to plan attacks, they either go and find their own targets, ask another ally for targets (mainly eXi this round) or team up on targets (<3 Rob and TK for giving me targets when I just sat there doing nothing :D )

Re: Leadership
 

Generally, I'd say we either agree on a plan of action or change our environment to make a proposal agreeable. There's never been that much disagreement though, generally it's pretty obvious what direction an alliance should take to win. There's everything you do to get there too..

but those things tend to be complementary when you all understand the direction.

A lot of other alliances seem to spend an age discussing dead points while Cartman has already suggested a course of action for our Caths on the forums, Kaifux is already looking at something new to improve the alliance internally and Hude's concentrating on the tools.

Most people find it very difficult to actually get things done in PA, I find. These people should be taking on responsibilities with clear cut goals.. Most alliances are too inflexible at the top. They tend to separate HC work into excessively defined sections or are happy to let it be a muddle - Neither of which ever work.

Re: Leadership
 

In general large groups of people don't get things done. They don't get things done because they waste their time arguing with each other over silly, irrelevant things. Largely when groups of people do accomplish things it's because their goals and methods were the same in the first place and what they spend their time discussing are largely tactical and not strategic issues.

In summary, both good and bad leaders argue over tactics, but bad leaders don't agree on their strategy before they start arguing.

Re: Leadership
 

Angels had that problem a lot. Too many HCs, too many opinions, too little action.

In FO we didn't. We had 4 HCs, each with their area of expertise, but none of us refused to take part in something which wasn't "our job", we all did it together. The team was nice enough, and the alliance ran rather well. I think we provided a good environment for our members - and we certainly did change the environment of the round, heh.

Re: Leadership
 

I'd like to say something on this point actually. If your alliance is going to try fighting a war you have to think about value first. Up until the last few days of the round suiciding for xp means you're sacrificing long-term score-gaining possibilities for short-term actual score gains. In a war situation a lot of the time you're also increasing your enemy's long-term score gaining possibilities. This will invariably end up costing you.



PS Average value over active players in ascendancy was 2.7 mil sofqbwtmc.

Re: Leadership
 

So true. Brings back memories from long, long ago being part of an alliance staff that transformed during the rounds from saints to players.

The poison is the cure.

Re: Leadership
 

The only positive most alliances can take from the round is that the only way Exi were able to win was by merging/recruiting - they lacked the ability to actually win with a smaller number of players. Other than that they totally outplayed everyone else. Yep - you can believe their claims that they didn't plan to win - but as soon as the chance presented itself they were busy recruiting like mad to get there. I'm inclined to believe they never thought they could win - just at a certain point in the round they realised how crap everyone else was and decided t orecruit/merge their way to a victory. It may be a cheap victory - but it's still a win (it's lame but it's legal).

Thos of us with half a clue knew the yhad to be killed early on - but unfortunately (for competetiveness) most alliances are run by the clueless: so Exi were napped and/or left alone. Make whatever excuses you want - you could have stopped them even considering a win early in the round but failed to do so. The fact that the only Exis making regular posts were nobodies (e.g. Chipz) should have been a clue that Exi weren't to be written off (is whoever neg-repped me for saying Exi would probably win going to retract it?) - but seems noone can understand clues. In fact no current alliance leadership seems able to spot something that's shoved right in their face till it's too late.

With Exi (and 1up) not playing next round some crap alliance can finally win - make the most of it - and when you celebrate remember that you're only winning because noone decent is left playing, not because you're actually half-competent.

Re: Leadership
 

So based on your logic if eX and 1up have won till now vs crap allies what does that make them?

crap also.

Re: Leadership
 

No - it makes them better than crap. HOW much better is, of course, open for debate.

EDIT: Just in case anyone else is as mathematically illiterate as Shoshuro, the statement X>Y means that X is GREATER than Y. It doesn't indicate HOW much greater X is than Y - but any attempt to claim that the statement somehow indicates X=Y is either trolling or stupidity. I'll give Shoshuro the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just stupid.

Re: Leadership
 

tbh though it's more to do with the way the game has evolved over the last few rd's , less people are willing to consider playing pa 24/7 like exil and 1 up did
but as you said victory is victory

Re: Leadership
 

The only difference as regards posting was that I wasn't posting anything because I was on holiday or otherwise away. Most of the command barely post anyway, Cartman and NitinA, but they were anyway.

Saying that eXi were going to win when that thread came up was a meaningless prediction. About the only people who could've made that prediction with any degree of certainty at all, weren't doing so. Saying the alliance would win on reputation is a waste of everyone's time, speculating that it would on the grounds of absolutely nothing at all is even worse. Consider that Cart and Mac were running the show and none of us had seen them running an alliance before.

Alliances are only at the centre of the game because strong figures made it so (and pateam try to close you if you try and do anything else). If no alliance takes winning seriously we might find galaxies or something else outrun them.

Re: Leadership
 

No, it was picking a date to start fighting for a win we eventually decided should be ours. And it's because Planetarion's evolved to be an eight week score race.

Re: Leadership
 

I disagree with you on that. I'll accept your plan was never to win - but you're competetive enough that if the chance offers itself you won't refuse it: and I felt the chance was always going to offeri tself as the competition weren't good enough to close the door in your face. Had I been running an alliance I'd have hit Exi early on - not because I thought you were trying to win but becuase it would reove any dreams of winning from your mind. The door was left open - and whoever was in charge decided even a win gained by recruiting/merging was win. And the rest's history.

Not sure I'd merge/recruit to a win myself - and ND can at least take credit form being the hgihest ranked non-merged alliance. But ultimately a win is a win - and a loss is a loss.

Re: Leadership
 

Actually u have a point here, about basing prediction on forum activity (or lack of it). I bet my last 50cents for an alliance that spends the most time off AD r20.

But still I think mac says it teh best. :/

Re: Leadership
 

Well Sid the way you won R17 could clearly be seen as "winning by recruiting". No matter if those members were 1up even when they were out of tag or not.

And about ND. That alliance wouldn't even be around anymore if it wasn't for merging in the past 4-5 years. YHQ, G-II, SiN and I bet if i wouldn't be stoned right now I could come up with some other alliances.

Re: Leadership
 

Ah, the great Nihilum leader himself, lizardking. :P

Re: Leadership
 

Shhhhhzh bwtmc! ;)

Re: Leadership
 

saying that we merged/recruited to a win is just utterly bullshit.. just what i would expect from a 1up which now cannot throw shit at eX for not having won 2 in a row anymore.. tbh getting tired of the dirtthrowing.. which u usually win as u have more peeps bothering to write/read AD..
we won.. get over it..

the merge would be the same as having those 6 planets apply to tag(and keep em applyed instead of taking em in).. so thats just bs...

Re: Leadership
 

and that'd be RECRUITING cartman dear...

Re: Leadership
 

well if recruiting is keeping peeps out of tag and taking em in at a later stage then 1up has "recruited to win aswell" ... and Sid claiming he wouldnt do such is bs.. and tbh.. then most allies in pa nowadays are "recruiting to try to win" atleast

I myself see recruiting as when a person applyes to the ally u go interview etc and then let in.. not when peeps are in but u keep em out of tag for obvious reasons

Re: Leadership
 

I'm sure this opinion is just me being my biased self, but regarding the whole Nihilum issue: eXilition were planning on winning pre-round. The statement about "we will play [they meant win] with a smaller membership than the rest" they would have loved to achieved. However, that was not possible and so they merged. I'm not saying thats wrong or anything, just that the merge wouldn't have taken place if they didn't need it to. Hence, they had to merge to win.

Re: Leadership
 

lol the merge is 6 persons.. look at numbers we are still only at around 60 peeps, while other allies had 80.. its basically the same as keeping 6 planets out of tag and taking em in at a later stage (somethin 1up has done aswell).. i cba discussing this with 1ups.. as u clearly feel now that we have overtaken u in rep and u need to drag us down by flaming our win (like u have done the other 3 times we have won aswell) when we had 3/3 wins against u .. u flamed our breaktimes and that it was to easy when taking a break.. and now we play 2 in a row and u flame us for merging (when it was 6 persons which was kept in another tag instead of as apps, which is basically the same as keeping 6 planets out of tag...)
U might be winning the AD battles(as most of us cba) but atleast we prove ourself where it really counts.. on the battlefield...

Re: Leadership
 

Nihilum was started mid-round by the way. All of the planets bar one in it were also created midround.

I think, with regards to mergers, recruiting or anything else, some of you are being complete retards. No alliance gives a shit how many members they win with, or whether they have a high average roid count at the end.. Why would a command team spend any more time than it has to, to win? Planetarion isn't interesting enough to justify that.

Good alliances in Round 19 aren't going to spend any more time than they have to on meeting their objectives. I'll freely admit I'd much rather win with less effort than more effort. If you can win what's left of the military game too, all the better.

Re: Leadership
 

Well, it WAS basically hiding score Cartman, and while I dont have any resentment towards doing it, it clearly shows that alliancemergers are being abused and not used as the intention with alliancemergers was ment as that was to merge two alliances having problems functioning on their own.

Re: Leadership
 

To be honest if you're only in it for the "win" and don't actually enjoy PA it's probably a good thing you're all ****ing off back under whatever dark rock you crawled out from.

Re: Leadership
 

yes but this is the way pa goes.. it is just using it as another way of keeping planets out of tag... to hide score yes.. but tbh Sid and other 1ups flaming us for just that.. hiding score.. is kinda lame when they have been doing just the same

Re: Leadership
 

Oh, did PA team declare a purpose for alliance mergers? I thought we just had yet another rule to interpret.

Re: Leadership
 

A trend for the future perhaps?

Alliances shouldn't put winning first?

I hope galaxies win Round 20! :D

Re: Leadership
 

Maybe, but you created an alliance or "Nihilium" aka "Hude's bootboys", they defended each others and attacked with eXilition, so in addition to having the defencebonus they attacked with eXi, pretty much being a support alliance. Nevermind the size or the contents of the alliance. While 1up simply didnt have anyone in a tag, not having the defencebonus.

The object for alliancemergers were to merge two alliances having problems with activity or having problems functioning on their own, not to make small units of hidden score for an alliance to consume. So maybe you didnt "cheat" but you clearly abused something that was meant for something completely different.

I hope that alliance mergers will be kept but that the essence of the alliancemerger will be the facto that the only reason for a merge is to help two struggling alliances so that the players can enjoy the game, not a way to merge to the top etc.

Re: Leadership
 

tbh i think they should allow ally mergers but dont set it as a tool.. ie u need to contact admin to merge.. then this wont be an issue.. and we gave targets to alot of friends.. simply because peeps like attacking with us as our attacks usually is quite good and u gain alot from it

Re: Leadership
 

Says who? You?

Re: Leadership
 

While that's how SiN, TGV, p|m, Vision, Omen and Angels (and others?) interpreted the rule, I'm pretty sure that's not singularly what it was "intended for."

And Nihilum players did not attack with eXilition, maybe Hude did? I don't know. The other five attacked random galaxies.

Re: Leadership
 

This thread was posted by me earlier this year where I presented my reasoning for brining back alliancemergers. Notice your agreement on the thread JBG?

Re: Leadership
 

Don't give the admins more subjective work to do Cartman, please.

Re: Leadership
 

That wasn't how alliance mergers were brought back though was it?

Re: Leadership
 

Kargool, that suggestion was never taken up, that's not the alliance merger system you see today. You're intentions for alliance mergers aren't the same as pa team's, they've never given us any.