From the neutrals stand....

[Lord_Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Linkie

If the co-operation was just for last night/tonight then it's fine and I don't really mind. But I doubt 1up will bother to keep playing if they re-gain #1 without blocking, get pegged again, regain #1, get pegged again etc.

Eh... This is exactly how it should work imho.

We have seen this every round. One alliance(often the top alliance) sees incoming from different alliance, they go shooting, BLOCK BLOCK. Form an anti block and there we go again. I ain't saying the current top alliance did form an anti block, but they made the way free in there own PR to create such a block without being the starters of blocking. We have seen in more then one round, often this anti block is the first real block, and that the other block was either a small group of people of different alliances working together, or no block at all.

I think we all discussed pro's and con's of multi alliance BG's. At least I did a lot, since I was planning to make one. If FaNG and MISTU share such a BG, but nothing else then there is no real problem. A member of that BG on top, but not in your alliance can still be attacked by your alliance. Also signing for runner up in the current state of Planetarion? I think nobody will do that again.

I do NOT believe that of MISTU and FANG work together and FANG becomes #1, that MISTU won't try to find partners to switch "friends" and overtake FaNG. Also if 1UP forms a counterblock with f.e. LCH, I won't believe LCH is settling for runners up either, so eventually "friends" should be switched to open up the chances. If alliance's in the current situation still would sign for runner up, because they don't want to backstab(or just break) agreements, think loyalty will bring more, or look further then one round and think holding agreements is better for the alliance itself, then members should leave that alliance ASAP. Who still wants to be in an alliance where those criteria prefail above winning? Sure there are enough "fun" players around, who don't want to play the game for the winning aspect only... But people out there, it's a war game... Going at war against former "friends" isn't a sin, it's where the game is designed for.`

Oi... BTW.. Forget to say.. GO LCH GO!

[TheRat]

Has 1up EVER claimed to be forming an anti block? ( Remember only Sid speaks officialy on behalf of 1up )

And 1up isnt currently, and will not be working together with LCH, LCH just chose to hit Mistu/Fang whatever.

[Lord_Thunderball]

Originally Posted by TheRat

Has 1up EVER claimed to be forming an anti block? ( Remember only Sid speaks officialy on behalf of 1up )

And 1up isnt currently, and will not be working together with LCH, LCH just chose to hit Mistu/Fang whatever.

And I didn't claim 1UP did or will do it.. I tried to explain that people should be carefull that this often happen, I did not say it already happenend and don't even want suggest it happenend.

[Sinn]

Originally Posted by Colt

Whats this so-called FAnG/MistuBG i keep hearing about ?

What is is?...sad...that's what it is..

[Holyboy]

If there's a fang/mistu BG they obviously are not hitting fang or mistu targets, therefore they are napped, and also they are attacking together, therefore they are allied. The only discussion is whether that constitutes forming a block, but as all agreed no allies / naps at the beggining of the round, they had obviously never intended to keep to that.

btw, funny but have you noticed noone in fang or mistu has actually denied that they are a block yet?

[Linkie]

Actually, some FAnG/Mistu people have denied it, but no HCs (I think ?). However, none of them have denied the existence of a FAnG/Mistu BG and imo, a pre-round organised shared BG shows that there was a planned co-op to a certain extent atleast.

[Sk8az]

Zzzzz

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Sinn

What is is?...sad...that's what it is..

Not half as sad as claims that there actually is such a block. MISTU is not cooperating with any alliance whatsoever, which is more than can be said for certain other alliances. But I'm sure you're not on the informed list in yours

Originally Posted by Linkie

Actually, some FAnG/Mistu people have denied it, but no HCs (I think ?).

I'm pretty sure there will be an official statement soon, and it'll fully back up what several FAnG and MISTU members might already have said - although personally I have not seen any FAnG people around to deny it. That's their concern, though.

However, none of them have denied the existence of a FAnG/Mistu BG

I'd like to know where this so-called FAnG/MISTU bg came from, other than the brain of someone good at propaganda and manipulation. It's still amazing to see how people will blindly believe any claim they read - regardless of whether it's true or not.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Holyboy

If there's a fang/mistu BG they obviously are not hitting fang or mistu targets, therefore they are napped, and also they are attacking together, therefore they are allied. The only discussion is whether that constitutes forming a block, but as all agreed no allies / naps at the beggining of the round, they had obviously never intended to keep to that.

btw, funny but have you noticed noone in fang or mistu has actually denied that they are a block yet?

I don't see much argument saying you (as in 1up) are not supported either. Just a couple of "no ofcouse we aren't - burn them! burn all the heretics" posts on your side.

Even if they have a joint BG I fail to see how that could b construed as entire round cooperation.

If alliances go into the round unalligned I see no problem with cooperation durng the round, especially when an alliance like 1up takes the position they have gotten into.

Unforunately exponential growth would mean that 1up would be soon be out of grasp if the current status quo was maintained. Co operaion is healthy if it keeps the paying field level. The real problem is if alliances such as LCH and WP follow they turn it into full scale block wars over a tactic which encourages decent gameplay.

All alliances want to win - there is not much point in playing if you don't. As such I think you will find that FAnG and MISTU would break from each other and also try to play the politics.

Now the real question is all this whining and complaining about 2 alliances co operation (if true and I am in no position to say whether it is or isn't) going to interfere with the mechanism of the way the round has progressed so far.

There are a couple of points in sids post I do not agree with. He mentions that targets are selected on roids... I think this is true, but I also believe that Sid is not naive enough to select on this basis alone. Alliance coverage, closest competitors all take consideration. } Its like a game of chess and I know from my previous interaction with sid he is strategically and tactically sound.

I also do not believe that he has no co-operaion at the moment. I believe that he would have alliances lined up he can turn to at a moments notice. The smokescreen is to which side will be able to manipulate the rest of the universe.

I like the round an the way its escalating - it reminds me of the earlier rounds. lets hope it long continues

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Rumad

As such I think you will find that FAnG and MISTU would break from each other and also try to play the politics.

Considering we're not together in the first place, there is no need for any "breaking away". Although I can imagine people blaming FAnG for playing dishonourable when they keep accepting cheaters and generic scum into their ranks, I find it a tad insulting that MISTU is accused of somehow being unhonourable and blocking anyway.

We are playing on our own, and we have no ties with any alliance in the game.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Considering we're not together in the first place, there is no need for any "breaking away". Although I can imagine people blaming FAnG for playing dishonourable when they keep accepting cheaters and generic scum into their ranks, I find it a tad insulting that MISTU is accused of somehow being unhonourable and blocking anyway.

We are playing on our own, and we have no ties with any alliance in the game.

as i say I don't know if you are or aren't as i am not playing at all and rarely on irc.

However, if they were I could not see it being a long term arrangement. I think your reply is good enough to refute the claims anyway leshy

The point of short term arrangements cannot be classified as a block as I think temporary arrangements are good for the game. Lets not have so many wtch hunts already please - just stick to the fact of wether you think the wnew round is developing

[Leshy]

Nice try, there, Rumad

We don't have any arrangements, be they short-term, middle-term, long-term or any-term.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Nice try, there, Rumad

We don't have any arrangements, be they short-term, middle-term, long-term or any-term.

I think you misunderstand - its the principle of short term relationships I was pointing out, not that there was one.

As i stated in the starting sentence I am not on irc to know the current politics. Just arguing a rationale rather than MISTU and FAnG Co-operating.

Bah, this is why the forums scould been closed long ago
All honour to 1up + crew to be so good on tricking other ppl into thinking that other than themself are blocking.
I am not apart of a block, or in a multi allied BG.
As ive been informed as a member is not to attack mistu ppl, not even heard the word of FAnG either.
I will not deny that it might be some connections, but for my sake is the thing i worry about now that ppl might get the wrong intel, and start anti blocking our "block"
ph33r bad intel and propganda!
You dont need 99% of top100, you need a good speaker

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I think you misunderstand - its the principle of short term relationships I was pointing out, not that there was one.

Fair enough, I thought that sentence had relation to the other part of your reply. My bad

[mazzelaar]

I cba to read any mroe of these threads so I'll make my answer short and to the point. I'm having a ball this round

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Leshy

We don't have any arrangements, be they short-term, middle-term, long-term or any-term.

How do you know?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I cba to read any mroe of these threads so I'll make my answer short and to the point. I'm having a ball this round

good man

As expected or is it being reunited with old mates?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

How do you know?

That is no longer any of your business, is it?

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I hope the other alliances out there punish those two for blocking and being pathetic. It really is sad, how Kjel and rest of the FAnG "PR squad" (laughable) kept going on about how they'd go solo, then do this.

Lame.

Unfortunately, your information seems to be pretty poor. We've had no military contact, as far as I can see, and all that seems to be happening is people keep pushing us together more and more and trying to make us attack together, so they can use that as an excuse to encourage alliances that otherwise want to remain neutral into joining with them to kill these "evil" blockers. But there's the 1up PR wagon for you

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

1up still has no allies and no naps.

EDIT: To satisfy the more paranoid amongst you, we also have no shared channels with other alliances, no attack cooperation with other alliances etc etc.

Doesn't mean you haven't offered them ... or vica versa or whatever. Even for the average intelligence level on these boards, assuming to the contary is political suicide.

[furssie]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

1up still has no allies and no naps.

EDIT: To satisfy the more paranoid amongst you, we also have no shared channels with other alliances, no attack cooperation with other alliances etc etc.

So the heaps of roids that mistu and fang lost today from lch and 1up are purely coincidental?

how crap mistu and fang can be if that's the case. they are 'atleast half decent' to avoid loosing that much roids via the usual 'coincidentals'.

[Crazeh]

Originally Posted by TheRat

Has 1up EVER claimed to be forming an anti block? ( Remember only Sid speaks officialy on behalf of 1up )

And 1up isnt currently, and will not be working together with LCH, LCH just chose to hit Mistu/Fang whatever.

So when VsN, Mistu, FAnG, Rock, ToF, WP, HR, Veneratio, Phraktos & NoS coincidentaly choose to hit 1up the same night, or two, it's all good by you?


*and YES Im joking, so no need to throw gasoline on me

[Forest]

I once again repeat, It doesnt matter if mistu/fang work together. It is all under control.

Dont panic Mr Kjel, Dont panic.

[TheRat]

Ex-RB Leader and proud
Ex-TRT Leader and proud
Ex-Instinct Leader and proud
Ex-Eclipse BC/AO and proud
Ex-Fang <- Hehe, wheres the "And proud" ?
1up and proud

[virogenesis]

bet you never took into account members leaving it seems that members are unhappy or are proving to be inactive in FAnG.
From something like 92 members down to 81 it ain't looking good for you.
Could it also be the fact that many alliances knew you would stuggle with def so they saw you as easy targets if i knew a allie couldn't cover their members i would attack it & i'm pretty sure anyone would.

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

so to all of you fugly up1 trolls. im more then fed up of your accusations that mistu or fang is working together there is none.

to quote an hc on an question from a member for a coord check :
if you can hit it (ingame) your allowed to attack it.


and 1 more thing.
up1 isnt napped or allied or working together, ill translate it to what you mean :
were not napped or anything, we just try not to hit eachother and go for others but were not working together we just have mutual interests
were just pointing out to others so we can ally in the mean time when other alliances dont focus on us game and get unnoticed..
fking lamers

oh and wat is this im hearing up1 takes in defectors seeing fang is loosing some members.


edit : TK i thought of you as a nice guy last round but never thought you where a troll like all the others in up1.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

so to all of you fugly up1 trolls. im more then fed up of your accusations that mistu or fang is working together there is none.

to quote an hc on an question from a member for a coord check :
if you can hit it (ingame) your allowed to attack it.


and 1 more thing.
up1 isnt napped or allied or working together, ill translate it to what you mean :
were not napped or anything, we just try not to hit eachother and go for others but were not working together we just have mutual interests
were just pointing out to others so we can ally in the mean time when other alliances dont focus on us game and get unnoticed..
fking lamers

oh and wat is this im hearing up1 takes in defectors seeing fang is loosing some members.


edit : TK i thought of you as a nice guy last round but never though

t you where a troll like all the others in up1.

didnt know that losing can be that sad

[TheRat]

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[Tomkat]

[quote=§pa¢e¢ook¦e]
to quote an hc on an question from a member for a coord check :
if you can hit it (ingame) your allowed to attack it.

You don't have to be NAPped to be cooperating with each other though. And cooperation usually leads to an alliance later on, when you feel it's safe to "go public".

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

edit : TK i thought of you as a nice guy last round but never thought you where a troll like all the others in up1.

I'm fluffy

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Unfortunately, your information seems to be pretty poor. We've had no military contact, as far as I can see

But that's like me announcing on AD "1up are now allied with FAnG!" (note: I can say with absolute certainty that isn't true :P). I don't speak for the alliance and neither do you mate - point your HC in the direction of this thread and let them tell us they have nothing do do with FAg. Because as of yet, the usual regulars on this forum seem to have taken a tactical-leave-of-absence when it comes to the cooperation accusations against FAnG and MISTU.

Originally Posted by Leshy

That is no longer any of your business, is it?

No, but I was wondering on what grounds you speak for MISTU's arrangements... :/



Sorry if this post seems nasty and personal to my old alliance-mates, I'm just wondering why you're all denying it when you don't really know what's going on :/

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

Originally Posted by Legator

didnt know that losing can be that sad

ROFL.
for 1 nothing is lost.
besides im having fun with the game so ....
im just am fed up with the n00b trolling of some trolls making accusations.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Doesn't mean you haven't offered them ... or vica versa or whatever. Even for the average intelligence level on these boards, assuming to the contary is political suicide.

I can clear that up as well. LCH hasn't offered, suggested or whatever having any shared channels with 1up (whether for members or for command) - and we haven't offered or suggested anything along those lines to them. The same thing applies to attacking - we've never told them what our targets are or vice versa.

Avoiding LCH would be fairly tricky for us (even if we wanted to) as our intel database only includes around half their coordinates. We've never suggested exchanging members lists and nor have they.

The only cooperation between 1up and LCH is on a galaxy basis - exactly the same as with any other alliance. If a galaxy with members of both alliances gets attacked then obviously they'll cross defend in-galaxy - the same as happens with any other active alliance members who share galaxies with 1up members. We can do this, as our arbiter works on a galaxy, rather than planet basis.

No 1up member has been told to recall an attack this round other than where they've piggybacked another 1up member who had already booked the target.

Anything else specific I need to deny? Or has that satisfied your paranoia for now?

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

well TK somewhere in this thread theres something quoted what you said and calling mistu lamers is calling me a lamer. not so fluffable when you said that :/

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I'm just wondering why you're all denying it when you don't really know what's going on :/

What a coincidence. I was wondering why you were throwing around baseless accusations when you're even clueless as to what your own alliance does or does not do, let alone others.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

well TK somewhere in this thread theres something quoted what you said and calling mistu lamers is calling me a lamer. not so fluffable when you said that :/

I didn't call MISTU lamers
I like MISTU... I left because I suspected they'd be allied to FAnG next round, and I didn't like that. My suspicions were correct.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Leshy

What a coincidence. I was wondering why you were throwing around baseless accusations when you're even clueless as to what your own alliance does or does not do, let alone others.

My accusations are based on the lists of planets attacking 1up coinciding very nicely with the MISTU/FAnG memberlists.

What is your defence based on?

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

so your saying that 170 something planets are attacking up1
if that was the case i doubt youd be #1 alliance wise.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furssie

So the heaps of roids that mistu and fang lost today from lch and 1up are purely coincidental?

how crap mistu and fang can be if that's the case. they are 'atleast half decent' to avoid loosing that much roids via the usual 'coincidentals'.

I've no idea how LCH chose their targets yesterday, but I can clarify how 1up picked ours. Prior to yesterday our attack groups picked their own targets - and open raids were set based on which galaxies looked the best targets (ratios, race presence etc). But the night before we received larger than could be considered coincidental inbound from Mistu - and intel confirmed that they were actively targetting us. In fact they'd been semi-actively targetting us prior to that - but as all that was doing was slowing down their roid growth we'd chosen to largely ignore it.

So yesterday targets were assigned based on the presence of a few Mistu in the galaxy - plus the galaxy generally being either a decent target or so small as to be unlikely to provide sufficient ingalaxy defence. In addition to these we also attacked a top 5 galaxy with a bunch of fang members in - partly because fang had also given us a fair chunk of inbound, but mainly because they had good roids and their defence fleets totally and utterly sucked. ANY alliance who had seen unit-scans of that galaxy would have attacked them - we're talking about every planet there being totally open to 1,2 or 3 classes of attacking ships. Unfortunately for us it seems some other alliance(s) had also noticed how weak they were defensively and decided to attack them (LCH and/or ND as far as i know) - so some of our guys got piggybacked or had other attackers take roids before them.

Our attacks are arranged entirely without cooperation with LCH or any other alliance - and the only time we focus our attacks on hitting any other specific alliance is when we're pretty sure they are (or are about to) focus on us.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

My suspicions were correct.

They weren't.

Originally Posted by Tomkat

My accusations are based on the lists of planets attacking 1up coinciding very nicely with the MISTU/FAnG memberlists.

Two alliances in a random universe, attacking galaxies with 1up in them? Oh noes, someone call the Internet police! Does this incidentally mean that 1up and LCH are blocking, because they attacked MISTU and FAnG together?

We do not share targets, channels, defenses, arbiter or socks with anyone. Period.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Leshy

What a coincidence. I was wondering why you were throwing around baseless accusations when you're even clueless as to what your own alliance does or does not do, let alone others.

OK, you've said the accusations are baseless - so let's look at what they are actually based on.

The other day a 1up member was approached by a Fang member, who mistakenly believed our member was Mistu. He then attempted to recruit our member into a joint Mistu/fang BG for an attack on a large galaxy - the coords of which were given, as were the launch times. Various information was given, such as the number of fang/mistu in the BG. At some stage he seemed to suddenly realise that our member wasn't actually a Mistu member - and clammed right up.

All of that could just be someone using a fake nick - or someone having a laugh.

But at the scheduled time, the expected 3+ waves of attackers showed up. There were mixed fang/mistu in the same waves - and no piggybacking.

Is that really baseless?

[TheRat]

Ahhh... The beauty of silence...

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by TheRat

Ahhh... The beauty of silence...

Are you actually hiding in Sid's rectal cavity waiting for these opportunities, or what?

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Is that really baseless?

Our raids are set up in a different way that would never allow for such an event to take place. Whatever attack was supposedly set up on one of your galaxies had nothing to do with MISTU. Out of curiosity though, how many MISTU members were supposedly involved in this "secret alliance block battlegroup that randomly invites people for an attack on a big galaxy"?

Granted that the story actually took place of course, it kind of lacks any verifiable information

[Forest]

What if LCH are actively defending Fang?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Forest

What if LCH are actively defending Fang?

Then VsN are clearly involved as well, which means Rock started all the blocking

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Then VsN are clearly involved as well, which means Rock started all the blocking

But what if ND started it by blocking with Lupine Crux

[waffle]

this thread...like 10 others on this board are so exciting to read.

Like Sk8az said, ZZZZZ.

Anyone care to actually play the game than play the accusation game on these bloddy forums?

[TheRat]

You're good entertainment Leshy :-)

[AzureWrath]

He owned you Rat, sorry

[Forest]

Originally Posted by waffle

this thread...like 10 others on this board are so exciting to read.

Like Sk8az said, ZZZZZ.

Anyone care to actually play the game than play the accusation game on these bloddy forums?

So, u read the thread in order to say its boring. Dont read it And if u didnt read it, then dont say its boring

Im enjoying it (cause i ahve no life).

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

OK, you've said the accusations are baseless - so let's look at what they are actually based on.

The other day a 1up member was approached by a Fang member, who mistakenly believed our member was Mistu. He then attempted to recruit our member into a joint Mistu/fang BG for an attack on a large galaxy - the coords of which were given, as were the launch times. Various information was given, such as the number of fang/mistu in the BG. At some stage he seemed to suddenly realise that our member wasn't actually a Mistu member - and clammed right up.

All of that could just be someone using a fake nick - or someone having a laugh.

But at the scheduled time, the expected 3+ waves of attackers showed up. There were mixed fang/mistu in the same waves - and no piggybacking.

Is that really baseless?

if that took place wouldnt it be done in more secrecy then just randomly ask ppl to join a bg and assume that theyre in x alliance and done through HC instead of some random person asking. plus giving out coords and times of attack

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Two alliances in a random universe, attacking galaxies with 1up in them? Oh noes, someone call the Internet police!

You know what I mean Leshy. Don't pretend to be stupid, as we both know you're not :P