An Announcement and a Proposal

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Actually bashar I have remained calm and composed as have most FAnG respondee's. How about you start some meaningful debate as sid suggested in his opening proposal rather than just incinuate that we are hee to troll. The fact is that your character and your past actions (regardless of alliance) will always be questioned when you raise a proposal lik this for discussion, perhaps some of the words wee said in a nn friendly manner, but people who have experienced past wrong doings will remember that until they are proved otherwise.

The question for me is when are you going to stop barracking and saying "leave our thread alone!" and start answering some of the accusations/ questions. You can't raise something for debate and then ignore the issues raised. You cannot say stop Flaming when its mostly 1up and 1up pro members who are complaining.

I was aiming my thread at those who were saying "You ruined ours, we will ruin yours", or along those lines, read up, people were saying that, and were doing so in Fang's name purely by refering fangs threads as 'ours'. Also, in the same way I did that, you have gone even further in that extreme when you said "when are YOU going to stop barracking...", as if you look, I wasn't doing that, and you is a hell of a lot more directed than what I was saying

Anyway, enough of me being an awkward twat.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Bashar

I was aiming my thread at those who were saying "You ruined ours, we will ruin yours", or along those lines, read up, people were saying that, and were doing so in Fang's name purely by refering fangs threads as 'ours'. Also, in the same way I did that, you have gone even further in that extreme when you said "when are YOU going to stop barracking...", as if you look, I wasn't doing that, and you is a hell of a lot more directed than what I was saying

Anyway, enough of me being an awkward twat.

Commenst were initiated after zhil asked tem "not to ruin the thread".

If you want to avoid flames stop inciting them.

The You was refferin t 1up as a group mate and not you inividually (more of a collective) so i am sorry if yu misconstrud that - nothing pesonal was meant by it

[Edit] Used you again in the second line - same applies as said above

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Razorback

I smell a hypocrite here, wasnt it fang who made the big "we play for fun and we go solo" movement in the past and couldnt live up to it ? Fury however went solo into r8, like promised, and sticked to it until it became the end of round scenario where everyone rallied up after adelanted folded. On the otherhand i also smell fear, wasnt it your gang who gloated so bigheaded they could take on anything? Fear that next round might turn against you already?

I remember FAnG going solo into the competition against EET back in PAX so don't say FAnG never had the balls to do it as well (oh, and we didn't even have to cry like little fury pups for others to go solo as well).
Also we dont fear next round will turn against FAnG, it is more than obvious it will. But FAnG is actually willed to put up a nice fight if we are allowed to play as one alliance and are not forced to split because 1Up is too cowardish to accept new players in their rows (which would actually help the game to get new fresh blood) and has their CEO talking Spinner into a 75 member limit on alliances. You can have almost everything you want, just not other alliances playing the game YOU want them to play.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Commenst were initiated after zhil asked tem "not to ruin the thread".

If you want to avoid flames stop inciting them.

The You was refferin t 1up as a group mate and not you inividually (more of a collective) so i am sorry if yu misconstrud that - nothing pesonal was meant by it

[Edit] Used you again in the second line - same applies as said above

Actuually, misconstruing the you was entirely intentional to prove my point, as your use of "you" can be compared to my use of "fang", and the way I intentionally misconstrued it was the same as you misconstrued my use. If that makes any sense, which it does to me, but that doesn't mean a lot

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Actuually, misconstruing the you was entirely intentional to prove my point, as your use of "you" can be compared to my use of "fang", and the way I intentionally misconstrued it was the same as you misconstrued my use. If that makes any sense, which it does to me, but that doesn't mean a lot

I never misconstrued your use i was being correct - no point n more peple accusing FAnG as a group collectively for a misrepresentative view of what it was getting at.

All I really want is answers to the questions that have been raised. I think in main my fellow cohorts woud be more supportive of the "proposal" if more details were forthcoming rather than just saying something out of the blue without any support or qualifying what has been said.

I am seriously worried about how any super action group would work. In reaity it is nothing more thana superblock that you can roid normally in betwen when you dont have a ehvul blocker to kill. Sort of defeats the object for me when I think that alliances shoul dbe concentrating on one ally relations. I think the game is far better suited to making that work than a posse of alliances on a witch hunt intending to burn the heretics to the soul. As already said in witch hunts you often find the innocent were found guilty to satisfy the bloodlust of the posse, but the cleverest person in that group is the person leading it who gets people unwittingly doing there bidding on their behalf. I am also worried about aliances being caught up in things which it isnt really fair for them. Take small alliances who may have several agreemenst with other smaller alliances. Are they a block or are they a partnership? Does it matter if they block with 8 alliances if they aren't playing to win?

Trouble is no one will know what has hit them until its happened.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

All I really want is answers to the questions that have been raised. I think in main my fellow cohorts woud be more supportive of the "proposal" if more details were forthcoming rather than just saying something out of the blue without any support or qualifying what has been said.

And I'll ask again....what questions?

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Morden

Just a small comment, but as most people have noticed, nearly all FAnG threads lately did not need to be ruined by other people.

And even though LEFF and yourself might not play pa, you are still FAnG and as such your comments are taken as though from FAnG, the only way for you to rememedy this would be to avoid posting, or to use a different nick to express your views.

Oh I dunno, for my part if Leff would have removed the huge bold white FAnG from his sig, I wouldn't have known him from any other peon ground beneath Fury's bootheel in our long storied past.

But then, I've been gone a while

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And I'll ask again....what questions?

I never sawyou ask for the firs time thats why.

I think I did 3 posts asking about the mechanics of this, one on what basis was evidence, one on who would be in control of the juggernaut and several about what "grey" areas may exist and how they would be dealt with,

All I want is some clear answers which can be challenged. After all this is a community wide decision and everyone should be included in the development and the planning.

I would say the boards are a good place to start rather than just saying it and not attempting to qualify it more than one outlandish statement.

I believe Leff also raised a valid point whereby he pointed out some of the senior members past historic decisions and whether they could expect those same past actions to be reexercised.

All in all if you are going to raise this proposal I would have expected a far more structured proposal so that people could se it was fair and not open to misuse or abuse.

Overall I want clarity which if all alliances are not to make a "jump on the bandwagon" decision will ned to decide what strategy they intend to use for next round. All the points have been raised previously along with areas of grey situations where things maynot be as clear cut to see what sort of mechanisms are in place to ensure that in the main the innocent are not made to be guilty.

I think that should keep you occupied for an hour or so maz

[mazzelaar]

I believe Leff also raised a valid point whereby he pointed out some of the senior members past historic decisions and whether they could expect those same past actions to be reexercised.

I think thats rather a moot point. This isn't the past, it's the future. Many FAnG have been closed for cheating in the past - does that mean a load will get closed next round?

All in all if you are going to raise this proposal I would have expected a far more structured proposal so that people could se it was fair and not open to misuse or abuse.

I honestly fail to see what your point is. I think you are just being pedantic to draw attention from something (and who would like to hazard a guess at this?). This is a decision that will be taken amongst a great number of alliance heads so asking for utter finality is not a position we are able to put ourselves in as no-one can guage the response, or in fact who, of the alliances that will be involved.

Overall I want clarity which if all alliances are not to make a "jump on the bandwagon" decision will ned to decide what strategy they intend to use for next round. All the points have been raised previously along with areas of grey situations where things maynot be as clear cut to see what sort of mechanisms are in place to ensure that in the main the innocent are not made to be guilty.

The way I see this is that it is a dynamic situation. You're talking awfully like you are testing the water to see how big a block you can make before everyone attacks you. Is this what all the "clarity" is really about? Who knows who might block next round? If thats the case then how can you judge a situation where there isn't a single known constant other than the fact that 1up will not be blocking/allying/napping with anyone.


So are these honest questions or are you just testing the water?

[Lockhead]

Welcome back Sid.

Good luck

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I remember FAnG going solo into the competition against EET back in PAX so don't say FAnG never had the balls to do it as well (oh, and we didn't even have to cry like little fury pups for others to go solo as well).

You remember incorrect then or do you want us to ALL remember your huge soloefford with Dragons and Wolfpack? (Solo means alone, just as a reminder)

Also we dont fear next round will turn against FAnG, it is more than obvious it will. But FAnG is actually willed to put up a nice fight if we are allowed to play as one alliance and are not forced to split because 1Up is too cowardish to accept new players in their rows (which would actually help the game to get new fresh blood) and has their CEO talking Spinner into a 75 member limit on alliances. You can have almost everything you want, just not other alliances playing the game YOU want them to play.

Quiet funny that you know already who "talked" spinner into a smaller limit, ive so far not seen any figures yet from Spinner, have you? On a sidenote we have more applicants then we actually want, so the number 75 if you pardon me, would neither bring us an advantage nor change our joining policy (i.e. galm8s applications etc). Also the reduction of membersizes of alliances was already planned and did drop from 150 to 100 last round, something nobody needed to talk spinner into, so its nothing new or surprising we will see the same this round with a smaller playerbase and a stronger antiblocking policy.
As far as new players are concerned, its sadly a state of the game that there are not many new players and many ppl try either to lie their way into an alliance or use it for their multiplanets. Both things we do not appreciate. Unless you know more then Sid i doubt you know our recruiting policy, while it is now purely on invitation/trusted vouches to form a core we might change this whenever we see it fit.
I already sense you fear getting your asskicked, you should have thought about the universe last round when u were ontop instead of playing it the hard and easy way. Arrogance always backfires heartless and unknowledge, like in your case aswell.

[Cayl]

Well as you don't really ask specific questions, but intend to rely on generalizations, and given that this hasn't ever really been done before, I will attempt to get the thread back on track with some answers.

If you'd like to respond with a bulleted list of questions, I will do my best to answer those as well.

The way it would work is thus. One side blocks. Sid has proposed a rough idea of what that is. If you'd like to counter with a different definition, we could debate the merits of that as well. I'm sure we could negotiate some sort of written constitution that could be posted and signed by all interested parties.

After the agreement, which would need to take place prior to the start of ticks, should any alliances be found to be working together to a degree prohibited by the aforementioned agreement, the enforcement clause would be invoked.

The enforcement clause would say that all signatories would be obligated to temporarily cease hostilities and direct their resources as best as they are able to the immediate removal of the aggrieving parties from immediate hope of remaining competitive for the #1 position. Definition of when this is over can also be negotiated. Sid has proposed when no individual member remains in the top 50. When this condition is reached, the "superblock" is dissolved automatically, and normal play would resume.

For smaller alliances who are not in any meaningful way competitive would be unlikely to motivate the signatories to invoke the enforcement clause, especially given that it would likely immediately end because the small allliances don't have anyone in the top 50.

Questions like "Well what if we have BG's that make it look like we're blocking, but really we're not", are pretty well crap and smack of probing for loopholes to me. You shouldn't be allowing BGs to dictate politics to your alliance. I imagine that you'll have your own political aims and will want to direct your members to attack where those aims can best be achieved. There will obviously be some give and take, nobody's going to spring into action based on one single isolated incident, however trends can be analyzed and alliances looking to find loopholes will inevitably be detected and swiftly dealt with.

I hope that was concrete enough for you, and I look forward to further constructive debate on the topic

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

1) I think thats rather a moot point. This isn't the past, it's the future. Many FAnG have been closed for cheating in the past - does that mean a load will get closed next round?

2) I honestly fail to see what your point is. I think you are just being pedantic to draw attention from something (and who would like to hazard a guess at this?). This is a decision that will be taken amongst a great number of alliance heads so asking for utter finality is not a position we are able to put ourselves in as no-one can guage the response, or in fact who, of the alliances that will be involved.

3) The way I see this is that it is a dynamic situation. You're talking awfully like you are testing the water to see how big a block you can make before everyone attacks you. Is this what all the "clarity" is really about? Who knows who might block next round? If thats the case then how can you judge a situation where there isn't a single known constant other than the fact that 1up will not be blocking/allying/napping with anyone.

So are these honest questions or are you just testing the water?

1) I never said you had to be treated as if your past will dictate the future, but as an alliance that would be in th forerunners of leading such a massive group of pa alliances, people hav a ight to know how you intend to deal with the situation and how the structure will be in place that YOU perceive as th proposal raiser. All of which will impact upon what action alliances take.

2) I have not asked for utter finality. As an accountant I know that the final position can nly be in palce when agreed by all concerned. However, it is important that we debate the "rough" outline of what you are proposing. The idea is that before you get t the negotiations stage you haeva framework and the mechanics of an agreement that everyone is comfortable with. Like all things alliance blocking has a strategic nature to it. So you ned time to develop the bonds and formulate yoru agreements. So if your "proposal doesnt come into effect alliances should be allowed to ensure they hav the best position they can for the forthcoming round. This isnt to say FAnG wants to out do the system, just that we wont disregard one approach until we can see th playing field is level and fair without a swamp in the middle of it. I would say thats being cautious about agreeing to something out of hand to only lie about what we are doing after.

3) If you really beieve that point you have no idea. It is a dynamic situation and every alliance has different needs. I want to make sure my alliance is not sold short and that any proposal is secure enough not to have the wheels fall off. I like the proposal, but I am in a carer thats is based on facts not some airy fairy thought of what could be - but solid facts which dive my decision making. I fin it interesting you trying to use misinformation though at this early stage, not enough has been said for anyone to make any informed decision as of yet. Lets hope you can come up with something and soon to capitalise on the goodwill and imapct you have had initially.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Heartless

But FAnG is actually willed to put up a nice fight if we are allowed to play as one alliance and are not forced to split because 1Up is too cowardish to accept new players in their rows (which would actually help the game to get new fresh blood) and has their CEO talking Spinner into a 75 member limit on alliances. You can have almost everything you want, just not other alliances playing the game YOU want them to play.

You seem awefully paranoid to exactly what involvement Sid has in any preperations for round 11. Perhaps you should confer with RealJames or Leshy who can confirm the fact that Sid has not been using any personal agenda in all this. Infact, I don't recall the alliance limit ever being discussed. The 'reduction' in it was already in there from the very start - and again, that is something your camp has known about for a long time.

There is nothing cowardish about not accepting newbies into our ranks. Our recruitment procedure right now is to just to give us a core amount of members to work with, and we'll where that takes us. Whilst I would love to be able to help newbies, it's not really possible for a small elite alliance - you didnt see Legion do it in r2 did you?

If it makes you feel better, I will endevour to get 1up command to issue sources of advice to be given to the mentor team, but that is not a great priority for us right now.

[fuz]

Welcome back and good luck sid

In worste case this will lead to 1UP vs FangMistu vs the rest, i think.. which is better than the rest vs fang and mistu ofc..
maybe FM, 1UP, Phrkt/WP etc.. will be a much more interesting round idd
i guess phraktos wont nap/ally with FM again, and that WP will try to paint a better picture of themselves next round (i certainly hope so).

fuz

[Cayl]

Just as an aside, in the course of my return, guessing conservatively, I've talked 10 people into coming into Planetarion who would not have played this round. One of them is a complete and total Planetarion newbie, and I look forward to showing him the ropes.

The primary barrier to accepting newbies are trust and competence. We can work with people who aren't just multis spies or otherwise unknown to us, and we can work with people who can learn quickly and understand what it takes to excel at the game. Random Joe Newbie has neither of these qualities, and wouldn't make it into any serious alliance until he's played a round or more and proven himself to be ready for bigger things.

Thats all I'll say about that, while waiting for a response to my other post.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Razorback

You remember incorrect then or do you want us to ALL remember your huge soloefford with Dragons and Wolfpack? (Solo means alone, just as a reminder)

Unknowledge fires back indeed. Dragons and Wolfpack have never been FAnG partners from the start. It was EET forcing them more or less to look for partners because the numbers went too massive after a time. So go figure, you cannot claim some alliances blocked because they have hit you independantly.

Originally Posted by Razorback

Quiet funny that you know already who "talked" spinner into a smaller limit, ive so far not seen any figures yet from Spinner, have you? On a sidenote we have more applicants then we actually want, so the number 75 if you pardon me, would neither bring us an advantage nor change our joining policy (i.e. galm8s applications etc). Also the reduction of membersizes of alliances was already planned and did drop from 150 to 100 last round, something nobody needed to talk spinner into, so its nothing new or surprising we will see the same this round with a smaller playerbase and a stronger antiblocking policy.
As far as new players are concerned, its sadly a state of the game that there are not many new players and many ppl try either to lie their way into an alliance or use it for their multiplanets. Both things we do not appreciate. Unless you know more then Sid i doubt you know our recruiting policy, while it is now purely on invitation/trusted vouches to form a core we might change this whenever we see it fit.
I already sense you fear getting your asskicked, you should have thought about the universe last round when u were ontop instead of playing it the hard and easy way. Arrogance always backfires heartless and unknowledge, like in your case aswell.

Well I have to correct myself on the issue on who talked Spinner into this. Kal was kind enough to pm me and tell me it was his idea, basically to force WP and FAnG to split into smaller groups, thus punishing them for the stagnation. So sorry for that accusation against Sid.

However, the limit to 75 is a hard one. We already had to reduce FAnG after it went down from 150 to 100. So what does PA want now? We could reduce us to the real core of 75 people and leave us with the option that we cannot contribute anything towards the pa community anymore. No chance for recruitment or anything. What the hell is wrong with recruiting inexperienced players to teach them? OK, there will be the mentor team but I dont think the mentor team should deny alliances the right to recruit.
About 1Up recruitment policies: I think you do have a command and player core, otherwise you wouldn't have announced your alliance. So basically there is nothing preventing you from also recruiting inexperienced people like MISTU and FAnG for example did this round. Or does 1Up simply not have the balls to try to fight the way those other alliances have made up their way? Feared of spies, or other people which tell in public that they cannot hit alliance x or y because you guys sorted the hidden agenda again already? You guys are far too wannabe-saints to be just wanting all this for a better game. Also I wonder what you would say if we would limit alliances to 25 people. That is actually something I could live with. PA would get a lot more alliances + every group would have to split, not just a fair few ones as in form of a punishment.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Cayl

1) Well as you don't really ask specific questions, but intend to rely on generalizations, and given that this hasn't ever really been done before, I will attempt to get the thread back on track with some answers.

2) If you'd like to respond with a bulleted list of questions, I will do my best to answer those as well.

3) The way it would work is thus. One side blocks. Sid has proposed a rough idea of what that is. If you'd like to counter with a different definition, we could debate the merits of that as well. I'm sure we could negotiate some sort of written constitution that could be posted and signed by all interested parties.

4) After the agreement, which would need to take place prior to the start of ticks, should any alliances be found to be working together to a degree prohibited by the aforementioned agreement, the enforcement clause would be invoked.

The enforcement clause would say that all signatories would be obligated to temporarily cease hostilities and direct their resources as best as they are able to the immediate removal of the aggrieving parties from immediate hope of remaining competitive for the #1 position. Definition of when this is over can also be negotiated. Sid has proposed when no individual member remains in the top 50. When this condition is reached, the "superblock" is dissolved automatically, and normal play would resume.

5) For smaller alliances who are not in any meaningful way competitive would be unlikely to motivate the signatories to invoke the enforcement clause, especially given that it would likely immediately end because the small allliances don't have anyone in the top 50.

6) Questions like "Well what if we have BG's that make it look like we're blocking, but really we're not", are pretty well crap and smack of probing for loopholes to me. You shouldn't be allowing BGs to dictate politics to your alliance. I imagine that you'll have your own political aims and will want to direct your members to attack where those aims can best be achieved. There will obviously be some give and take, nobody's going to spring into action based on one single isolated incident, however trends can be analyzed and alliances looking to find loopholes will inevitably be detected and swiftly dealt with.

I hope that was concrete enough for you, and I look forward to further constructive debate on the topic

1) its very hard to be specific when the initial proposal was sowooly but as I have asked about everything I would xpect just that - EVERYTHING! the mechanics is regarding any agrement which is to be agreed upon - questions from the decision making of the group right through to definitions of what is a group and when such a group will be claled into action.

2) Whn you get some meat on your proposal I will give you extremely explicit questions - at the momnt everything is far to vague to expect me to want to sit there compiling a list of questions. Common sense says if you come to a public environment you have information available to disect. All I se so far is a rough outline of what you would like without thinking about what needs to be in place behind that. If your serious about your proposal firm it up and get it posted so we can all comment and debate and then you will get your "specific" questions.

3) Sid presented a very blakc and white version of what would constitute a block and an agreement. One which i was trying to point out that a large bg could be seen as attacking in tandem with anothr alliance which incidentally is outside of alliance control. The bigger alliances CAN control that to an extent, but not 100% and everyone has 3 fleets (1 fleet for bg 2 for alliance). I am sure you have excellent sources of intel, but the example was to point out a grey area.

I also shoed an example of 4 alliances attacking 2, it could be construed as a block, but if that partnership has attacked several alliances perhaps thats there own undoing?

4) your talking about enforcement again without getting to the nitty gritty of the agreement - simply the agreement has to be watertight from abuse before all alliances should sign up and they should understand what methods are to be usd to judge them so they understand proior to the round beginning what they are agreeing too. When youa re at thtastage you can talk about invoking the agreement. Also agreement on the military co ordination needs agreeing in advance. Alliances have there own obligations to members as such any agreement in place should not place burden or onus on any one alliance. Also how will you defend the avenging angels?

5) well thast partly answered my one question. How do you define when alliances breach small membership and become a block?

6) it is probing for loopholes because I DONT WANT ANY IF I AM TO SUPPORT ANY AGREEMENT. Simply if it is to work you have to look at these things and prepare your responses. Not dismiss them,

And its not enough but its a start

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) I never said you had to be treated as if your past will dictate the future, but as an alliance that would be in th forerunners of leading such a massive group of pa alliances, people hav a ight to know how you intend to deal with the situation and how the structure will be in place that YOU perceive as th proposal raiser. All of which will impact upon what action alliances take.

You brought history into the equation. The plan has been laid down, it's as simple as that. If you don't want to stick with it then block and get hammered.

2) I have not asked for utter finality. As an accountant I know that the final position can nly be in palce when agreed by all concerned. However, it is important that we debate the "rough" outline of what you are proposing. The idea is that before you get t the negotiations stage you haeva framework and the mechanics of an agreement that everyone is comfortable with. Like all things alliance blocking has a strategic nature to it. So you ned time to develop the bonds and formulate yoru agreements. So if your "proposal doesnt come into effect alliances should be allowed to ensure they hav the best position they can for the forthcoming round. This isnt to say FAnG wants to out do the system, just that we wont disregard one approach until we can see th playing field is level and fair without a swamp in the middle of it. I would say thats being cautious about agreeing to something out of hand to only lie about what we are doing after.

It is a rough plan. I can't see which bit you don't understand. If people block (and don't pretend we don't know what a block is, we have all played PA long enough to know one inside and out) then they will be taken down. At this point, unless you are already planning to ally in some description, then that should be more than sufficient. It seems to me this reeks of when everyone in round 8 promised not to block and when they were asked the question it went something like this:

Zeus: any of you blocking
Fury: no
NoS: no
WP: no
RaH: no
Scouse: define block

It's a pretty simple concept. Stand and fight by yourselves and live up to the name you've given yourselves all round.

3) If you really beieve that point you have no idea. It is a dynamic situation and every alliance has different needs. I want to make sure my alliance is not sold short and that any proposal is secure enough not to have the wheels fall off. I like the proposal, but I am in a carer thats is based on facts not some airy fairy thought of what could be - but solid facts which dive my decision making. I fin it interesting you trying to use misinformation though at this early stage, not enough has been said for anyone to make any informed decision as of yet. Lets hope you can come up with something and soon to capitalise on the goodwill and imapct you have had initially.

There is no misinformation. It's very very simple Rumad. Don't block. If it happens that 2/3 alliances block to hit FAnG then rest assured 1up will be twatting them too. Exactly what "solid facts" are you after? Other than people agreeing saying "yeah, if some cnut blocks then we'll twt em" I cannot see what other information you require.

[Cayl]

Heartless I'm on the razor's edge of just ignoring your drivel entirely, but I will again endeavour to address some of your concerns.

I appreciate your apology in regards to Sid's not being the only person giving suggestions to Spinner. It shows that a conversation with you might indeed be possible.

Upon announcement we had perhaps 10 confirmed members and a long list of interested parties that we quietly collected. We announced to generate interest so we could pick the best people, not the first people. Yes hard choices have to be made, there are a lot of qualified applicants.

The end of your post degenerates into near hysteria. We reserve the right to accept and deny whoever we want. Unlike fang we are not a charitable social institution. As I've already pointed out, the number of old players we've pulled back in as paying members should more than cover the metaphorical "entry fee" back into this community.

On to Rumad-

Are you the designated negotiator for fang? Synthetic_Sid would be the best person to talk to about getting this hammered into stone. My role is to facilitate discussion in this thread. If we get some workable ideas then I know those will go a long ways when the final discussions are held.

Sid as you probably know is playing this round to a certain degree and has that to deal with, as well as being hard at work with Spinner and other members of the PA community working on making r11 the best it can be, while creating an alliance from the ground up. You'll have to forgive him if he's a little slow getting back to you right this instant. However, there is plenty of time between 10.5 not even being over and r11 actually starting to get this in a working condition.

I think we've given a viable skeleton of an idea. Don't just poke holes in it, we know there's problems and kinks, but propose a solution once you've done so. Thats the way we'll making progress on ultimately optimizing the entertainment value of r11.

And as to attacking my bringing up an enforcement phase, yes, there will be one, just assume that now, but OF COURSE it would be subject to the same kind of negotiation and review as any other part of the agreement, but no, it wll not come seperately and later.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Unknowledge fires back indeed. Dragons and Wolfpack have never been FAnG partners from the start. It was EET forcing them more or less to look for partners because the numbers went too massive after a time. So go figure, you cannot claim some alliances blocked because they have hit you independantly.

tho it was from day 1 of the round that you guys were a joint team, so hardly any solo efford.

Well I have to correct myself on the issue on who talked Spinner into this. Kal was kind enough to pm me and tell me it was his idea, basically to force WP and FAnG to split into smaller groups, thus punishing them for the stagnation. So sorry for that accusation against Sid.

Im sure sid will accept your apology, sometimes its better to not rush into witchhunt without knowing all details eh?

However, the limit to 75 is a hard one. We already had to reduce FAnG after it went down from 150 to 100. So what does PA want now? We could reduce us to the real core of 75 people and leave us with the option that we cannot contribute anything towards the pa community anymore.

Since 75 is a figure neither denied nor acknowledged atm its moot to debate it, however the dice may fall we will have to life with the outcome. So adopting seems the only way to cope with it.

No chance for recruitment or anything. What the hell is wrong with recruiting inexperienced players to teach them? OK, there will be the mentor team but I dont think the mentor team should deny alliances the right to recruit.

"right to recruit?" there is no such, a football team is 11 ppl noone questions that either so there are the rules adopt to them. However youre not going to tell me the huge core of fang (r10 end it was 25 ppl) is 75 or more ppl ?
In all honesty we both know there is always alot of dead wood, for the stats, for the community or for whatever other reasons are players accepted into alliances which are not contributing.
However this also leaves alot of space for exploiting, r10s end of round alliancechanges or melting of alliances this round back this statement up. So im not sure what you argue, smaller alliances = better for the game, if we force our 1000 serious players into 10 alliances the top10 allianceranking will be a farce.

About 1Up recruitment policies: I think you do have a command and player core, otherwise you wouldn't have announced your alliance. So basically there is nothing preventing you from also recruiting inexperienced people like MISTU and FAnG for example did this round.

Again you base your argumentation purely on assumptions, in this case wrong ones.

Or does 1Up simply not have the balls to try to fight the way those other alliances have made up their way? Feared of spies, or other people which tell in public that they cannot hit alliance x or y because you guys sorted the hidden agenda again already? You guys are far too wannabe-saints to be just wanting all this for a better game. Also I wonder what you would say if we would limit alliances to 25 people. That is actually something I could live with. PA would get a lot more alliances + every group would have to split, not just a fair few ones as in form of a punishment.

You started your post well and it ended again in a mess of bolloxing and proofless accusations and insults.
You should try to work your way into the discussion instead of repeating baseless accusations and rumors over and over again in the hope someone buys it.

I dont see anyone from 1up giving you inside information on how they plan to recruit so i assume that youre completely in the dark on future plans and changes of them aswell.

Regarding your last question i would say try to make it 30 ppl not 25, atleast this way you have a round number to hit 3 gals with, assuming its still 10 player gals. The maintancelevel would be very low, 2-3 officers 1-2 hc and 1-2 scanners should deal with any problems. Defence would need to be mostly galaxy swapping, i agree could be an interesting scenario.
(You have to realise since 1up is a new alliance it will most likely adopt to any rules give in the game much easier because it can start from the scratch, so argueing this point with me is kinda senseless)

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

You brought history into the equation. The plan has been laid down, it's as simple as that. If you don't want to stick with it then block and get hammered.



It is a rough plan. I can't see which bit you don't understand. If people block (and don't pretend we don't know what a block is, we have all played PA long enough to know one inside and out) then they will be taken down. At this point, unless you are already planning to ally in some description, then that should be more than sufficient. It seems to me this reeks of when everyone in round 8 promised not to block and when they were asked the question it went something like this:

Zeus: any of you blocking
Fury: no
NoS: no
WP: no
RaH: no
Scouse: define block

It's a pretty simple concept. Stand and fight by yourselves and live up to the name you've given yourselves all round.



There is no misinformation. It's very very simple Rumad. Don't block. If it happens that 2/3 alliances block to hit FAnG then rest assured 1up will be twatting them too. Exactly what "solid facts" are you after? Other than people agreeing saying "yeah, if some cnut blocks then we'll twt em" I cannot see what other information you require.

I never brought histroy into the equation leff did - i do think its valid to challenge someones motives if the proposer is raising such a proposal.


I dnt actually see a "rough" anything. I see a couple of statements and not much thought beyond that. Any sensible hc will take the same approach. I dont want to beat the system, just ensure the system is fair and reasonable in its nature. The mechanics of any agreement should have even in place before being raised to the community. You cannot seriously expect on the basis of a couple of paragraphs to make a decision about what they would do. Your position is no better of the round 8 example you present and people will try and beat the agreement and the group will fall apart unless its rigid enough from the start.

The facts I am after is the mechanics of the processes of the definitions of the descriptions of when "the agrement" will b invoked. Not some maverick group fre to exile people as and when they feel the need to leading to no better position that this or any other round of pa.

All I want is details, facts, and understanding of the decision making and pocesses which will be used. A understanding of the military saide as well as the technical agreement side stuff.

yes what I am saying si general and vague but you as the proposee should be trying to liminate the vagueness not saying " it is vague so what do you want???"

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

what are the guarantees 1 will not abuse the system and say 1 group blocked they get wasted the rest should disband but the 2/3 bigger alliances stay together and have a go at the rest since the other alliances what are leftover are just too unorganised and too small too do it again and punish the blockers yes its fictional but it doesnt mean it cant happen and wont happen, i guess you could say it has some similarities to r9 where the 'anti block' 'block' was created o_O and what did it bring nothing worth to write about it even got it stagnated after a week and the 'superblock' stayed together. I understand it is a nice try but youre trying to change the nature of the game what does make you think anything will change and not make it perhaps worse. i have always been pro solo or max 1 other alliance to work with depending on the numbers of players in an alliance. Im wondering how itll work and the details of how you think youll manage to make it work. imho something like this only works if HC's of the alliances agree to it and keep their word of not trying to make the game unbalanced by blocking with x and y alliance and x with z etc.

[Cayl]

This will be my last post for today, I'll be happy to try and pick this up tomorrow Rumad. But before we put a lot of effort into it lets try something.

Statement of Principle: Blocking has in Planetarion's past caused stagnation and general ill-will towards the game itself. Excessive allying with no intent to disband and ultimately find a single winning alliance is bad and should be avoided. An agreement to this effect should be reached by the major alliances of planetarion.

Will an official spokesman of Fang please come and agree or disagree with that statement? If you disagree, please counter with a statement of principle that you DO agree with. If you can't come up with something similar to agree on, then we certainly won't be wasting our time hammering out details of something that will never come to be.

If you do of course, then tomorrow I will put some serious work into making this something interesting.

[lokken]

long posts with lots of factual information, I can't handle that

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

what are the guarantees 1 will not abuse the system and say 1 group blocked they get wasted the rest should disband but the 2/3 bigger alliances stay together and have a go at the rest since the other alliances what are leftover are just too unorganised and too small too do it again and punish the blockers yes its fictional but it doesnt mean it cant happen and wont happen, i guess you could say it has some similarities to r9 where the 'anti block' 'block' was created o_O and what did it bring nothing worth to write about it even got it stagnated after a week and the 'superblock' stayed together. I understand it is a nice try but youre trying to change the nature of the game what does make you think anything will change and not make it perhaps worse. i have always been pro solo or max 1 other alliance to work with depending on the numbers of players in an alliance. Im wondering how itll work and the details of how you think youll manage to make it work. imho something like this only works if HC's of the alliances agree to it and keep their word of not trying to make the game unbalanced by blocking with x and y alliance and x with z etc.

Try the return key. I might have a read then :/

[Razorback]

spacecookie i think those statements should be made public and there should be somekind of referee function within the game to prevent any abuse.
a combined efford from the players, the hc and the gameadmins would deffinately reduce the chances of abuse and more important the chances of abuse and getting away with it.

[K-W]

Unless all the other ex-Fury people hate me, which im sure is possible, I can assure everyone that this has nothing to do with a Fury reunion. This was certainly not planned in any way shape of form. This is a result of Sid deciding to play again and, as is his way, wanting to do it on his terms. So he is creating an alliance through his contacts, the same thing anyone else on this thread would do. Certainly not all of us have the ability to create an alliance though.

As far as sids past actions in regard to blocking, I think its time alot of people grew up. Sid isnt some evil demon or magical wizard. He is a guy who really likes playing planetarion. He wants the game to be fun too and he lost interest with alot of us when the game suffered. He didnt know how his actions in round 3 and 4 might change the game for the worse in round 9. So perhaps we should listen to someone with his unique perspective on this game and maybe turn this game around.

[BoredOfThis]

Rumad, think of it as a film where they decide to fight with fists instead of weapons. Use your fists not a gun

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Cayl

This will be my last post for today, I'll be happy to try and pick this up tomorrow Rumad. But before we put a lot of effort into it lets try something.

Statement of Principle: Blocking has in Planetarion's past caused stagnation and general ill-will towards the game itself. Excessive allying with no intent to disband and ultimately find a single winning alliance is bad and should be avoided. An agreement to this effect should be reached by the major alliances of planetarion.

Will an official spokesman of Fang please come and agree or disagree with that statement? If you disagree, please counter with a statement of principle that you DO agree with. If you can't come up with something similar to agree on, then we certainly won't be wasting our time hammering out details of something that will never come to be.

If you do of course, then tomorrow I will put some serious work into making this something interesting.

I guess thats what I was trying to say. Damn you Cayl - so elequent

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Cayl

On to Rumad-

Are you the designated negotiator for fang? Synthetic_Sid would be the best person to talk to about getting this hammered into stone. My role is to facilitate discussion in this thread. If we get some workable ideas then I know those will go a long ways when the final discussions are held.

Sid as you probably know is playing this round to a certain degree and has that to deal with, as well as being hard at work with Spinner and other members of the PA community working on making r11 the best it can be, while creating an alliance from the ground up. You'll have to forgive him if he's a little slow getting back to you right this instant. However, there is plenty of time between 10.5 not even being over and r11 actually starting to get this in a working condition.

I think we've given a viable skeleton of an idea. Don't just poke holes in it, we know there's problems and kinks, but propose a solution once you've done so. Thats the way we'll making progress on ultimately optimizing the entertainment value of r11.

And as to attacking my bringing up an enforcement phase, yes, there will be one, just assume that now, but OF COURSE it would be subject to the same kind of negotiation and review as any other part of the agreement, but no, it wll not come seperately and later.

Am I the official FAnG negotiator? Probably not as I am retiring. As someone that has a vested interest in ensuring that if the agreement can be put into place and work its better for the community then I would like to impart some of my knowlge and expertese in drawing up and negotiating the agreement.

I can understand Sid must be quite stretched. Its a lot to do for on person, but oes that mean you have no more formal proposal than a few words at the moment. If so I would say the "idea" is admirable, but if you sriously want this to work you have to get information in place so everyone can decide on a fair and even field BEFORE the round is underway and to allow individuals the chance to undersand the proposal and the ramifications for there alliance.

I think you have given a viable iea, bfore people will agre you need a lot of debating about the finite points of any such agreement which will ensure that hc's se, understand and agree with what youa re asking them to sign up. I think with your Skeleton Idea thing you have exactly that - but sid said it was a proposal. A proposal is firmer than a idea and If you are saying you have nothing to back up your claims at the minute i ill back off - I am not trying to put holes in palce, just trying to ensure any agreement is watertight and works.

I could suggest solutions if there was a firm set of proposals for my perusal. At the moment I am just concerned that while the intentions are admirable if any agreement is to work it needs to be rigorously examined BEFORE any agreement can be reached.

I woul expect any enforcement agreement to be inpalce as part of the initial proposal.

I aint been funy - just I would really like to see this work

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Razorback

tho it was from day 1 of the round that you guys were a joint team, so hardly any solo efford.

Just as much as solo effort as ToT/Fury in round 8 then.

Since 75 is a figure neither denied nor acknowledged atm its moot to debate it, however the dice may fall we will have to life with the outcome. So adopting seems the only way to cope with it.

So basically you are saying that Spinners announcement on www.planetarion.com is not something decided? Interesting. From my pm with Kal I know that Spinner replied to it with a "good idea, let's see how people will react to it". In the same pm I had to notice that the person suggesting the 75 member limit is just seeking this for more or less personal reasons, i.e. he thinks WP and FAnG deserve to be punished for stagnating the game (as if it would have been only FAnG's and WP's fault), and he was unable to actually understand concerns of the alliance.

"right to recruit?" there is no such, a football team is 11 ppl noone questions that either so there are the rules adopt to them. However youre not going to tell me the huge core of fang (r10 end it was 25 ppl) is 75 or more ppl ?
In all honesty we both know there is always alot of dead wood, for the stats, for the community or for whatever other reasons are players accepted into alliances which are not contributing.
However this also leaves alot of space for exploiting, r10s end of round alliancechanges or melting of alliances this round back this statement up. So im not sure what you argue, smaller alliances = better for the game, if we force our 1000 serious players into 10 alliances the top10 allianceranking will be a farce.

First of all comparing Football with Planetarion fails because Football was designed with limits for a team. Planetarion was not, here are communities which have grown around the game and now there are suddenly restrictions put on them. That's of course the good right of the creators to do, but maybe they should consider how much they want to restrict those communities, as Planetarion by far is not without alternatives.

Again you base your argumentation purely on assumptions, in this case wrong ones.

Assumptions are there to be corrected, and unlike others I do actually let others correct me and accept that I was wrong.

You started your post well and it ended again in a mess of bolloxing and proofless accusations and insults.

Where did I insult someone?

[K-W]

Heartless, Planetarion is designed with limits on a team and has been since alliances were brought into the game.

If you didnt notice PA took a nose dive and since PAX they have been trying to overhaul the game to make it good again. Thus player limits on allainces. I would imagine the point of lowering the limit is to encourage more alliances and break up existing powerblocks, this is a good thing because they have yet to create a planetarion that has not led to quick domination and stagnation.

So why dont you stop your selfish whining and let them try to save the game. A smaller alliance doesnt benefit 1up more than anyone else. Every allaince will get the chance to par down to a strong 75 or whatever number it is.

As far as some alliances losing members. Deal with it. this game has been ruined for far far far too long because of friends and not wanting to hurt peoples feelings.

This is a war game, and its time we started playing it as such.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Just as much as solo effort as ToT/Fury in round 8 then.

we joined up with ToT when we filled the spot of adelante in the triad with fang, you should know this but your memory already failed today once so im allowing you a 2nd slip.

So basically you are saying that Spinners announcement on www.planetarion.com is not something decided? Interesting. From my pm with Kal I know that Spinner replied to it with a "good idea, let's see how people will react to it". In the same pm I had to notice that the person suggesting the 75 member limit is just seeking this for more or less personal reasons, i.e. he thinks WP and FAnG deserve to be punished for stagnating the game (as if it would have been only FAnG's and WP's fault), and he was unable to actually understand concerns of the alliance.

Like you said in your own statement the idea of 75 was formed so far only to see how it goes, the round/ticks havent started so many many last minute changes can still occure.
However i dont agree with your wording punishing, more the wording "leveling the playingfield" would hit the nail on the head. Another comparison would be warcraft 3's steady patching to prevent players from getting ahead of the crowd by just using a single strategy. In this case massing players.
Just because 2 allianecs are huge and basically recruit everyone with 1 arm and an eye doesnt mean this is the way to go, especially with a very small playerbase this could quickly lead to a stagnation. Imagine we keep 100 player limits and 2 "100 player alliances" decide to ally up, i.e. Fang and wolfpack. The total playerbase of 1000-1500 serious players would be forced to either rally up (all those alliances like mistu/Vision/LCH with just 60-70 ppl) to even take on the 2 superpowers ruining another round.

First of all comparing Football with Planetarion fails because Football was designed with limits for a team. Planetarion was not, here are communities which have grown around the game and now there are suddenly restrictions put on them. That's of course the good right of the creators to do, but maybe they should consider how much they want to restrict those communities, as Planetarion by far is not without alternatives.

The rules of football regarding teamlimits werent found in the missing scrolls of the dead sea or as a footnote in the bible, they were implemented to generate a playable game and they were and are adjusted to make the game enjoyable and fair. Same is done in pa so the comparison seems simple. If the game worldwide had less professional players im sure rules would also be adopted to adopt to this changes.
However we both know that quantity is not always > quality. So i fail to see what youre afraid of, unless you want to tell us you have 100 deeply loyal and totally unquestionable players in your alliance and you cant even miss one of them. Touri i.e. deleted his planet, some might not play next round and some might leave, so a good advice stop recruiting and you will get there.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by K-W

Heartless, Planetarion is designed with limits on a team and has been since alliances were brought into the game.

If you didnt notice PA took a nose dive and since PAX they have been trying to overhaul the game to make it good again. Thus player limits on allainces. I would imagine the point of lowering the limit is to encourage more alliances and break up existing powerblocks, this is a good thing because they have yet to create a planetarion that has not led to quick domination and stagnation.

So why dont you stop your selfish whining and let them try to save the game. A smaller alliance doesnt benefit 1up more than anyone else. Every allaince will get the chance to par down to a strong 75 or whatever number it is.

As far as some alliances losing members. Deal with it. this game has been ruined for far far far too long because of friends and not wanting to hurt peoples feelings.

This is a war game, and its time we started playing it as such.

Actually I was someone responsible for the limitations on alliances, but I also told Spinner not to go too far with the limit. 100 was ok'ish. But another reduction is just ... what will be the logical consequence if the universe appears to be only 50% of the previous round again? Will the alliances than be limited to 50 people? And another round later another 25 people? It is sad if you force people out of there old habits. Sure, some will have no problem with it, personally I think that limiting alliances even further does simply not fit in the picture of what Planetarion once was standing for: "Play with your friends against a hostile universe." That the game failed is partly mistake of the alliances (actually funny, I remember some people which are now actively against blocking and pro-alliance limitations denied in previous rounds it would be them being part of PA's destruction), but it is not just mistake of the alliances. There are more reasons behind this. So why now throw the alliances out of the game?

[K-W]

The whole point is to force people out of old habits. The old habits are killing the game.

The blocking habits developed organically. Everyone was a part of the problem. Now the mature amongst us can look at the game and use our hindsight to see what went wrong and how we can make it better.

Meanwhile all you bring to this discussion is snide remarks and a request for a continuation of the status quo that we can no longer afford to continue. I dont know if further limiting the alliances is going to help, but it seems like a reasonable idea.

Meanwhile those allainces or people unable to adapt to a new game and who care more about thier freinds (if you have more than 74 friends congrats) than whether this game is fun to play should leave.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Razorback

we joined up with ToT when we filled the spot of adelante in the triad with fang, you should know this but your memory already failed today once so im allowing you a 2nd slip.

So basically Fury was just going solo as much as FAnG, I think even you will agree there.

Like you said in your own statement the idea of 75 was formed so far only to see how it goes, the round/ticks havent started so many many last minute changes can still occure.
However i dont agree with your wording punishing, more the wording "leveling the playingfield" would hit the nail on the head. Another comparison would be warcraft 3's steady patching to prevent players from getting ahead of the crowd by just using a single strategy. In this case massing players.
Just because 2 allianecs are huge and basically recruit everyone with 1 arm and an eye doesnt mean this is the way to go, especially with a very small playerbase this could quickly lead to a stagnation. Imagine we keep 100 player limits and 2 "100 player alliances" decide to ally up, i.e. Fang and wolfpack. The total playerbase of 1000-1500 serious players would be forced to either rally up (all those alliances like mistu/Vision/LCH with just 60-70 ppl) to even take on the 2 superpowers ruining another round.

I would have liked to chose different wording than punishment, but then again it is actually the way it was presented to me.
About the 100 member alliances: You are now wanting it because you fear that 2 100er's would team up. Thus you are as well assuming here that people will block again, whether you do not even know if this will happen or not.
About our recruitment: It is not like those we recruited stay protected all round when they do not prove themselves, so absolutely no way that would lead to stagnation.
After all, Warcraft 3 isn't patched because some people refuse to adapt counter-measures, it is patched because some strategies do not deliver counter-measures thus the game is inbalanced. I do not see where others don't have the chance of countering FAnG's member count.

The rules of football regarding teamlimits werent found in the missing scrolls of the dead sea or as a footnote in the bible, they were implemented to generate a playable game and they were and are adjusted to make the game enjoyable and fair. Same is done in pa so the comparison seems simple. If the game worldwide had less professional players im sure rules would also be adopted to adopt to this changes.
However we both know that quantity is not always > quality. So i fail to see what youre afraid of, unless you want to tell us you have 100 deeply loyal and totally unquestionable players in your alliance and you cant even miss one of them. Touri i.e. deleted his planet, some might not play next round and some might leave, so a good advice stop recruiting and you will get there.

Regarding football: It was very early introduced that teams will be 10 field players + 1 goalkeeper. In planetarion it comes very late.
Also, I am not claiming that quantitiy is always > quality. I am neither going to claim we have 100 24/7 active players. I am just going to say that reducing the size of FAnG to 75 people would mean we would need to outsource players which are not playing as active in one round whilest they will most likely in the next or did in the one before. Currently I know that for those people in FAnG they wouldn't even bother to play a more or less inactive planet if they couldn't be part of us. I do neither think it is a good advice to stop recruiting. Recruitment has several positive factors: Inexperienced players get a clue about what it takes to be part of a major alliance. Proven recruits can replace old people which might want to retire, however, if there is nobody that wants to retire there is absolutely no way to carry on that recruit or to recruit someone at all. Sadly you need recruit those trainess in round X to be able to know whether they could replace someone in round X+1, and those quitters most likely won't leave in round X, but between round X and X+1. So you would have to either exceeed the limit or in our case we would need to throw some friends out of our community to keep this blood circuit alive.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Actually I was someone responsible for the limitations on alliances, but I also told Spinner not to go too far with the limit. 100 was ok'ish. But another reduction is just ...

So you claim yourself to be the well of wisdom, 100 was okish a few rounds ago apparently it didnt work since not all alliances are able or willing to reach this limit. Other ppl think different and apparently so does spinner. Since spinner is the admin thats the way to go i would say or do you disagree?

what will be the logical consequence if the universe appears to be only 50% of the previous round again? Will the alliances than be limited to 50 people? And another round later another 25 people?

The most logical consequence will be that we have less players and therefore it would be easier for one group which keeps itself intact to dominate the future entirely. By just keeping its memberbase intact and recruiting any losses up from disbanding alliances.
By keeping 100 player limit with a smaller playerbase we will see in 2 rounds just 2 allianes fighting each other, having consumed the whole universe like a black hole.

It is sad if you force people out of there old habits. Sure, some will have no problem with it, personally I think that limiting alliances even further does simply not fit in the picture of what Planetarion once was standing for: "Play with your friends against a hostile universe."

So you are telling us planetarion should stand to its slogan and allow the person with 200 friends to play with them against the person with maybe just 10 friends splendid thought and quiet good at advertising. "hey m8s join me we have no chance but we can play together against this moloch of an alliance".

That the game failed is partly mistake of the alliances (actually funny, I remember some people which are now actively against blocking and pro-alliance limitations denied in previous rounds it would be them being part of PA's destruction), but it is not just mistake of the alliances. There are more reasons behind this. So why now throw the alliances out of the game?

Who throws you out of the game, are you not exaggerating abit now ? PA demands you cut back your membersize by ~25 players. Assuming you had not always full potential and you lose players inbetween rounds im sure you will not have a hard time removing a handfull of inactives to keep your core alive and adopt to the new rules.
Funny that you argue like all 100 players are hardcore players, will play next round and noone leaves fang.
Reading your and your hc's posts not even a month ago you told us that you consider recruiting some phratkos last minute when they disbanded. Now i may ask you how is that possible if you were always 100 tight knit friends ?
Get real heartless, youre just argueing semantics here for the sake of the argument not for finding a solution.

a) noone knows if 75 player limit is implemented or changed
b) whatever the outcome is you will have to adopt
c) dont feed us some "we are 100 players and lose not deeply loved friends" bollox- we all know alliances and we all know how quick loyalties for some ppl change (and remember it only needs a few to adopt to the lower alliance max requirements)

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by K-W

The whole point is to force people out of old habits. The old habits are killing the game.

The blocking habits developed organically. Everyone was a part of the problem. Now the mature amongst us can look at the game and use our hindsight to see what went wrong and how we can make it better.

Meanwhile all you bring to this discussion is snide remarks and a request for a continuation of the status quo that we can no longer afford to continue. I dont know if further limiting the alliances is going to help, but it seems like a reasonable idea.

Meanwhile those allainces or people unable to adapt to a new game and who care more about thier freinds (if you have more than 74 friends congrats) than whether this game is fun to play should leave.

Maybe it is just that I think this is done for the wrong reasons. Because, let's face it: reducing an alliance from 100 to 75 does not at all help the game. It just helps the other alliances having it easier to catch up with FAnG for example. It is not a fair decision at all, if all alliance would need to cut down there member base, I'd welcome such a limit again, it would still kill our community but then also the others.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So you claim yourself to be the well of wisdom, 100 was okish a few rounds ago apparently it didnt work since not all alliances are able or willing to reach this limit. Other ppl think different and apparently so does spinner. Since spinner is the admin thats the way to go i would say or do you disagree?

The most logical consequence will be that we have less players and therefore it would be easier for one group which keeps itself intact to dominate the future entirely. By just keeping its memberbase intact and recruiting any losses up from disbanding alliances.
By keeping 100 player limit with a smaller playerbase we will see in 2 rounds just 2 allianes fighting each other, having consumed the whole universe like a black hole.


So you are telling us planetarion should stand to its slogan and allow the person with 200 friends to play with them against the person with maybe just 10 friends splendid thought and quiet good at advertising. "hey m8s join me we have no chance but we can play together against this moloch of an alliance".


Who throws you out of the game, are you not exaggerating abit now ? PA demands you cut back your membersize by ~25 players. Assuming you had not always full potential and you lose players inbetween rounds im sure you will not have a hard time removing a handfull of inactives to keep your core alive and adopt to the new rules.
Funny that you argue like all 100 players are hardcore players, will play next round and noone leaves fang.
Reading your and your hc's posts not even a month ago you told us that you consider recruiting some phratkos last minute when they disbanded. Now i may ask you how is that possible if you were always 100 tight knit friends ?
Get real heartless, youre just argueing semantics here for the sake of the argument not for finding a solution.

a) noone knows if 75 player limit is implemented or changed
b) whatever the outcome is you will have to adopt
c) dont feed us some "we are 100 players and lose not deeply loved friends" bollox- we all know alliances and we all know how quick loyalties for some ppl change (and remember it only needs a few to adopt to the lower alliance max requirements)

I would say the 75 player limit was implemented nicely by Spinner with a comment about "Let's wait for reactions" but then again announced as something final. So what is it now? Final? Not final?
Yes whatever the outcome is we will have to adopt or look for a game where the whole community can play, with most likely a few people remaining but by far not in a way it is at the moment.
But no, I dont see the reason for dropping it from 100 to 75. The first thing this game needs is new players, not new alliances. There is no use forcing old groups to reduce themselves while there is no new follow-up in sight.

Oh, and on a sidenote ... how come you guys so suddenly changed your views on blocking but never tried to change it actively after round 5 or 6?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Heartless

So basically Fury was just going solo as much as FAnG, I think even you will agree there.

Yea just maindifference, fury went from solo to allies midround, fang did before tick 1.
If thats the same for you im clearly not the one to argue.

I would have liked to chose different wording than punishment, but then again it is actually the way it was presented to me.
About the 100 member alliances: You are now wanting it because you fear that 2 100er's would team up. Thus you are as well assuming here that people will block again, whether you do not even know if this will happen or not.

Wrong, Kal and Spinner dont want it because they fear that massive alliances could encourage blocking to counter them (surely you need to teamup if youre only 30 ppl and the others are 100)
which will bring back to old mentality. Alongside 2 alliances are not a block as defined before, however 2 *100 player allianes in a small universe would clearly act as a block, just from their size. Again if you cant see this yourself im surely not the one who can change your mind, however im sure the rest of the community will see it this way.

About our recruitment: It is not like those we recruited stay protected all round when they do not prove themselves, so absolutely no way that would lead to stagnation.
After all, Warcraft 3 isn't patched because some people refuse to adapt counter-measures, it is patched because some strategies do not deliver counter-measures thus the game is inbalanced. I do not see where others don't have the chance of countering FAnG's member count.

Your alliance operates as every other alliance, if someone fullfills the minimum requirements for membership he will stay. You dont kick ppl (the same ppl you praise for beeing inactive but beeing great for the community) just because they dont stay up all night. Those 2 statements of you are quiet contradicting.
On one hand you claim to check your recruits, on the otherhand you admit keeping dead wood around just for the community- striking?

Regarding football: It was very early introduced that teams will be 10 field players + 1 goalkeeper. In planetarion it comes very late.

whenever it was introduced those are the rules of the game, if they change they change.

Also, I am not claiming that quantitiy is always > quality. I am neither going to claim we have 100 24/7 active players. I am just going to say that reducing the size of FAnG to 75 people would mean we would need to outsource players which are not playing as active in one round whilest they will most likely in the next or did in the one before. Currently I know that for those people in FAnG they wouldn't even bother to play a more or less inactive planet if they couldn't be part of us.

This simply is again a whining exaggeration. Dont sell us you have purely uberloyal supermembers. You will lose ppl to rl and what good are they for your alliance if they are not active and not playing ? Let them hang in your channels, they dont even need to play if they dont want to. However if they play its your choice to let them in or not.

I do neither think it is a good advice to stop recruiting. Recruitment has several positive factors: Inexperienced players get a clue about what it takes to be part of a major alliance. Proven recruits can replace old people which might want to retire, however, if there is nobody that wants to retire there is absolutely no way to carry on that recruit or to recruit someone at all. Sadly you need recruit those trainess in round X to be able to know whether they could replace someone in round X+1, and those quitters most likely won't leave in round X, but between round X and X+1. So you would have to either exceeed the limit or in our case we would need to throw some friends out of our community to keep this blood circuit alive.

If its full its full no matter if the barrier is 100 or 150 or even 50. Surely it would be nice to have a full set of 100 replacement players ready incase someone of the "core" leaves but thats not the way it is. And seeing you admitted earlier you test your recruits harshly and drop them if they are crap i know you will have no permanently problems. since the new players which dont fullfill your wishes wont be accepted anyways !?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I would say the 75 player limit was implemented nicely by Spinner with a comment about "Let's wait for reactions" but then again announced as something final. So what is it now? Final? Not final?
Yes whatever the outcome is we will have to adopt or look for a game where the whole community can play, with most likely a few people remaining but by far not in a way it is at the moment.
But no, I dont see the reason for dropping it from 100 to 75. The first thing this game needs is new players, not new alliances. There is no use forcing old groups to reduce themselves while there is no new follow-up in sight.

as i said its final when the ticks start. You might not see no reason for the changes, neither may i but gladly we both have no say in it .

Oh, and on a sidenote ... how come you guys so suddenly changed your views on blocking but never tried to change it actively after round 5 or 6?

Different round, different ppl playing, different setup. I sense from your posting that you would rather fall back in old habits then to change your playing style to save the game. Thats a sad move. P.S. my views on blocking are irrelevant for 1up, Sid makes those calls and if im not mistaken he said r8 we go solo and stopped leading an alliance after that so you cant really blame him for any crap after that.

[Kjeldoran]

Focht, I can't speak for LEFF but what I can say that it's not FEAR as you call it. We're looking forward to meet 1UP on the battlefields (no this is not a declaration). You gonna pester us now being in another alliance? Playing the game you soooo much hate and which you so much wanted to escape from?

Nway, good luck in 1UP, I'm actually happy that they exist.

Sidenote on this round Focht, we achieved the goals we set for this round and nothing that anyone tries to claim will change that. Have you ever been able to just admit something and to give credits where credits are due or you only doin this where no FAnG is involved, cause forbid you to ever give credits to FAnG.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Maybe it is just that I think this is done for the wrong reasons. Because, let's face it: reducing an alliance from 100 to 75 does not at all help the game. It just helps the other alliances having it easier to catch up with FAnG for example. It is not a fair decision at all, if all alliance would need to cut down there member base, I'd welcome such a limit again, it would still kill our community but then also the others.

Are you joking?

The theory for how it helps the game is very clear and understanable. They want to keep a larger allaince base with more parity. Thier fear is that there will be further shrinking and stratification of the alliance base which would destroy the game.

Also your idea that this is somehow and antif fang conspiricy is anything but clear or understandable. In your post you give the exact reason why this is a good thing. If fang was the only allaince that big, it means that the 100 limit is meaningless. The whole point of a limit is parity. If only one alliance reaches the limit or even only a few (I dont know the exact situation), then it is clear to anyone that the cap is too high.

Suck it up and play the game. If fang wants a community they are more than welcome to have a forum and irc channels, you can chat all the live long day. this isnt about community, its about having fun playing a game.

Are you honestly foolish enough to think that Sid couldnt get 100 good players?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Focht, I can't speak for LEFF but what I can say that it's not FEAR as you call it. We're looking forward to meet 1UP on the battlefields (no this is not a declaration). You gonna pester us now being in another alliance? Playing the game you soooo much hate and which you so much wanted to escape from?

where did i say with one word that i will play ? Assumptions are the start of all ****ups.
I might consider it tho but it depends on how the game goes and when i see some prices and hard coded stuff. Atm suffering from the wisdom tooth i lost last weekend.

Sidenote on this round Focht, we achieved the goals we set for this round and nothing that anyone tries to claim will change that. Have you ever been able to just admit something and to give credits where credits are due or you only doin this where no FAnG is involved, cause forbid you to ever give credits to FAnG.

Well done KJ you showed the universe. If you exspect more pats on the back im atm not in the mood. Hopefully you can keep up the good work when u get your asses kicked next round

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Yea just maindifference, fury went from solo to allies midround, fang did before tick 1.
If thats the same for you im clearly not the one to argue.

One round that way, next round the other I'd say. Round 8 Fury blocked later, PAX FAnG did. Same thing imho.

Wrong, Kal and Spinner dont want it because they fear that massive alliances could encourage blocking to counter them (surely you need to teamup if youre only 30 ppl and the others are 100)
which will bring back to old mentality. Alongside 2 alliances are not a block as defined before, however 2 *100 player allianes in a small universe would clearly act as a block, just from their size. Again if you cant see this yourself im surely not the one who can change your mind, however im sure the rest of the community will see it this way.

So 2 * 75 player alliances would be less of a block? I don't think so, since those blocking are usually not the people which play this game without wanting to win by any means. Those blocking are usually the same old people, including you and me, and I think the rumours you heard about possible next round politics should be indicating that another massive blocking isn't planned from certain sides. PAX.5 was a major **** up which everyone has to agree to, even though in the end you cannot blame one alliance to be responsible for it on its own. Thus I do not see the fear of another block of several 100 member alliances. At least not unless it is required to take down the #1 alliance (and even 1Up doesn't deny that blocking in such short-term situations happens, I'd like to refer to Zhil's MissionRisk comment there).

Your alliance operates as every other alliance, if someone fullfills the minimum requirements for membership he will stay. You dont kick ppl (the same ppl you praise for beeing inactive but beeing great for the community) just because they dont stay up all night. Those 2 statements of you are quiet contradicting.
On one hand you claim to check your recruits, on the otherhand you admit keeping dead wood around just for the community- striking?

Where is the problem in allowing people being part of the alliance because they want to play a less active round? They are people which are loyal to FAnG, maybe you never had that in Fury or Eclipse, but FAnG is a community and not a military camp where people need to be active by any means.
And excuse me, but since you do not even have the slightest idea about our recruitment policies and membership requirements either I don't think you can judge whether these two things contradict or not.

whenever it was introduced those are the rules of the game, if they change they change.

This simply is again a whining exaggeration. Dont sell us you have purely uberloyal supermembers. You will lose ppl to rl and what good are they for your alliance if they are not active and not playing ? Let them hang in your channels, they dont even need to play if they dont want to. However if they play its your choice to let them in or not.

Actually our members are loyal to the extend that even when they resort to RL they keep on playing to some degree. Nobody forces them to play, but quite often they do play and then we are not the ones to deny them a place within our in-game community.

If its full its full no matter if the barrier is 100 or 150 or even 50. Surely it would be nice to have a full set of 100 replacement players ready incase someone of the "core" leaves but thats not the way it is. And seeing you admitted earlier you test your recruits harshly and drop them if they are crap i know you will have no permanently problems. since the new players which dont fullfill your wishes wont be accepted anyways !?

of course, but usually there is a guesstimation of how many people it is likely to harbour. We can currently live fine with 100 limit, when needed we are sorting the scanners out of the alliance and take a recruit in for being tested. However, it isn't that easy with 75 since we would need to outsource people not just temporarly, but for the whole round, more or less. We could of course run 2 wings, but that would basically just be the double amount for half the community (paying attention on which wing the def call is in, getting only those people to send def to their mainly because of traveltimes etc etc etc) since when push comes to shove you wont be able to use all your members (whether you believe me or not - when we need our people active it just takes a phone call to get them and their ships available).

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

where did i say with one word that i will play ? Assumptions are the start of all ****ups.
I might consider it tho but it depends on how the game goes and when i see some prices and hard coded stuff. Atm suffering from the wisdom tooth i lost last weekend.


Well done KJ you showed the universe. If you exspect more pats on the back im atm not in the mood. Hopefully you can keep up the good work when u get your asses kicked next round

I hope you're recovered from that wisdom tooth stuff.

I'm not asking for pats on the back Focht. What I'm asking is you to just admit to the fact that we won this round and like every winner we should deserve credits for it. I'm sure alot of pple will counter the fact that we deserved it but in the end it is us ending first.

Or are you gonna use the past against us for every and eternity?

I don't think we deserve that. Nway, I hope if we'd fight next round, that we both have fun in it, which is still why we play this game.

[Razorback]

Heartless what again are you argueing ?

Like i said the 75 player limit is atm considered to be implemented you must accept that. IF fang has 300 loyal players or not is totally irrelevant. The game wont change for you.
Fact is last round most alliances didnt reach the 100 player limit. only a few did.
To give no advantage the maximum was adjusted so the majority is leveled.
How much it may suck for you is again totally irrelevant.
What ppl you outsource or not recruit is aswell and if half of your members defect again or not is neither important.

To get it for the final last time clean. The alliance maximum memberlevel is there to achieve a leveled alliancebase which have all the same size and chances to prevent any alliance to become the dominating factor simply by size. However this number is set all alliances will have to play with it so its moot to debate, you can still pm spinner if you wish since im not making the decisions for pa so any whining to me is senseless.

Regarding your "running 2 wings" that would have to be seen how spinner would react to this loopholing attempt. Im confident he finds an answer, you might remember in the past i was never saying a good answer neither will i now.

Fact in the end is that there is no need for fang to keep 100 players (step away now from saying they are all brothers and have dedicated their life and soul to the fang community, we all know its bollox seeing your past rounds track record) if all alliances are much smaller.
We both know you would whine even harder when half the universe allies up to fight you because youre 25 players more then they are. Excuses are cheap and quickly found.
So again the locial conclusion is to set the amount relative to the average not the maximum. In this case closer to 50 instead of 150.

[AndroX]

After two rounds of a limit of 100 members Alliances tend to have based their foundations on that,
chaning it back to 75 now will cause planetarion to lose shitload of players - and if Im not mistaking an
alliance aswell.

Things like that can't be changed after you kinfa forced alliances for 2 rounds to limit at 100 members.

my 2 cents

[ZoRlaC]

This completely ruined my plans of "No-more-planetarion-ever" (however I'm still playing pia more or less full time) (lol, didn't know they had censur on game-names other than their own here :| )

Welcome back etc

and although I know *NOTHING* of political situations in planetarion anymore, I'm sure the return of sid will be nothing other than positive for the game in total