Dear alliances, get a clue

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

I specificly commented on 1 particular bit of what u said. So far for the readin part

But it wasn't your post I was quoting so how on earth could I fail to read your post correctly? The post you quoted me on and critised me on was a psot I quoted from Geezer77. Are you on drugs?

Originally Posted by KweKweK

When did all of this exactly happen? You keep calling it an 1 sided war, but you fail to notice that its still undecided who the winner of round 15 will be. 4 more days to go and last I looked it was an 11 million score difference between eX and ND

You were with Subh from the beginning and from the 1up overview the cooperation with VGN started very early on in the round.

The winner is decided, the score doesn't mean anything at this point because anyone who has a chance of making a difference is still getting hit tick after tick by eX and thier allies thus removing any sort of chance of a last minute revival. eX will win this round by ~50m points and theres bugger all that can be done about it.

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Forest

To answer the question from yet ANOTHER anonymous neg rep...

The choice is gone because allainces in some quarters have shown they will block to win pre-tick starts, and alliances not willing to block have shown to be twatted.
Therefor it stands to reason that in order to win, blocks need to be formed pre-tick start. And that is the end of fluid politics.

Now please, I am trying to provide reasons for my thinking, by just neg-repping anonymously, you really are showing lack of discussion skills.
If you dont agree with what I am saying, try and explain it heer, you really are doing yourselves no favours :/

Then you must remove R15 from your previous post, as there was no pre-tick block. And thats why although i agree we must stop PA from returning to the old Pre-PaX blocking, i fail to see how this round could be included in it, especially if your using pre-tick blocking as some reasoning towards it. Unless this thread is not about R15!!

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Then you must remove R15 from your previous post, as there was no pre-tick block. And thats why although i agree we must stop PA from returning to the old Pre-PaX blocking, i fail to see how this round could be included in it, especially if your using pre-tick blocking as some reasoning towards it. Unless this thread is not about R15!!

A pretick nap for an alliance of eXilitions calibre is definately on the way to pre tick blocking. For anyone to become equal to this potential military strength they must form alliances of thier own and this rapidly leads to further blocking. So this is a perfect example of negative blocking mentality, when eX who are undoubtedly one of the best alliances in the round are pre forming political agendas. This can only lead to counter blocks being formed to even up the playing field.

[KweKweK]

To Forest, in what way is a pretick NAP a block?

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

But it wasn't your post I was quoting so how on earth could I fail to read your post correctly? The post you quoted me on and critised me on was a psot I quoted from Geezer77. Are you on drugs?




You were with Subh from the beginning and from the 1up overview the cooperation with VGN started very early on in the round.

The winner is decided, the score doesn't mean anything at this point because anyone who has a chance of making a difference is still getting hit tick after tick by eX and thier allies thus removing any sort of chance of a last minute revival. eX will win this round by ~50m points and theres bugger all that can be done about it.

We had a NAP from the beginning yes. When we exactly napped with VgN I dont know, what I do know is that it happened somewhere midround. Drawing VgN attention might be 1up there own doing instead of shuffling every organised inc you have had into our shoes. When 2 alliances fight eachother its commenly known others will profit from this. It happens to everyone.

You say this round is over. Yet I believe Angels and ND still want to have a word in this.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

A pretick nap for an alliance of eXilitions calibre is definately on the way to pre tick blocking. For anyone to become equal to this potential military strength they must form alliances of thier own and this rapidly leads to further blocking. So this is a perfect example of negative blocking mentality, when eX who are undoubtedly one of the best alliances in the round are pre forming political agendas. This can only lead to counter blocks being formed to even up the playing field.

Thank you for the compliment, but arent you over reacting here? There is a huge difference in havind 1 NAP just before you're going to strike at what we saw at the time as our most dangerous rival for no 1 spot and organising a block(which I believe contains more then 2 alliance operating on a joined attack and defense level) to pound 1up into the ground?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

We had a NAP from the beginning yes. When we exactly napped with VgN I dont know, what I do know is that it happened somewhere midround.

You either know or you don't. Which is it?

Originally Posted by KweKweK

Drawing VgN attention might be 1up there own doing instead of shuffling every organised inc you have had into our shoes. When 2 alliances fight eachother its commenly known others will profit from this. It happens to everyone.

1up had not been hostile in any way towards vgn prior to this attack cooperation. And when the incoming is organised with you it doesn't take a great deal of shuffling.

Originally Posted by KweKweK

You say this round is over. Yet I believe Angels and ND still want to have a word in this.

I'm sure they do but it's a simple matter of military effectiveness. When you're being roided by up to 5 alliances every night you aren't going to make much of a dent in an alliance with only a maximum of half of the same incoming. You do consider doing things like fleet catches but it then becomes apparent that these alliances are then going to defend against those too. I'd dearly love Angels or ND to win this round because I think both deserve it (if only from a "moral" standpoint) more than eX but the current political makeup just isn't going to allow it and I somehow can't see the alliances in question suddenly turning on eX to even up the field for ND/Angels anytime soon.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

Thank you for the compliment, but arent you over reacting here? There is a huge difference in havind 1 NAP just before you're going to strike at what we saw at the time as our most dangerous rival for no 1 spot and organising a block(which I believe contains more then 2 alliance operating on a joined attack and defense level) to pound 1up into the ground?

This post is about the mentality of blocking. Yes, I believe eX and subh could be handled if it was just the two of them (only by 1 or 2 alliances at the top of thier game though) but why do they need to be allied at all? It send a clear message from eX saying "we're good enough to win the round by ourselves but we will take on alliances to work with us to make double sure". This mentality then has a counter of "****, those two are strong we need to make a bigger block to twat them" and the circle is then begun.

[Geezer77]

I agree with Kwek to a point, i wouldn't call a nap with 1 alliance, which as ive said in previous posts i didn't even know existed at tick start. So i wouldn't say it was even organised or concrete imo, but maybe i was just mis-informed.

Ofc if you do believe it can be associated with blocks, then 1ups claims of winning R11 alone can be put into question, which i openly question anyway. Napping the top planets in a number of alliances stopping a large number of hostile fleets and ofc stopping in certain circumstances def on retalled targets with threats of even worse bashings, is just as if not more of a lead to blocking, considering were talking about alot bigger threat in general.

Yet again this is down to a matter of interpretation and opinions, and i dought we will totally agree on certain aspects. But i cannot accept that calling a nap with SubH, 1 alliance with not a substantial threat especially at the time scale were talking about. A build up to mass blocking (optimistic at best), and Forests opinion of pre-tick blocking is totally unfounded.

[Seed of Chaos]

wasn't the 1up/ToF/ND/SiN/NoS block in place before round started in r13? So unless i'm very much mistaken, it seems to me that went a long way further than this pre round nap did.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

I agree with Kwek to a point, i wouldn't call a nap with 1 alliance, which as ive said in previous posts i didn't even know existed at tick start. So i wouldn't say it was even organised or concrete imo, but maybe i was just mis-informed.

Ofc if you do believe it can be associated with blocks, then 1ups claims of winning R11 alone can be put into question, which i openly question anyway. Napping the top planets in a number of alliances stopping a large number of hostile fleets and ofc stopping in certain circumstances def on retalled targets with threats of even worse bashings, is just as if not more of a lead to blocking, considering were talking about alot bigger threat in general.

Yet again this is down to a matter of interpretation and opinions, and i dought we will totally agree on certain aspects. But i cannot accept that calling a nap with SubH, 1 alliance with not a substantial threat especially at the time scale were talking about. A build up to mass blocking (optimistic at best), and Forests opinion of pre-tick blocking is totally unfounded.

If it's meaningless and doesn't make a difference then why do it? eX don't strike me as an alliance who make trivial political deals when it doesn't benefit them. 1up didn't feel as though they needed help prior toi tickstart, Angels had no political agreements and Nd went it alone so why did eX require the services of an alliance who didn't affect the round?

You can try and play it down as much as you want but eX are a significant military strength and the addition of any alliance to help them is a significant political move that will have a bearing on the round.

As for 1up in R11 I fail to see the significance or relationship with a pre tick NAP of this round. You have to understand why these planets took a planet nap in R11, it was because 1up were already the dominant military force and they were protecting what they had from being taken away from them. If they didn't believe this would happen then why would they do it?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Seed of Chaos

wasn't the 1up/ToF/ND/SiN/NoS block in place before round started in r13? So unless i'm very much mistaken, it seems to me that went a long way further than this pre round nap did.

You'll just hear the same argument from both sides with this question. We felt an opposing block had to be created to match that of the one eX had created. They will say the same and it is a topic that will never truly be resolved.

[MaxMilliaN]

how about some good advice, the time you spend rambling your hallucinations on these boards and trying to manipulate simple minds, isnt it more wise to spend it ingame instead like other alliances?
i guess thats why alliances which house so many attentionwhores lose so badly. :/

anyways, so according to 1up new conclusion "NAP" means superblock, and should be forbidden(having an ally would be called ubermegasuperduper block i suppose). then i guess there is no room for politics in pax anymore. there is this game called "roidracer" or atleast there was some years ago, it could have been the perfect game for those that hate politics, like 1up for example they wouldnt ever use those devilish satanic politic moves, its just so against their style!

goodluck with your creativity imaginging more silly excuses to why you lost again

[Seed of Chaos]

well, whatever the reason is, why is there a fuss this round over something that isn't nearly as severe as something that happened a couple of rounds back?

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Seed of Chaos

well, whatever the reason is, why is there a fuss this round over something that isn't nearly as severe as something that happened a couple of rounds back?

A good observation, i agree with you. This round a few people have been over-exagerating especially on the time scales of this round. It is in no way in my opinion leading to Pre-Pax blocks as has been stated in some posts, as you said your self previous rounds indeed were alot worse, which is why i don't see any reason to include R15 in this particular topic.

[MaxMilliaN]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I know it's bad to talk about reps but I nearly wet myself when I saw that.

gg eX posters, your alliance must be terribly proud of you.

sweet jesus, you got a red dot. call the carepolice!

p.s. i got alot of red dots from 1up goons, but im too cool to show them on the boards :|

[pig]

Originally Posted by MaxMilliaN

how about some good advice, the time you spend rambling your hallucinations on these boards and trying to manipulate simple minds

Sorry we were hoping you would give us some tips on how to manipulate simple minds, I mean you are still napped with Subh right?

We were hopinh to manipulate vgn...oh wait damn :/

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by MaxMilliaN

sweet jesus, you got a red dot. call the carepolice!

from the sounds of the maturity level in the rep itself, its more then likely to be a grey rep rather then a red one

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Then you must remove R15 from your previous post, as there was no pre-tick block. And thats why although i agree we must stop PA from returning to the old Pre-PaX blocking, i fail to see how this round could be included in it, especially if your using pre-tick blocking as some reasoning towards it. Unless this thread is not about R15!!

The nail on the head!

My posts have NOT been about R15, they ahve been about FUTURE rounds.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Phil^

from the sounds of the maturity level in the rep itself, its more then likely to be a grey rep rather then a red one

We have a winnar!!!!!!!!!1111111111

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by MaxMilliaN

sweet jesus, you got a red dot. call the carepolice!

p.s. i got alot of red dots from 1up goons, but im too cool to show them on the boards :|

I get lot's of red dots from you eX types but it was the content of this particular one that amused me greatly.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

This post is about the mentality of blocking. Yes, I believe eX and subh could be handled if it was just the two of them (only by 1 or 2 alliances at the top of thier game though) but why do they need to be allied at all? It send a clear message from eX saying "we're good enough to win the round by ourselves but we will take on alliances to work with us to make double sure". This mentality then has a counter of "****, those two are strong we need to make a bigger block to twat them" and the circle is then begun.

Problem with your poste is, cooperative attacks only happened later into the round when enough had happened already and when we were facing more then 1 ally at the same time. Lett me be clear on something.

I'm not saying you're completly wrong. I simply disagree with the extent it happened of what you claim. You're shuffling more shit in our shoes then we deserve. If what you claim is true then we would have been on top far sooner with all the allies you claim we have had during this round. And even now that we are no.1 the round isnt decided yet. Angels, 1up and eX all had NAPs during this round and cooperated with other alliances during the round. Yet you picture us as the bad blocking alliance. I so seriously doubt the claims you make because we were enemies during most of this round if not the whole round. Thus we are a valid target for 1up propaganda for example. Which I believe is what it is you're doing.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I get lot's of red dots from you eX types but it was the content of this particular one that amused me greatly.

That one made me chuckle aswell. I dont do neg reps, I only do pos reps :xmas:

[Seed of Chaos]

Originally Posted by Forest

The nail on the head!

My posts have NOT been about R15, they ahve been about FUTURE rounds.

Heheh the timing of this thread has led to a heck of a lot of confusion then lol.

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Forest

The nail on the head!

My posts have NOT been about R15, they ahve been about FUTURE rounds.

I seem to always be mis-intepreting your posts then, but you did mention R15 in an earlier post when you were replying to the neg reps. But i do agree with your over-all point about future rounds.

And it is a shame when people neg rep for absolute no reason other than spite.

[Kargool]

I feel I have to reply on this thread trying to explain a few things first about TGV's stand in this and the situation we was in. We was napped with NewDawn half the round aprox. It was for us a mostly benefical nap to avoid one of the bigger alliances hitting us and our galaxies. It was not a full fledged ALLIANCE as that we went hand in hand and attacked where they told us to attack. I've read through this thread and I find myself abit suprised to be honest. I thought and still think that this game is about doing what's best for your own alliance. not assist somebody else winning. I will play this game with that attitude in the future, for to be honest, I dont think full fledged alliances between alliances benefits the game, nor the players. We did nothing else than make clear to both ND and eXilition (yes they offerd us a nap too, but we declined, for proof ask btwmc) that our goal was something else than helping other alliances win the game. Our nap with ND held, and we got less incs because of that.

When that is said, I think we also have to look at the current alliance setup as it is now. With alliances having as much as 80 members, that alliance is quite a huge chunk of the current universe (wich sadly seems to be smaller and smaller each round) I belive with a smaller alliance set up and with abit more fluid politics this game can get back to where we started.

[Ali]

I generally dislike posting on these boards but the truth has to be said...

Subh had no naps pre-round, we started the round intentionally aiming to avoid both 1up and exilition. I personally had talked to Zhil pre-round in which we agreed on nothing official and Subh generally chose to avoid 1up to stay off their hostile counters. We had also talked to exilition in which nothing official was agreed.

So pre-round Subh simply decided to avoid both and keep a flexible stance while not being hostile to either. We napped exilition some time into the round and no coords were shared. In the terms of the NAP we even stated that either side could end it if we wanted to though I assumed neither side would want to. I made this decision because I thought it was best for Subh and had concluded that exilition would be stronger and thus would be better as a friend then not.

Not long after that we were approached by 1up and asked to avoid certain 1up galaxies and to unnap exilition and progress to a full NAP with 1up instead of exilition. We were generally not hostile to 1up at that time anyways so we avoided the galaxies anyways. We declined any NAP with 1up and stayed with exilition because we would not turn around or backstab without a good reason and we had by then already agreed on our nap, etc.

We also have declined attacking with exilition on many occasions this round when they asked if we were interested. We have done cooperated attacks with different alliances this round whenever we had shared a common enemy with them and it was in our interest to do so. Alliances we had cooperated with on 1 night may have hit us another night, it's just how the politics go.

Politics is part of the game, but I simply wish to show the foolishness of trying to say that Subh had done anything to unbalance the game such as starting a "super-block" before the round. We started the round nuetral to all alliances and doing gal raids while avoiding the two alliances we thought had the strongest military potential. We then progressed in politics as we saw them develop throughout the round. End story.

[Agerus]

my impression is that the war was/is pretty equal.

ND + Angels + 1up

vs

eX + several smaller alliances

and a few days ago it was majorarily agreed upon the fact that whoever ends first deserved the win

[Forest]

No-one is denying the winners dont deserve to win.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

I seem to always be mis-intepreting your posts then, but you did mention R15 in an earlier post when you were replying to the neg reps. But i do agree with your over-all point about future rounds.

And it is a shame when people neg rep for absolute no reason other than spite.

I can take some of the blame for that.

Sometimes what I mean doesnt come across as that, it is a fault of mine.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Ali

Not long after that we were approached by 1up and asked to avoid certain 1up galaxies and to unnap exilition and progress to a full NAP with 1up instead of exilition.

I PARTICULARLY enjoyed this bit of the story.

So if 1up had got thier way then THEY would have been NAPd to subh and eX would have had no NAP at that point in the round. Are u bitter that they chose us over you Mazz?? This thread stinks of hypocrisy.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I feel I have to reply on this thread trying to explain a few things first about TGV's stand in this and the situation we was in. We was napped with NewDawn half the round aprox. It was for us a mostly benefical nap to avoid one of the bigger alliances hitting us and our galaxies. It was not a full fledged ALLIANCE as that we went hand in hand and attacked where they told us to attack. I've read through this thread and I find myself abit suprised to be honest. I thought and still think that this game is about doing what's best for your own alliance. not assist somebody else winning. I will play this game with that attitude in the future, for to be honest, I dont think full fledged alliances between alliances benefits the game, nor the players. We did nothing else than make clear to both ND and eXilition (yes they offerd us a nap too, but we declined, for proof ask btwmc) that our goal was something else than helping other alliances win the game. Our nap with ND held, and we got less incs because of that.

When that is said, I think we also have to look at the current alliance setup as it is now. With alliances having as much as 80 members, that alliance is quite a huge chunk of the current universe (wich sadly seems to be smaller and smaller each round) I belive with a smaller alliance set up and with abit more fluid politics this game can get back to where we started.

Well I think the situation mid-round was that the top three alliances were keeping each other busy leaving NewDawn with very little to target. For an alliance like TGV, not retaining/setting up a NAP meant considerable focus on your alliance (by nature of sod all else to target) - putting you in a position where the NAP with them was very appealing if not necessary for your developing alliance.

Fleetcatches when you're already being fleetcaught can be annoying yeah. And planned attacks at the time really were tainted with inbalance.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Banned

I'm sorry, 80% of the round?
Mr. Sandman disagrees.

Who was the first aggressor between ND and Angels? What about ND and EXilition? The only case of the three in which ND has not drawn first blood is with LCH.

Lch seems to go where their master tells them to go

[Chika]

Erm, for the round to be a blocking round, there have to be 2 sides. Name the side containing 1up. Or containing angels. Or containing newdawn. If you can't do this,?it wasn't a block round. It was exil ally'ing all the little people while 1up, angels, newdawn, ran into each other shouting that they would not help the other.

[bwtmc]

I think you completely misunderstood the round. Alliances changed tactics and replaced strategies according to who was the biggest threat at the time, who was hitting them, and who they would benefit most from hitting (plus everything else we consider)..

It was pretty free flowing throughout, hence the 6000 reported defence calls the top alliance got in eight weeks - And that's how it should be.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think you completely misunderstood the round. Alliances changed tactics and replaced strategies according to who was the biggest threat at the time, who was hitting them, and who they would benefit most from hitting (plus everything else we consider)..

It was pretty free flowing throughout, hence the 6000 reported defence calls the top alliance got in eight weeks - And that's how it should be.

Erm, so the little alliances that helped exil also helped 1up, angels, and newdawn?
I only see exil people claiming thier was fluid politics as a whole, when you guys didn't do shit fluidly. The other side acted in a fluid sense, but they shouldn't have. OBVIOUSLY.

Hint: I am asking you already answered questions, that are widely known, in the hope that you will answer "counter" what I asked, thus making you look like an idiot.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by Forest

No-one is denying the winners dont deserve to win.

I do! I deny "the winners don't deserve to win." The winners, whoever they may be, do deserve to win.

-NitinA

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

I PARTICULARLY enjoyed this bit of the story.

So if 1up had got thier way then THEY would have been NAPd to subh and eX would have had no NAP at that point in the round. Are u bitter that they chose us over you Mazz?? This thread stinks of hypocrisy.

Also not entirely true. If Ali would like we can go over the log of him requesting this from us and telling me they were breaking thier NAP with eX because they didn't agree with thier "cheating way of playing".

And the chat with Zhil pre round was actually a request for a NAP being turned down by us so effectively they chose us over you. Biter about it Chipz^?

Edit: Also forgot the 2/3 times Ali came to me with a proposal, which was turned down, for us to help then win a war with TGV then they would help us hit eX.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

P.S. Angels moving on eXi was a good move imo, I wouldnt have done it differently.

While I agree it was a very clever decision on their part, I doubt much pple would have done it as and I certainly don't think you'd have managed to figure out the same (no offence, I wouldn't have either).

[Yeh_of_Arcanum]

Didnt play this round, so ill comment this round as outside watcher. Been watching pilkara and board allmost daily as there has been so much action around. Knowing some planets & galaxies & alliances from past so its been entertaining to look those going up and down. I havent done this ever before, hard to say how much just played pia round got me into that.

Lots of ppl are whining about exilitions tactic to gather flak alliances, which in my eyes is quite funny They have battled against every1 and what i know they surely have several arch enemies in top alliances. So lets check top alliance situation:

ex - battling against every top alliance, gathering flak alliances against 1up, nd, angels
nd - playing round for roids only, no wars, sims only, hurraa, at end against ex
angels - playing about normally, at end against ex
lch - regrouping, roids only, no wars
1up - learning their real level against ex whole round

Could some1 tell me how that 1 alliance can compete with 3 top alliances with about same capasity than they have? I know ppl from every1 of those 3 alliance HC:s and i know every1 of u have made secret agreements in past. Hypocrity? Exilition kicked all of ur arses in battlefield and then u whine that u should be able to gather 3 vs 1 at end to kick them from #1 spot? LOL

I wont go to point was this big game engine change needed (impossible to outgrow n0b0s with skill, so every1 stays same size, not like old days), but when there was gone, it was sure this kind of situations will come more. I havent seen that many ppl who enjoy playing round 24/7 and then just giving victory out. Now when ppl cant really win like winners should, there will allways be agreements. Pa got raising amounts of players, there will be more and more agreements. Its just humans playing.

Ppl are talking about how 1up won r11 with glory. I think r11 needs to be lowest quality round ever. It was second? pax round and alot good ppl left at pa r6-7 and then again when pax came. Also that thing that 1up won round with only 2/3 memberbase at that time tells about it too. They surely had good members at that time, but still not that great. Game just doesnt give ppl chances to outgrow with skill, so imo that victory goes quite much to 1up HC. Ive been playing with mose of them and with most of exilition(/dragons) now. Quite much same quality players...thought exilition currently has this blood taste in their mouth and moral that is really hard to break.

Max: Ouch, so close...seems lessons are continuing even without me.

[Stoom]

www.yehfanclub.com for the more indept tact0cs and intel for all you n0b0s

[ComradeRob]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread (I think I may lose the will to live if forced to read another "what is blocking?" debate). However, here are the facts as I see them:

1) Exilition's margin of victory is narrow. There have been many rounds in the past when the winner has been obvious long before the round ends, and AD has been full of posts despairing of the lack of competition. Whilst it's true that your alliance (whoever you are) might not have been in the fight, the fact remains that there were two contenders for victory until the very last few days.

2) Exilition have not had an easy ride. They have fought everyone, and beat everyone. The only realistic way that Exilition could have been stopped was if ND, Angels and 1up had teamed up on them a couple of weeks ago (around the time that ND and Angels were hitting each other). If that had happened, it would have been called an unfair block by most people on AD.

3) Alliances like Subh and VGN were largely irrelevant to the end result of the round. Exilition survived incoming from supposedly "top" alliances. If ND or Angels couldn't survive incoming from Subh or VGN then they didn't deserve to win.

4) Any conspiracy theory that you can attribute to an opposing alliance probably applies to your own alliance. Both ND and Exilition made "contingency plans" which involved lining up people to join their tag in the last few days, in both cases justifying it on the basis that "the other side is going to do it". The same applies to blocks; it's a classic arms race. It's probably unavoidable, and there's no point in criticising either side for doing it - certainly not if you're on one of those sides yourself.

5) Getting into discussions about "what is a block" is pointless. We all know that certain alliances have biases in favour of other alliances. Subh had a bias in favour of Exilition. It could be argued that 1up had a bias in favour of ND. Most of this is due to personailities - either these alliances have worked together in the past, or there is some bond of trust/friendship between their leaders. This doesn't mean that they will cooperate from tick 1, but it does mean that, when the shit hits the fan, they can call on their old friends to help them out. Again, there is nothing unusual about this and there is no point in arguing against it. People are naturally social animals and will help their friends out in times of trouble. It can't be avoided. The best we can hope for is that the sides are balanced (and, this round, they were).

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I admit I haven't read the entire thread (I think I may lose the will to live if forced to read another "what is blocking?" debate). However, here are the facts as I see them:

1) Exilition's margin of victory is narrow. There have been many rounds in the past when the winner has been obvious long before the round ends, and AD has been full of posts despairing of the lack of competition. Whilst it's true that your alliance (whoever you are) might not have been in the fight, the fact remains that there were two contenders for victory until the very last few days.

2) Exilition have not had an easy ride. They have fought everyone, and beat everyone. The only realistic way that Exilition could have been stopped was if ND, Angels and 1up had teamed up on them a couple of weeks ago (around the time that ND and Angels were hitting each other). If that had happened, it would have been called an unfair block by most people on AD.

3) Alliances like Subh and VGN were largely irrelevant to the end result of the round. Exilition survived incoming from supposedly "top" alliances. If ND or Angels couldn't survive incoming from Subh or VGN then they didn't deserve to win.

Heh, it's obvious that you didn't read the entire thread

Mind you that BEFORE ND hit us (and when Exi was #1 and Angels #2) we consistently hit Exi AND closed the gap, eventually overtaking Exi both in roids as in XP and slightly (not much) increasing the gap. That's a fact, you can check sandmans or pilkara for those simple facts.

Then ND sneaked to #1 while Exi and Angels were fighting eachother. At that point we decided to hit ND and only THEN, exi overtook us again as we had Exi, flak + ND hitting us (+400 calls on some nights).

My point is that Exi are not unstoppable, and it doesn't take 3 top alliances working together to stop them. Mind you that Angels never allied 1up or ND. This so called block containing Angels/ND/1up is a fairytale and I don't know who fabricated this. Sure we might all 3 hit them. But all for very obvious reasons don't you think? Doesn't mean we cooperate or anything.

to answer your 3rd point, sure we could handle HR and Subh incs. We cannot however handle exi and ND incs added to that. No alliance can tbh.

Your views here imo are quite wrong but if that's your personal opinion then fair enough.

[Alki]

Fact of the matter is the so called 3 alliances, Angels + 1up + ND, never once coordinated on a full scale to solely hit exil alone, so all this talk about 3 vs 1 is utter bs. Thought id give you a clue

[Forest]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I admit I haven't read the entire thread (I think I may lose the will to live if forced to read another "what is blocking?" debate). However, here are the facts as I see them:

1) Exilition's margin of victory is narrow. There have been many rounds in the past when the winner has been obvious long before the round ends, and AD has been full of posts despairing of the lack of competition. Whilst it's true that your alliance (whoever you are) might not have been in the fight, the fact remains that there were two contenders for victory until the very last few days.

2) Exilition have not had an easy ride. They have fought everyone, and beat everyone. The only realistic way that Exilition could have been stopped was if ND, Angels and 1up had teamed up on them a couple of weeks ago (around the time that ND and Angels were hitting each other). If that had happened, it would have been called an unfair block by most people on AD.

3) Alliances like Subh and VGN were largely irrelevant to the end result of the round. Exilition survived incoming from supposedly "top" alliances. If ND or Angels couldn't survive incoming from Subh or VGN then they didn't deserve to win.

4) Any conspiracy theory that you can attribute to an opposing alliance probably applies to your own alliance. Both ND and Exilition made "contingency plans" which involved lining up people to join their tag in the last few days, in both cases justifying it on the basis that "the other side is going to do it". The same applies to blocks; it's a classic arms race. It's probably unavoidable, and there's no point in criticising either side for doing it - certainly not if you're on one of those sides yourself.

5) Getting into discussions about "what is a block" is pointless. We all know that certain alliances have biases in favour of other alliances. Subh had a bias in favour of Exilition. It could be argued that 1up had a bias in favour of ND. Most of this is due to personailities - either these alliances have worked together in the past, or there is some bond of trust/friendship between their leaders. This doesn't mean that they will cooperate from tick 1, but it does mean that, when the shit hits the fan, they can call on their old friends to help them out. Again, there is nothing unusual about this and there is no point in arguing against it. People are naturally social animals and will help their friends out in times of trouble. It can't be avoided. The best we can hope for is that the sides are balanced (and, this round, they were).

As you are one of the best posters on here, I will dignify this with a proper reply.

1) The margin of victory wasn't as narrow as sandmans allows it to appear. Exi have been guarenteed victory for at least a week, and almost certainly guarenteed for two weeks.

2) Absolutely, exi havent had an easy ride. And yes, they deserve to win. However, for the best part of the round they had huge advantages that the other alliances at the top were unable/unwilling to address. 1up/Angels have pretty mcuh been alone against a big block + support planets.

3) This point is absolutely silly. Subh and co have had a HUGE impact on the round. And the fact is, they ahve been hitting alongside exi/lch and all the smaller alliances, most fo the round. No, 1up and co couldnt cope with them, that I do not deny. But exi didnt HAVE to. You group ND in with Angels/1up but this couldnt be farther than the truth. 1up HC basically said 'they made there bed, they lie in it', whilst angels hc openly spoke of prefering exi to win than ND.
Of course, totally inadequate ND politics didn't help matters.

4) Sad isnt it :/

5) Again, 1up had no bias in favour of ND, they refused to support them at a time when it could of stopped exi winning had they chosen to.
Subh on the other hand had pre-tick napped to exi, and exi had several alliances lined up as friendly.

[KweKweK]

I fail to find the part where Rob actually did say that those 3 alliances did
If you're referring to this I think you misunderstood what he is saying.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

The only realistic way that Exilition could have been stopped was if ND, Angels and 1up had teamed up on them a couple of weeks ago (around the time that ND and Angels were hitting each other)

Neither do I think you were cooperating with attackson a full scale, but we did get simultanious 1up/ND/Angels inc on multiple occasions. I'm not claiming by saying this that you ever tried to proof this never happened, just sharing what I saw in the DC channel.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Mind you that BEFORE ND hit us (and when Exi was #1 and Angels #2) we consistently hit Exi AND closed the gap, eventually overtaking Exi both in roids as in XP and slightly (not much) increasing the gap. That's a fact, you can check sandmans or pilkara for those simple facts.

Then ND sneaked to #1 while Exi and Angels were fighting eachother. At that point we decided to hit ND and only THEN, exi overtook us again as we had Exi, flak + ND hitting us (+400 calls on some nights).

My point is that Exi are not unstoppable, and it doesn't take 3 top alliances working together to stop them. Mind you that Angels never allied 1up or ND. This so called block containing Angels/ND/1up is a fairytale and I don't know who fabricated this. Sure we might all 3 hit them. But all for very obvious reasons don't you think? Doesn't mean we cooperate or anything.

At the time Angels moved into #1 we had 1up hitting us aswell every night BEFORE you launched attacks, if they didnt drain most of our defences i wonder if you would have moved to #1?

Ofc eX would get owned by 3 allainces working together but it also took 2+ unorganised* allaince attacks to get us into the negative roid growth.


*unorganised in reference to the fact i dont think there was cooperation by the HCs but still having 1up inc 2-5am then angels after is almost as good as organised inc :P

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Yeh_of_Arcanum

Didnt play this round, so ill comment this round as outside watcher. Been watching pilkara

I like how you spent all that time making that post.

When it was pretty obvious you'd be completely ignored.

Firstly, pilkara doesn't give an in-depth analysis of each alliance's tactics and wars. It's just a summary of who's gaining and losing roids.

Secondly, you can't pretend to be an unbiased outsider and then say "well I've played with lots of the exilition people " - of course you'll be biased towards them.


When you do play a round Yeh, you talk bollocks on the boards. When you don't play a round... well what you've posted here can't even be classed as bollocks. If there was a single word for "big turds with maggots crawling in them and flies zipping around the top", I guess that'd come close.

Thanks for your two cents though!

Top 10 30% of the round, right?!

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

To answer your 3rd point, sure we could handle HR and Subh incs. We cannot however handle exi and ND incs added to that. No alliance can tbh.

Your views here imo are quite wrong but if that's your personal opinion then fair enough.

The BCs at subh knew exactly how to hit angels, Angels are notorious overdeffers...The only chink in angels armour. Mass fakes at key targets...boom they run out of def fleets for the real waves. One night I launched 2 fakes then my real fleet de faked as bs/cr. soaked up 18 def fleets still land with max cap and only lost 1 syren. (battle report available on request shame I didnt keep the jpg.)

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

At the time Angels moved into #1 we had 1up hitting us aswell every night BEFORE you launched attacks, if they didnt drain most of our defences i wonder if you would have moved to #1?

Ofc eX would get owned by 3 allainces working together but it also took 2+ unorganised* allaince attacks to get us into the negative roid growth.


*unorganised in reference to the fact i dont think there was cooperation by the HCs but still having 1up inc 2-5am then angels after is almost as good as organised inc :P

I didn't say Angels fought Exi alone. I mean we both know other alliances jump on it. That we launched after 1up ... I don't know 1up attack policy but I do know that the LT's in Angels often were VERY late this round, close to 'morning' raids even. Why? Because maybe this way we avoid landing at the same tick then other potential attackers ... makes sence, not?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by buddies

The BCs at subh knew exactly how to hit angels, Angels are notorious overdeffers...The only chink in angels armour. Mass fakes at key targets...boom they run out of def fleets for the real waves. One night I launched 2 fakes then my real fleet de faked as bs/cr. soaked up 18 def fleets still land with max cap and only lost 1 syren. (battle report available on request shame I didnt keep the jpg.)

Hehe, I don't think Angels have the habit to overdefence. Maybe on some occassions we have, though I'm sure other alliances have and will make that mistake from time to time aswell.

Maybe your example and that of some others are an isolated one (given that we have between 200-400 calls a night during war times).

It's not like Subh gave us a hard time. It's the combination of Exi, Subh, ROCK, HR and ND incomings + random raids from other alliances (some cooperated, others not) which caused our heavy losses. Credits for that should go to all those alliances, but I'm pretty confident if it were only subh (or HR or ROCK for that matter) attacking us, we'd have managed.