So 1up

[lokken]

Originally Posted by General1

Last round there was the ideal world where you guys only wanted 66 members ( 2/3 of the maximum).
Atm I see 72 members + recruitment is kinda open, what is happening?

You guys scared that u are gonna lose this round or any other marvelous idea behind it?

I thought this was a valid question, so I decided to repost it on behalf of the user.

Any spamming like in the previous thread will be an instant ban.

[Minty]

Yes, yes there is*

*There is a huge conspriacy

[Helix]

I honestly doubt you are going to get the kind of answer you are looking for from that question...if any answer at all from anyone who matters.

[lokken]

If your strategy is to post gibberish, i'm going to ban you anyway.

[TheRat]

From what I know, none of our HC has made any public statement about any of these issues before the current round. And with the anouncement of not aiming for the win last round, Id say that us being scared of losing is a bit of a riddiculus claim this round aswell.

[Disclaimer: These are my views, and my views only]

[Treveler]

Why is 1up recruitment policy a valid question? Can I start a thread about every other alliance`s recruitment policy? Do you want to know why its open? In what form, way or shape? Maybe its a trap. Its not really open, its just another painted open door on the wall. Yes that must be it.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by TheRat

From what I know, none of our HC has made any public statement about any of these issues before the current round. And with the anouncement of not aiming for the win last round, Id say that us being scared of losing is a bit of a riddiculus claim this round aswell.

[Disclaimer: These are my views, and my views only]

Problem is imo, 1up has everything to lose and nothing to gain. That sounds harsh but well, you've won 2/2 and you can only achieve the "same" or let your efficiency ratio drop

[Banned]

Last round there was the ideal world where you guys only wanted 66 members ( 2/3 of the maximum).

Ideal? How so?

[TheRat]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Problem is imo, 1up has everything to lose and nothing to gain. That sounds harsh but well, you've won 2/2 and you can only achieve the "same" or let your efficiency ratio drop

There is a slight chance, however, that we dont see anything but #1 as a loss.

[Disclaimer: Still me talking]

[Bashar]

The ideal world included ideas such as no blocking, an alliance standing alone on the foundation of its own merits. Certain alliances have decided that their merits are insufficient to stand against 1up and are going to play to a different set of rules.

Also, 72 members..... an increase of 6, stop the press! Clearly this is a major issue. I don't remember Sid or any other HC at any point saying "We will never go above 66/67 members".

In the end, it is not a major increase, and I don't think it shows anything such as running scared. We have proved 2 rounds in a row that we don't formulate policy based on fear. If so, why would we have acted the way we did last round? The victory last round surprised us more than anybody. We have proved we don't submit to fear, and we play the game in our own style. This doesn't mean that we refuse to let other peoples styles of play influence our own.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Problem is imo, 1up has everything to lose and nothing to gain. That sounds harsh but well, you've won 2/2 and you can only achieve the "same" or let your efficiency ratio drop

Sorry Kj, but this is a load of rubbish. As far as I am concerned, 1up has nothing to lose and everything to win. We want to have fun, that is the main thing we are doing. I would much rather lose a round than win by a country mile with no competition. The harder the battle becomes, the more we 'win' in my view. If the competition reaches a level where it can really challenge us, and the round is very visciously fought, then as far as I am concerned, things have improved.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tis

Official HC responses:

Yes, we are the next blue tuba. 800 here we come!!!

(hi lokken... sarcasim is a valid form of arguement)

Hyperbole is not sarcasm.

[TheRat]

Originally Posted by Banned

Hyperbole is not sarcasm.

And you need a life

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Sorry Kj, but this is a load of rubbish. As far as I am concerned, 1up has nothing to lose and everything to win. We want to have fun, that is the main thing we are doing. I would much rather lose a round than win by a country mile with no competition. The harder the battle becomes, the more we 'win' in my view. If the competition reaches a level where it can really challenge us, and the round is very visciously fought, then as far as I am concerned, things have improved.

You didn't get my point Bashar. Fact is, every alliance plays for fun so using that arguement is rubbish aswell. And I'm not even talking about the content of the round or how it'll be played or anything, if I did I'd have said so in my post.

Fact is, you've got a 100% efficiency ratio. Fact is, you can only keep it that high by winning, anything less drags it down.

I was just formulating a simple fact, nothing more, nothing less.

[Jackal2112]

Last round was last round. Now is a new round and it's played under 'a different set of rules'.

I we follow your reasoning of 'being scared', I seriously wonder who must be more scared. The alliance that has 72 (!) members, or the 2 alliances with a combined membership of over 140 members, which exists out of 2 blocking alliances (oh wait, its just a 'NAP').

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Banned

Hyperbole is not sarcasm.

Theres been an accident. Jester's coords were just spammed in #planetarion #public #lch #nd #fang #dragons #wp (and #pack) #hr #nos and #idlerpg.

how the fk did that happen?!?!!

[Bashar]

Lose the next 2 rounds and our efficiency would still be higher than any other alliance playing. Besides, winning all the time is not necessarily a good thing. You don't savour victory without sampling the taste of defeat. Losing would not be a tragedy (it wouldn't be ideal, but it would not be a tragedy).

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Lose the next 2 rounds and our efficiency would still be higher than any other alliance playing. Besides, winning all the time is not necessarily a good thing. You don't savour victory without sampling the taste of defeat. Losing would not be a tragedy (it wouldn't be ideal, but it would not be a tragedy).

If exilition wins this round, it'll have a higher overall efficiency then 1up (1/1). And you don't need to teach me anything about the taste of defeat, I think we've all been there once or twice in our PA carreers.

I never said "not winning" would be a tragedy for you guys

[Bashar]

But even if it does, til it wins next round, it won't have equalled 1ups record.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Bashar

The ideal world included ideas such as no blocking, an alliance standing alone on the foundation of its own merits. Certain alliances have decided that their merits are insufficient to stand against 1up and are going to play to a different set of rules.

Now thats a classic propaganda post

At last, some1 has finally stuck their neck out and threw something at the masses \o/

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If exilition wins this round, it'll have a higher overall efficiency then 1up (1/1). And you don't need to teach me anything about the taste of defeat, I think we've all been there once or twice in our PA carreers.

I never said "not winning" would be a tragedy for you guys

They won't be remembering for breaking the monotonous politics. 1up was able to come in and shake the game up abit, it also in my personal belief has raised the standards of alliances (for those that seriously want to compete anyway) from the ones that existed just pre-before.

Hi btw

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

They won't be remembering for breaking the monotonous politics. 1up was able to come in and shake the game up abit, it also in my personal belief has raised the standards of alliances (for those that seriously want to compete anyway) from the ones that existed just pre-before.

Hi btw

I agree there, that 1up has boosted the quality of alliances overall. Infact, they are the example for alliances with less numbers and more quality. They've proven it's possible, so I'll give you that credit for sure.

[Alessio]

tbh I dont see whats wrong with 1up recruiting.... or why people even have questions about it, I mean its not that weird isnt it..

[Rinoa]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I agree there, that 1up has boosted the quality of alliances overall. Infact, they are the example for alliances with less numbers and more quality. They've proven it's possible, so I'll give you that credit for sure.

They must have decreased the quality of other alliances for a bit after they poached the best members from the rest :/

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

They must have decreased the quality of other alliances for a bit after they poached the best members from the rest :/

actually they brought a lot back from retirement too, and formed at a time many other alliances were breaking up

[Anakin]

/me pets Kjeldoran
Allways the " political player " .. allways back tracking... maybe one day you will have your brain with you before you post , i fear your ability should you ever think before you post.

Much the same could be said for your planet btw

[mens]

maybe they had to fit in some mistu peeps.
so don't worry.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by lokken

I thought this was a valid question, so I decided to repost it on behalf of the user.

Any spamming like in the previous thread will be an instant ban.

1up won last round with 66 members, exactly what is left to prove ?

[Tomkat]

I'm a little bit "out of the loop" (ha! me, out of the loop? never...) but weren't 1up just playing as kingmakers last round, and then sneaky sneaky jumped into 1st place?

That was the main reason they capped at 66 - so they could just help another alliance.

As no announcement has been made this round about being a kingmaker, I suppose we should assume that 1up are playing as a fully functional and totally operational Death Sta........ wait... alliance.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

They must have decreased the quality of other alliances for a bit after they poached the best members from the rest :/

It's not about how 1up brought back quality players in this game no, it's about 1up setting an example and several other alliances improving greatly because they realize they need to be better when they compete with 1up.

And Anakin, I use my brains when I post. If you criticize what I wrote, atleast tell me where I was wrong and why, thx.

[Proxi]

Originally Posted by Anakin

/me pets Kjeldoran
Allways the " political player " .. allways back tracking... maybe one day you will have your brain with you before you post , i fear your ability should you ever think before you post.

Much the same could be said for your planet btw

This is a much shitter post than any i've seen KJ make (recently)

Ontopic: I dont really think this tiny recruitment is that much of a deal. Its still early days yet people, and anything could happen.

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

1up won last round with 66 members, exactly what is left to prove ?

Bah.... so easy you forget your friends – as if they made it all by them self’s!??
I guess a couple of other alliances had a big part in 1up ending top spot, but sure take all the glory your self.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Bah.... so easy you forget your friends – as if they made it all by them self’s!??
I guess a couple of other alliances had a big part in 1up ending top spot, but sure take all the glory your self.

And Im sure the opposition didnt do the exact same thing that you are implying.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by General1

Last round there was the ideal world where you guys only wanted 66 members ( 2/3 of the maximum).
Atm I see 72 members + recruitment is kinda open, what is happening?

You guys scared that u are gonna lose this round or any other marvelous idea behind it?

Margin of error. You want to give yourself that extra shock line when you fall off a cliff so you dont break your back. If an alliance expels and/or loses at an average of 6-8 players by the end of a round, then 1up is still on the dot.

Anything can happen in 2000 ticks.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

but weren't 1up just playing as kingmakers last round, and then sneaky sneaky jumped into 1st place?

Yes, that was the goal. Winning was not however 'sneaky sneaky' - it just happened, 1up was shocked that it happened. A few weeks before the end, we were on a stormer, and we were finding it really easy to roid the other alliances, and there was a general sense of "If this carries on, we might end up winning, but surely the opposition won't let that happen". When we actually won, we couldn't quite believe it. I don't think the win was planned, or believed to be possible, it is one of those things that 'just happened'.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Bah.... so easy you forget your friends – as if they made it all by them self’s!??
I guess a couple of other alliances had a big part in 1up ending top spot, but sure take all the glory your self.

Of course they did. 1up winning was caused by a series of reasons:

1. The high quality and dedication of 1up.
2. Other alliances choosing us as best option once they were out of the equation.
3. Politics.
4. Tactics of enemy alliances.

All these things contributed. I think the 4th one is probably the main contributor, as had the tactics been better suited to the situation, it should have been easy to stop 1up winning.

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Of course they did. 1up winning was caused by a series of reasons:

1. The high quality and dedication of 1up.
2. Other alliances choosing us as best option once they were out of the equation.
3. Politics.
4. Tactics of enemy alliances.

All these things contributed. I think the 4th one is probably the main contributor, as had the tactics been better suited to the situation, it should have been easy to stop 1up winning.

Excellent post if I may say so.

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

And Im sure the opposition didnt do the exact same thing that you are implying.

Not that Excellent post though.

[noah02]

I really dont see the problem here with ppl's attitude towards 1up.
So they recruited 5 members and might recruit more doesnt mean there suddenly scared just means they have couped up 5 more efficient planetarion players to compete against the ever increasing number of decent players starting to appear in Planetarion.

The playerbase is a bit smaller this round at the begining but i can already feel the competion brewing.
And I know its only the start of a new round but i have already seen and heard of as many as 5 waves on each galaxy on each planet from different alliances joining up for the slaughter.

i dont think there scared at all i just think there planning.

[Bashar]

Will people who neg rep please at least have the courtesy to provide a reason, even if you don't want to give your nick. Otherwise you just look like a bitter arse hole who disagrees and can't stand someone having a different viewpoint to you.

[Psi_K]

I still don't think this thread is very valid.
1up's political agenda is theirs and their own, no one's oppinions matter but their's.
All this repetitive "1up IS SCARED, THEY HAVE 5 (or 6) NEW MEMBERS" is complete rubbish, there is a cap at 100, not at 66, 67, or whatever.
1up may actually play kingmakers this round, never know.
There is a good alliance base out there that can make a push for #1, and that's the fun of PA.

The fact that this kind of post coming from me should say a bit, I'm (imo) one of the biggest anti-1up guys around, and I understand their side of things this time ... (just wait till they start winning )

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Psi_K

All this repetitive "1up IS SCARED, THEY HAVE 5 (or 6) NEW MEMBERS" is complete rubbish, there is a cap at 100, not at 66, 67, or whatever.)

Indeed. I'm sure other alliances would rather win in a fight when 1up were playing to their true capacity, rather than giving themselves a handicap

Right?

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Psi_K

(just wait till they start winning )

I am honoured that you have faith in us.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Indeed. I'm sure other alliances would rather win in a fight when 1up were playing to their true capacity, rather than giving themselves a handicap

Right?

Hell yes.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Will people who neg rep please at least have the courtesy to provide a reason, even if you don't want to give your nick. Otherwise you just look like a bitter arse hole who disagrees and can't stand someone having a different viewpoint to you.

Quit being shit.

[MotoX]

The thing is that either 1up or any other alliances will ever win this game without help from some partners.
66 or 100 members’ doesn’t really matter, from PA history we know that politics plays a major part in the outcome of the round and since more and more PA player leaves this game partners/politics will increase in importance.

Last round LCH made some unlucky choices and ND came along helping 1up finalize the win (we all knows this but still the history says 1up won the round, but would they have without help from numerous friendly alliances? And does history remembers those friendly alliances that helped 1up to the top? The answer would be no.).

Legion, Xan, Fury, all winners but every one of them had friends to lean on and fleets to use.
A good example is Virus who “someone” kept in his pocket for numerous of rounds but will Virus be recognized as a winner? Nah.. even tho they were as much winners as Fury.

I ask, why all those hard fighting alliances don’t demand some kind of recognition for all the hard work they do for obviously nothing in return? They might grab a second place or some where along side the other “no one remembers” alliances in top 10.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by MotoX

TLegion, Xan, Fury, all winners but every one of them had friends to lean on and fleets to use.

Concordium

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MotoX

A good example is Virus who “someone” kept in his pocket for numerous of rounds but will Virus be recognized as a winner? Nah.. even tho they were as much winners as Fury.

I'm sorry but what? There is a staggeringly large difference between "finishing on the winning side" and "being the best alliance".

[MotoX]

Ofc there is, I would be the first one to acknowledge that Legion, Fury etc were outstanding in many aspects as PA alliances but nevertheless they couldn’t reach those victories without hard working friendly alliances that never get any credits for doing just that, supporting/playing along to get those high profiled alliances on the wining table.

[JonnyBGood]

Obviously but to say that virus were "as much winners as fury" is fairly daft and statistically incorrect.