Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Alliance Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   What? Again? (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=199072)

DeadMan 2 Nov 2010 10:45

What? Again?
 
Havent payed any attention in the universe so far. Except noticing that we got yet another round of stagnation building.
It's fun though, having top 3 alliances dancing on a quiet medow with dows and butterflies flapping their wings around them.

What also is fun is the fact that ND again seem to be the target of these top 3 alliances instead of them bashing eachother. With the occational side step to pee on #4-#10 alliance.

I think NewDawn need to change their name to Lollipop Girls so that we might also run around with red, blue and yellow balloons. Auphoric state of mind is the key it seems.
Perhaps just to try and fool someone into finding another pet to kick in the ribs.

jelle 2 Nov 2010 11:47

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadMan (Post 3201279)
Havent payed any attention in the universe so far. Except noticing that we got yet another round of stagnation building.
It's fun though, having top 3 alliances dancing on a quiet medow with dows and butterflies flapping their wings around them.

What also is fun is the fact that ND again seem to be the target of these top 3 alliances instead of them bashing eachother. With the occational side step to pee on #4-#10 alliance.

I think NewDawn need to change their name to Lollipop Girls so that we might also run around with red, blue and yellow balloons. Auphoric state of mind is the key it seems.
Perhaps just to try and fool someone into finding another pet to kick in the ribs.

Get ur head out of your ass and start taking part in the rounds instead of whining bout how horrible YOU made it.

t3k 2 Nov 2010 11:53

Re: What? Again?
 
How is NewDawn doing this round btw?

Cain 2 Nov 2010 11:57

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadMan (Post 3201279)
Havent payed any attention in the universe so far. Except noticing that we got yet another round of stagnation building.
It's fun though, having top 3 alliances dancing on a quiet medow with dows and butterflies flapping their wings around them.

So you didn't pay any attention to the universe but you do know whats going on? Seriously, what kind of pathetic excuse of a player are you? Explain to me what's going on in this round please.

Why would any top 3 alliance be interested in hitting ND when they have had 0 impact on this round sofar. You my friend is what they call a retard.

VampiriA 2 Nov 2010 12:02

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadMan (Post 3201279)
What also is fun is the fact that ND again seem to be the target of these top 3 alliances instead of them bashing eachother. With the occational side step to pee on #4-#10 alliance.

so the top 3 alliances are hitting ND? lol
if you are not following the round, please do not comment. you just make your self look more retarded then you already are.

DoDDy 2 Nov 2010 12:03

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 3201284)
So you didn't pay any attention to the universe but you do know whats going on? Seriously, what kind of pathetic excuse of a player are you? Explain to me what's going on in this round please.

Why would any top 3 alliance be interested in hitting ND when they have had 0 impact on this round sofar. You my friend is what they call a retard.

Couldn't agree more Cain..... /me wonders what universe this guy is in

HaNzI 2 Nov 2010 12:13

Re: What? Again?
 
remember, ND are not used to have any incomings AT ALL.

Mzyxptlk 2 Nov 2010 12:56

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadMan (Post 3201279)
Havent payed any attention in the universe so far.

It shows.

t3k 2 Nov 2010 13:30

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HaNzI (Post 3201289)
remember, ND are not used to have any incomings AT ALL.

It's true, even 1 is greater than 0 - and is quite the stark contrast.

But seriously, how are newdawn doing this round?

Influence 2 Nov 2010 13:34

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadMan (Post 3201279)
What also is fun is the fact that ND again seem to be the target of these top 3 alliances instead of them bashing eachother. With the occational side step to pee on #4-#10 alliance.

ND the target AGAIN... wait what? wasn't it NewDawn who chose to keep last round stagnated?

if anything, the situation this round is caused by the way NewDawn chickened themself into stagnation last round. It seems all top alliances are keeping away from major politics. And a round with no politics means it's a roidrace, and in roidracing it's allways alliances ranked 4-10 getting the weight of the incomings.

i suppose all that can be done is for the alliances ranked 4 to 10 is all napping together and try to make a difference together. Don't expect a move from the top 3 alliances if you are too chicken to make a move yourself

Cain 2 Nov 2010 13:52

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Influence (Post 3201303)
ND the target AGAIN... wait what? wasn't it NewDawn who chose to keep last round stagnated?

if anything, the situation this round is caused by the way NewDawn chickened themself into stagnation last round. It seems all top alliances are keeping away from major politics. And a round with no politics means it's a roidrace, and in roidracing it's allways alliances ranked 4-10 getting the weight of the incomings.

i suppose all that can be done is for the alliances ranked 4 to 10 is all napping together and try to make a difference together. Don't expect a move from the top 3 alliances if you are too chicken to make a move yourself

Ok when i read the first line you typed i had a tiny amount of hope. But man your idiotness nearly reaches the lvl of deadman. The top alliances are keeping away from major politics? And dear lord you finish it off with it being a roidrace now?

OH MY GAWD WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE COME FROM. These stupidity attacks here right now harm me more than losing a roid or 2. Please before you post again put some effort in finding out what is actually going on, thx in advance!

Shev 2 Nov 2010 13:52

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Influence (Post 3201303)
It seems all top alliances are keeping away from major politics. And a round with no politics means it's a roidrace, and in roidracing it's allways alliances ranked 4-10 getting the weight of the incomings.

You're wrong, it's not a roidrace(at least not for 2/3). It's a fairly one sided massacre currently though.

[B5]Londo 2 Nov 2010 14:31

Re: What? Again?
 
App and Asc have been fighting, tho it cooled off a bit last couple of days as its clear Asc are apathetic, it was not a block war so failed to hit the headlines it seems. So not its not Stagnation, simply no.2 alliance challenged no.1 alliance and lost; result, no change in the rankings except no.2 may fall below no.3, its in the balance.

Mzyxptlk 2 Nov 2010 14:33

Re: What? Again?
 
Actually, it was the other way around: we were the #1 alliance, got challenged by the #2, and lost.

[B5]Londo 2 Nov 2010 14:36

Re: What? Again?
 
We were? good grief, shows what not having sandmans does to me!
What? there is a Universe page u say? naah don't believe u! not listening!

Mzyxptlk 2 Nov 2010 14:43

Re: What? Again?
 
Come on, man. Do you really think we were in a position to challenge anyone? :P

[B5]Londo 2 Nov 2010 14:49

Re: What? Again?
 
No, but with that comes the assumption that we wouldn't be in a position to have been no.1 either, even if we were knocked down exceptionally easily, as it was hardly a bitterly fought conflict.
I guess it shows we are still good individually, its just when it comes to actual collective action we fail ;)
Anyway the point was there is action happening, or rather action has happened, if it involved switches in who was no.1, so much the better from that point of view!

DeadMan 2 Nov 2010 17:59

Re: What? Again?
 
I cant stop laughing!

JonnyBGood 2 Nov 2010 19:17

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201312)
Actually, it was the other way around: we were the #1 alliance, got challenged by the #2, and lost.

Actually, it wasn't. Unless by #1 alliance you mean #1 alliance before everyone had tagged and by challenged you mean got overtaken when the #2 alliance tagged fully. (Ascendancy were #1 until tick 118, which, in the grand scheme of things is about as relevant as what I had for dinner last night.)

Mzyxptlk 2 Nov 2010 19:20

Re: What? Again?
 
Huh, you're right. For some reason I thought we had #1 for much longer.

JonnyBGood 2 Nov 2010 19:21

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201322)
Huh, you're right. For some reason I thought we had #1 for much longer.

There's nothing as delusional as a pessimist who occasionally forgets himself.

Cain 3 Nov 2010 00:19

Re: What? Again?
 
I'm sorry but can you guys focus on making fun of that ND guy? (didn't check if he actually is) Reading about asc saying how weak they are is kinda getting repetitive.

t3k 3 Nov 2010 02:16

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 3201339)
I'm sorry but can you guys focus on making fun of that ND guy? (didn't check if he actually is) Reading about asc saying how weak they are is kinda getting repetitive.

But.... he's doing such a delightful job of making himself look stupid - why respond directly to him?

WallBiter 3 Nov 2010 11:03

Re: What? Again?
 
At first this round I was enjoying watching the fun of all but ~180 players turned into roid farms. The round isn't stagnate, it's just worthless for the vast majority of the uni to play.

If anything this round shows what a bad idea larger tag limits, or no tag limit is.

As for ND, I was told they chose to have a smaller tag this round in favor of cleaning house. If they really wanted to compete for the top spot, they'd have done what the t3 have... scored themselves 30 legal support planets.

ND may as well start enjoying the golden shower... it's gonna last awhile.

Frankly, I am already bored of wondering who will win top ally.

I would like to hear about what's happening for ally's #5-#10. Anything interesting in those ranks? Preferably from someone in theHorde, HR, ODDR, HEX or GROSS.

Mzyxptlk 3 Nov 2010 11:39

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WallBiter (Post 3201344)
the t3 have... scored themselves 30 legal support planets.

lol

Nov 03 11:38:20 -Munin- Apprime Members: 75
Nov 03 11:38:23 -Munin- Imperia Members: 87
Nov 03 11:38:15 -Munin- Ascenancy Members: 84

[B5]Londo 3 Nov 2010 11:57

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WallBiter (Post 3201344)
At first this round I was enjoying watching the fun of all but ~180 players turned into roid farms. The round isn't stagnate, it's just worthless for the vast majority of the uni to play.

How is this different to what always happens?
We seem to have a problem here, Asc and App fought without resorting to the normal blocks, and we get criticised for it. If we had formed 2 big blocks i'm fairly confident you would be bitching about that.
Really people like you want block wars, or at least a gang bang because all the top allies are engaged in roiding up rather than down the food chain. But these things only happen when someone bothers to organise them, unusually apprime have not pissed everyone off to the point of wanting to fight yet!
If one alliance is not running away with the round its quite common for a round to be somewhat politically boring for the first 700-800 ticks, apprime may be showing signs of it but its certainly not the fastest pull away we have ever seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WallBiter (Post 3201344)
I would like to hear about what's happening for ally's #5-#10. Anything interesting in those ranks? Preferably from someone in theHorde, HR, ODDR, HEX or GROSS.

If you had any level of interest you would have heard of the one Day HR-HeX war! As to the rest, well you don't hear much because generally they actually fight wars less than the allies at the top do, the middle five are the very definition of stagnation allies as they have no obvious goals to fight for, they just raid gals and hope to avoid attracting attention.

Rinoa 3 Nov 2010 13:14

Re: What? Again?
 
Legal support planet - thats a good way of summing up the Doddys of this world!

WallBiter 3 Nov 2010 14:30

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201345)
lol

Nov 03 11:38:20 -Munin- Apprime Members: 75
Nov 03 11:38:23 -Munin- Imperia Members: 87
Nov 03 11:38:15 -Munin- Ascenancy Members: 84


And this at all disproves my point?

My point is simply that this round shines a big bright spotlight on the issue of alliance size and keeping the game competitive. Tag limits should be set at an average number, say 50-60, all members should count towards the score, and def should be limited to ally and gal for a planet.

And until that actually happens all the debate of what would occur is simply rediculous. We have now seen what raising the tag limit does, several times over. Why be afraid of trying something new?

Though, in some ways it seems like the PA team decided to just give up on balencing the game until Jagex decides to do *something* with it. I'm thinking that *something* may involve a chibi advisor, or perhaps we'll get PA for the Wii.

rUl3r 3 Nov 2010 15:15

Re: What? Again?
 
I think you missed the drawn out arguments about tag limits in the past. You might want to look them up, there are stats that show the tag limit does not influence the number of allies actually playing, nor does it seriously influence the number of #1 contenders - there arenīt enough people out there to run proper allies, nor enough decent and active players to make the mid tier allies competitive for #1.

Limiting def to ally and gal only was a horrible move. I still hate PA team for that stupidity. It certainly annoyed the hell out of me not to be able to occasionally help out friends who decided to play casually. Seriously, all the whining about support planets and stuff is ridiculous. Most people playing this game arenīt competent enough to participate in the top level gameplay, or donīt want to invest the needed effort (which, honestly, isnīt even that much, if youīre competent and well organised).

Light 3 Nov 2010 15:17

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WallBiter (Post 3201351)
And this at all disproves my point?

My point is simply that this round shines a big bright spotlight on the issue of alliance size and keeping the game competitive. Tag limits should be set at an average number, say 50-60, all members should count towards the score, and def should be limited to ally and gal for a planet.

And until that actually happens all the debate of what would occur is simply rediculous. We have now seen what raising the tag limit does, several times over. Why be afraid of trying something new?

Nope, lets go through what will happen when we lower tag to 60.
Nov 03 11:38:20 -Munin- Apprime Members: 75
Nov 03 11:38:23 -Munin- Imperia Members: 87
Nov 03 11:38:15 -Munin- Ascenancy Members: 84

Best case scenario, no-one quits. Who does Asc/Apprime/Imperia kick from there alliance? the WORST players in there alliance.

24+27+15=66 BAD MEMBERS.

So now we have 4 alliances when we only had 3, this is if one of those bad members decides to step up and HC which is unlikely but how many competitive alliances? I still only count 3? an alliance full of cast-offs/the worst members of the other alliances wont be competitive to App/Imp/Asc's standard.

What you've effectively done in the best case scenario, is created another ND or CT alliances which has the members but they're crap so they cant play PA competitively.. so instead they'll fence and nap, which stagnates and ruins the game.

You've also made 60 players, who were happy in there previous alliance.. play in a vastly inferior alliance now, which greatly increases there chances of quitting (even if they didnt decide to quit when they was kicked).

Thats not even going into the fact, that when you lower the tag limit.. you make it harder to join a competitive alliance. Which means in order to play this game competitively now, it takes more time, more energy and more sleepless nights.

Then you've got the point, that if you lower the tag too much (it'll need to be a low tag to divide the proper actives up).. then you've now ruined the entire game. As top alliances can get wtfpwned so easily that the game is playable and theres no point investing time in it. Blocks are powerful now but the lower the tag limit, the more powerful blocking becomes as you can easily swamp any alliances with more incomings than they can defend if they had 100% of fleets ready.

The point in competitive, isnt that you need 4+ alliances fighting for #1 evenly. Its that you need the top alliances to be evenly matched with the lower alliances not being crap. One of my favourite rounds ever was the Omen vs Asc round, where realistically there was only 2 alliances capable of #1 (who could easily pwn any other 1v1). We need to alter the mentality of the game, so alliances go to war as early as possible and stay there, and where blocks are fluid with people switching sides when required.. not just picking one side, winning early then stagnating the game.

We should be encouraging the top alliances to invite inferior/new/casual players, not forcing them to kick there weakest players. Seriously.. WEVE BEEN OVER THIS, LOWER TAGS DONT WORK

Mzyxptlk 3 Nov 2010 16:24

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WallBiter (Post 3201351)
And this at all disproves my point?

80 + 30 > 87.

In any case, this is not the place to discuss tag limits (again), so if this is a discussion you people want to continue, please do so elsewhere.

Rinoa 3 Nov 2010 19:52

Re: What? Again?
 
Relation Change 454 Ascendancy and Imperia have confirmed they are allied.

Wishmaster 3 Nov 2010 21:48

Re: What? Again?
 
What does that mean rinoa? I just prodded ships, will they get bashed first night? :(

NitinA 3 Nov 2010 22:51

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rinoa (Post 3201361)
Relation Change 454 Ascendancy and Imperia have confirmed they are allied.

If we can't alter the tide of events, at least we can be nearby with towels to mop up.

Hunterrrr 4 Nov 2010 00:36

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wishmaster (Post 3201365)
What does that mean rinoa? I just prodded ships, will they get bashed first night? :(

yup all mine!

Paisley 4 Nov 2010 17:06

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadMan (Post 3201279)
What also is fun is the fact that ND again seem to be the target of these top 3 alliances instead of them bashing eachother. With the occational side step to pee on #4-#10 alliance.

I think NewDawn need to change their name to Lollipop Girls so that we might also run around with red, blue and yellow balloons. Auphoric state of mind is the key it seems.
Perhaps just to try and fool someone into finding another pet to kick in the ribs.

NawDone (Not Done without the scottish twang) is probily be my suggestion

I seem to recall saying to Command that there would be alliances gunning for ND in the first few days and to start making arrangements ... but it was NawDone.

I seem to recall that if you do a gal raid where there was a hirr member was in it get a friend outside of ND to hit them so they dont 3 fleet def v ND ingal ... but it was NawDone

zebra 4 Nov 2010 19:14

Re: What? Again?
 
Why have Imperia and Ascendancy NAPPed?

Mzyxptlk 4 Nov 2010 19:22

Re: What? Again?
 
Why wouldn't we?

Firebird 4 Nov 2010 19:34

Re: What? Again?
 
Good point Zebra

Paisley 4 Nov 2010 19:35

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra (Post 3201386)
Why have Imperia and Ascendancy NAPPed?

Im guessing that Apprime previous history doesn't make them ideal NAP partners.

zebra 4 Nov 2010 20:01

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201387)
Why wouldn't we?

For one, because you'd have 80 less potential targets. But do you have anything to actually add to the discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley
Im guessing that Apprime previous history doesn't make them ideal NAP partners.

Well, yes. But I don't think imp and asc napped each other just because of that.

Mzyxptlk 4 Nov 2010 20:09

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra (Post 3201390)
For one, because you'd have 80 less potential targets. But do you have anything to actually add to the discussion?

It's a good thing we're not dumb enough to think like that. For one, making an enemy of Imperia while we're under attack by Apprime isn't the cleverest thing to do.

Paisley 4 Nov 2010 20:27

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra (Post 3201390)

Well, yes. But I don't think imp and asc napped each other just because of that.

As things stand at this time, App with their roid count and growth in score difference between alliance #1 and alliance #2 I am suspect Imp and asc are taking countermeasures against this

zebra 4 Nov 2010 20:59

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201391)
It's a good thing we're not dumb enough to think like that. For one, making an enemy of Imperia while we're under attack by Apprime isn't the cleverest thing to do.

Dumb enough to think in terms of facts? You're still under attack by Apprime? From the perspective of your sandmans-replacement history, it looks like you've either gotten your act more together, or the incs have started to subside. I don't have all the details, very few in fact; hence why I'm publicly asking (shocking concept!).

You could always stop with the vague non-answers and insults and just answer
Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra
Why have Imperia and Ascendancy NAPPed?


OlaTa 4 Nov 2010 21:03

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3201354)

Best case scenario, no-one quits. Who does Asc/Apprime/Imperia kick from there alliance? the WORST players in there alliance.

I have my list ready. HI MINISTRY! :D

Mzyxptlk 4 Nov 2010 23:14

Re: What? Again?
 
I don't quite see how anything I said is unclear or insulting.

List of things I have said:
* Apprime is attacking us.
* Imperia is not currently our enemy.
* Making Imperia our enemy while we're under attack by Apprime would be dumb.
* Ascendancy are not dumb.

So let me repeat myself: why wouldn't we NAP Imperia? I'm all for open politics, but honestly, is it too much to expect people to think for about 3 seconds before they ask why the #2 alliance would NAP the #3 alliance?

HaNzI 5 Nov 2010 00:04

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201399)
I don't quite see how anything I said is unclear or insulting.

List of things I have said:
* Apprime is attacking us.
* Imperia is not currently our enemy.
* Making Imperia our enemy while we're under attack by Apprime would be dumb.
* Ascendancy are not dumb.

So let me repeat myself: why wouldn't we NAP Imperia? I'm all for open politics, but honestly, is it too much to expect people to think for about 3 seconds before they ask why the #2 alliance would NAP the #3 alliance?


I think he finds it hard to believe that you really are under so much fire from Apprime. A few days back Ascendancy stated that there had been a 1vs1 war with Apprime, a war they lost. Now Ascendancy are claiming to be hit by Apprime again, but your roidcount is INCREASING.

rUl3r 5 Nov 2010 00:06

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201399)

So let me repeat myself: why wouldn't we NAP Imperia? I'm all for open politics, but honestly, is it too much to expect people to think for about 3 seconds before they ask why the #2 alliance would NAP the #3 alliance while being hit by the #1 alliance


Fixed for the sake of being even more obvious :D

Mzyxptlk 5 Nov 2010 00:13

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HaNzI (Post 3201400)
I think he finds it hard to believe that you really are under so much fire from Apprime. A few days back Ascendancy stated that there had been a 1vs1 war with Apprime, a war they lost. Now Ascendancy are claiming to be hit by Apprime again, but your roidcount is INCREASING.

Yeah, it's been quieter the last few days, though there were some pretty big waves on 2:4 this morning. Apparently we're cowering in our burrows again tonight, so I assume it's going to pick up again. We'll see!

In any case, the status quo is not one we're happy with, Apprime being 12k roids and 10m score ahead of us and 4k roids and 9m score ahead of Imperia.

VampiriA 5 Nov 2010 03:54

Re: What? Again?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3201399)
I don't quite see how anything I said is unclear or insulting.

List of things I have said:
* Apprime is attacking us.
* Imperia is not currently our enemy.
* Making Imperia our enemy while we're under attack by Apprime would be dumb.
* Ascendancy are not dumb.

So let me repeat myself: why wouldn't we NAP Imperia? I'm all for open politics, but honestly, is it too much to expect people to think for about 3 seconds before they ask why the #2 alliance would NAP the #3 alliance?

- SO you napped Imperia so you don't get imp incs while apprime is hitting you. As far as i know imperia have not hit asc yet.. and have had an avoidance pact before they even napped on ( +3 asc in gal ) which should be enough.

As for imp, I see this nap with asc and horde by Imp, will force the universe into splitting into blocks.. so again i don't see the benifit.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2002 - 2018