Planet or alliance?

[Xeno]

Let's say you're a contestant for the #1 spot, and that the only planet who could end up beating you is from another alliance than yourself. Let's furthermore say you have offended someone, say a rodent creature of some sort, and that this someone is going to bring his friends to your place. Imagine all of this leading to the following scenario:

Your fleet is being fleetcaught by a happy bunch that is looking to collectively suicide their fleets. Because you're Zik, you need the value of your fleet in order to win the round. Your options are: a) Call upon your alliance for defence and thus spread your losses or b) give up your planet and let somebody else win the round.

Add to this that you're a member of one of the top two alliances (out of which one will end up winning the round on an alliance basis), and answer me this: What would you do?


Xeno

[Alessio]

a) Duh
b) never

[jerome]

I'd rather be remembered as the guy who gave up his planet so his alliance would win rather than the guy who protected his planet so his planet could win.

[paolo]

Is some top planet getting fleetcaught?

[Amycus]

This is a tough one because of two things:

a) Your score effects your alliance's score.

b) It is easier for many to regain their score than just one person.

However to answer your question I would do what is best for the alliance. Reason being, the win for many is better than a win for one person.

[Kal]

I believe xeno is talking about some end of round lemming fun

[Alessio]

Spreading out the losses doesnt increase the losses in the alliance
its not like its gonna get deffed with attackships (that would hurt the ally)
and because its deffed the losses would proberbly decrease

and its good for an ally to have the nr 1 planet

as for b) giving up is not an option
b) should be a retal

[The_Fish]

If I had the choice to decide if ND would end #1, or I would personally, I would pick ND.

[The Real Arfy]

I doubt anyone would admit on here that they would rather end on a good personal score over their alliance - at least nobody who we don't already know is a shipjumper/twat.

[G.K Zhukov]

Arfy:

CALLING ALMEIDA TO THE THREAD

[pig]

Alliance by far, personal gain is only a bonus, but the alliance win should always be the priority

[TheRat]

My planet was sacrificed for the alliance last round, in a situation quite similar to this. I would never had inflicted the losses it would have taken to save my fleet upon my alliance.

[Kjeldoran]

Alliance always comes first, no exceptions.

[Entium]

I would probably let the ally defend my planet, but send my fleet away.
After this, I would leave the ally, go into vac. mode for 72 hours and join the opposite block.







Btw. I'm looking for a new ally atm., so who's recruiting?

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Entium

I would probably let the ally defend my planet, but send my fleet away.
After this, I would leave the ally, go into vac. mode for 72 hours and join the opposite block.

Btw. I'm looking for a new ally atm., so who's recruiting?

Try joining SINND

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Entium

I'm looking for a new ally atm., so who's recruiting?

Try Angels

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Try Angels

I would go for it if I was Entium

[General Martok]

c) Let your gal suicide def you

The alliance score goes above all. But if a 10M zik would loose 6M or so of his score, wouldn't defence not just spread, but also LOWER the losses?

[cypher]

anyone in particular you're talking about?

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by cypher

anyone in particular you're talking about?

Xeno

[Squishy]

how about option 3

cover the incoming for little or no losses

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Try Angels

will you ever stop your sarcastic crusade against Angels ? ...

[DrunkenViking]

I allways stuck with my alliance, nomatter what. I'm prolly the most loyal pe0n around

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

will you ever stop your sarcastic crusade against Angels ? ...

A few posts isn't a crusade. Cryptic's "XANADU. BOTS. CHEATING" posts in r4 were a real crusade

[MAdnRisKy]

althoguh he did mostly end up aiming them at LDK.


hmm... LDK ... bots......

yes I see a new thread tangent there.

well done MAd

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Squishy

how about option 3

cover the incoming for little or no losses

Yus! WP for president! (ND for Head Pony though )

I'd fork over my planet for the ally to win =/ goes hands down. And that's the reason that I shall now claim for me having a lousy set of rounds for most of my PA existence.

Yes. That's it!

[SteInMetz]

Originally Posted by Squidly

Yus! WP for president! (ND for Head Pony though )

I'd fork over my planet for the ally to win =/ goes hands down. And that's the reason that I shall now claim for me having a lousy set of rounds for most of my PA existence.

Yes. That's it!

i thought you died

[evil n00b]

Alliance score is same as fat. Doesnt show the alliance strenght. Your weight can be 1000kg, but still a 100kg dude can easily beat you. (if you dont somehow manage to roll over him)

(To make this simpel: assume that there is no limit in how many members there can be in an alliance)

No matter how good your alliance is, with a limited amount of members there is always an alliance that can make better score.
An alliance with unlimited amount of members has the higest score as long other alliances has a limited amount of members. This is a fact. (we assume that all players have score > 1)

Example: Only alliance A and B is created.
Your 100 members alliance A has all members in top 100. But your alliance is still only top 2, because rest of the 100000000 players did join alliance B. Round ends.
The question is which alliance wins the round.
Its obvious that alliance A wins and B loses. B gets totaly pwned even if it has rank 1 score.

If you agree to above, then you also agree that the alliance with the top 1 member wins the round. And therefore when you have to decide between giving your planet a top 1 rank or the alliance top 1 rank score, you give yourself a top 1 rank as that automatic makes your alliance to win the round.

The point is to win the round not to fight about some stupid alliance score that doesnt show anything.

[Neferti]

Interesting way of looking at it...

[Chaos]

I might agree IF there wasn't a limit to ally members. but there is. so your point is invalid.

[teqh]

SAAaap dawgs !

[virogenesis]

evil n00b has a valid point look at xeta in r6 sure FoS had the top gal but Xanadu had the top planet.
Some would consider top planet a win some go by gal & now it is even more complex with alliance rank which shows nothing due to ship jumping really.

[lokken]

As evil_n00b perhaps implies, score is not the best indicator of an alliance victory. ToT is an excellent example - like hell are they outside the top 10, they're small, compact and a massive threat to almost anyone.

However, alliance victories in my view are the more prestigious title, simply because unlike a top planet or galaxy, they require a lot more effort to achieve, a lot more skill and a lot less luck. Take the difference between a top 10 and a top 20 galaxy - the difference is actually small in terms of skill and activity - you'll find that often the reason the top 20 galaxies haven't done as well is because someone preferred to hit them over the top 10 galaxies, they've got more involved, caused far more damage to the enemy, but score doesn't reflect that and on top of that probably haven't decided to fencesit, which is a negative to dominance because it signifies fear of an enemy.

Exilition are currently 'winning' this round - they are dominating the universe, don't really have to fear very much, and even if Angels do hit them, they might have the lead to hold on to their score advantage. When Wolfpack were top, no one could say they were really dominating or infact really 'winning' because they weren't really getting their hands dirty.

I'll make one final point - the reason people care about Sid is because of his success in building alliances - the fact he's got a few top 10 planets in the process is secondary to that, although the fact he can do both is staggering.

[evil n00b]

Let say that I have a 10 members alliance, all in top 10. And you have a 100 members alliance with higer score.
Would you say that your scrap 100 members alliance wins over my alliance? I doubt you would whine about your score.
Tought your alliance consist of everyone you cooperate with
So if my 10 members alliance did get help from 500 other players, then its a 510 members alliance. Or would you say that its realistic for a 10 members alliance to get all top 10 places without any help at all? There is only neutrals, enemies and allies. Those 500 players is definely not neutrals or enemies, so they are allies.

Those you would not take roids from because you consider them as friends is your allies. They might not be able to defend you due to high eta, but they are still your allies as you attack same enemies with them.
So if your 100 members alliance cooperates with a other 100 members alliance, then you are in a 200 members alliance. The tag is only a attack squad
Also if you have a cluster alliance, then you must add those to your ally list. Makes it even bigger.

Top 1 galaxy can be considered better than top 1 planet. But a galaxy can have members from different alliances. And the galaxy is not your alliances if other a alliance can claim it as theirs. If the galaxy keeps only your alliance tag the whole round, then it can be considered as your alliance galaxy.

[TheRat]

Originally Posted by evil n00b

Let say that I have a 10 members alliance, all in top 10. And you have a 100 members alliance with higer score.
Would you say that your scrap 100 members alliance wins over my alliance? I doubt you would whine about your score. .

Id say you've done a great job picking a battlegroup, but a poor job building an alliance.

[evil n00b]

Originally Posted by TheRat

Id say you've done a great job picking a battlegroup, but a poor job building an alliance.

What is the main reason for your planet to join an alliance? You want to get a better rank for your planet, right?
You get better defence, can roid better and stuff like that. So as alliance leader my job is to give the members what they want --> better rank.
If I manage to run the alliance so members only can see other members above their own rank, then I have done my "building alliance" job perfect as there is no way to make it better.

I just cant see why you think having 100 members is better than having 10 mebers. So you would also say that a 1000 members alliance is better built than a 100 members alliance with all members in top 100 this simply because the 1000 members alliance has more members
Maybe the building alliance part for you is getting as many members as possible. Most members wins

[God]

Originally Posted by General Martok

c) Let your gal suicide def you

The alliance score goes above all. But if a 10M zik would loose 6M or so of his score, wouldn't defence not just spread, but also LOWER the losses?

Like this fine example we have here:

http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/show_news.pl?id=22027

[JonnyBGood]

The best alliance is the one with the most military power available consistently over a 24 hour period at the end of the round. In a war game success is measured by how well you can fight wars, nothing else.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by evil n00b

What is the main reason for your planet to join an alliance? You want to get a better rank for your planet, right?

That's part of it, but not all of it.

Personally, I consider three things to be important (in no particular order): my rank, my contribution to my alliance and the "annoyance" I cause to my enemies. The longer I have played, the less important rank has become and the more important the latter two objectives have become.

One of the best things about Planetarion is that players can set their own criteria for success. Your ambition might be to help your alliance to do well, or to get a high planet rank, or to simply have fun and make some spectacular attacks. A good alliance needs a mixture of players with different ambitions - a selfish bunch of players who care only for their personal rank will not succeed, but neither will an alliance full of selfless defenders.

[evil n00b]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Personally, I consider three things to be important "2 stuff" and the "annoyance" I cause to my enemies. The longer I have played, the less important rank has become and the more important the latter two objectives have become.

Everyone can be taken down. The question is just how many you need to take them down. If you need 500 players to take down 100 players, then its really not impressive at all. Those 100 players wouldnt take it that hard. Might even make them proud.
So to really annoy someone you have to beat him with as few players as possible. Also having a better rank than the enemy annoys the enemy quite a lot. So rank is actually a part of annoying

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by TheRat

Id say you've done a great job picking a battlegroup, but a poor job building an alliance.

so what you are saying is that Coven > An alliance consisting of the t10 only?

[noah02]

Originally Posted by God

Like this fine example we have here:

http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/show_news.pl?id=22027

and they were my pegs and nixes i got told to send :/

Edit: I did'nt feel bad at all losing them by the way as I was very pleased to actually have some attackers/defenders to have the balls to just have a go and make a battle worth keeping in my journal for a good while.

[Virall]

Originally Posted by Xeno

Let's say you're a contestant for the #1 spot, and that the only planet who could end up beating you is from another alliance than yourself. Let's furthermore say you have offended someone, say a rodent creature of some sort, and that this someone is going to bring his friends to your place. Imagine all of this leading to the following scenario:

Your fleet is being fleetcaught by a happy bunch that is looking to collectively suicide their fleets. Because you're Zik, you need the value of your fleet in order to win the round. Your options are: a) Call upon your alliance for defence and thus spread your losses or b) give up your planet and let somebody else win the round.

Add to this that you're a member of one of the top two alliances (out of which one will end up winning the round on an alliance basis), and answer me this: What would you do?


Xeno

I've read your post about seven times now, and i still don't really understand your dilemma. If youre being fleetcaught by an opposing alliance and you're in a top two alliance, you shouldn't be complaining and should just carry on playing the game. Im sure the fleet catch was designed to prevent you from winning; giving up on your planet after all of the hours you've put in is surely not even an option. Either take the beating like a man, or quit.

Hmmm. The choice. No one enjoys seeing a grey fleet on their galaxy status screen being accompanied by a handful of reds at the same ETA. But I know one thing for sure:

If it was myself in that position, the event wouldn't make it onto AD, because id be more concerned about putting my time into my recovery to be honest.

[notsure]

/me dreams of being in such a position....

Ultimately I think it comes down to how you view your alliance - are you in the alliance to help them, or to help yourself....To me the reason for joining an alliance is to help the alliance as a whole, the payoff being that the alliance helps you in return.

Therefore in the proposed situation, my choice would be to do what is best for the alliance. This however does not automatically mean sacraficing myself - after all as others have pointed out, sharing the fleet loses may result in a lower overall score drop for the alliance - especially this round where many have scores based on XP rather than value.

There does need to be a limit on just how much defence is sent, however, since saving one person's score at the possible expense of the many others who couldn't get defence due to the defence drain is hardly going to help an alliance maintain it's position.

In the end I feel that a team victory that many can share is better than an individual victory limited to one.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Virall

I've read your post about seven times now, and i still don't really understand your dilemma. If youre being fleetcaught by an opposing alliance and you're in a top two alliance, you shouldn't be complaining and should just carry on playing the game. Im sure the fleet catch was designed to prevent you from winning; giving up on your planet after all of the hours you've put in is surely not even an option. Either take the beating like a man, or quit.

Hmmm. The choice. No one enjoys seeing a grey fleet on their galaxy status screen being accompanied by a handful of reds at the same ETA. But I know one thing for sure:

If it was myself in that position, the event wouldn't make it onto AD, because id be more concerned about putting my time into my recovery to be honest.

I don't think you quite got the point. Note the facts that a) xeno is hirr and b) he used the second person singular in his post.

[Seed of Chaos]

Originally Posted by Xeno

Let's furthermore say you have offended someone, say a rodent creature of some sort

rofl that part made me laugh

[Kushan]

So has this happened then and if it has, what did the planet in question decide to do?

Kushan

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by Kushan

So has this happened then and if it has, what did the planet in question decide to do?

It hasn't happened, and it won't happen. The question could be seen as purely hypothetical, or - if you're into paranoia - a gentle reminder.


Xeno

[Seed of Chaos]

http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/show...an_id=63958870 <---hmmm could this possibly be what you're talking about?

[Hurragutten]

Well, if defended I can attack some of his defenders then