To much of a gap!

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Desse

Let´s think what would be in it for ND.

LcH/ND/Reunion gangs up on 1up.

1up is taken out..

LcH/ND gangs up on Reunion.

ND looks a lot stronger than LcH.

ND wins the round.

Pretty good. You took the Angels route and triumphed.

It certainly benefits ND for Reunion to stop hitting us and to start hitting 1up. However, look at the last few days. Reunion is not winning the war against ND.

It is not in their interests to keep hitting us either. They are losing ground to 1up and to ND.

It is like LCH in R12, it appears they do not have the confidence to go for the win.

Should Reunion turn on 1up, they stand a chance of winning this round. Should they not, they stand no chance. Ofc it applies to others aswell, but saying reunion hitting 1up benefits ND is short sighted. It also benefits them.

[teknik]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

It certainly benefits ND for Reunion to stop hitting us and to start hitting 1up. However, look at the last few days. Reunion is not winning the war against ND.

It is not in their interests to keep hitting us either. They are losing ground to 1up and to ND.

It is like LCH in R12, it appears they do not have the confidence to go for the win.

Should Reunion turn on 1up, they stand a chance of winning this round. Should they not, they stand no chance. Ofc it applies to others aswell, but saying reunion hitting 1up benefits ND is short sighted. It also benefits them.

you just said reunion dont have the guns to beat ND, and then you say if they teamed up on 1up they could win? dont you mean if they teamed up on 1up ND could win?

[Game^]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

It certainly benefits ND for Reunion to stop hitting us and to start hitting 1up. However, look at the last few days. Reunion is not winning the war against ND.

It is not in their interests to keep hitting us either. They are losing ground to 1up and to ND.

It is like LCH in R12, it appears they do not have the confidence to go for the win.

Should Reunion turn on 1up, they stand a chance of winning this round. Should they not, they stand no chance. Ofc it applies to others aswell, but saying reunion hitting 1up benefits ND is short sighted. It also benefits them.

Actually if i was Reunion HC and wanted the greater benefit for my alliance, with a view to giving it a chance of winning, id call off the "war" with ND as it is simply not benefical at all to Reunion in any way shape or form, I would also cancel the NAP with 1up, and make it known that Reunion has cancelled all relations and hostilies with all alliances and is now looking to try to rebuild what they have left this round.

I would then hope that ND/LCH would try and take this opportunity to have a go at 1up, and of course that 1up retal these 2 alliances in turn. Then I would do simple galaxy attacks, on galaxies that dont contain a high proportion of any one alliance in the top4, and simply look to capture roids while the sun shines (the sun shining being LCH/ND v 1up and Reunion not getting targetted), and hope that the members can cap roids quick enough to reign 1up back towards Reunion.

There would clearly be various calculated risks to this, but given the fact Reunion has the lowest average roids of the top4 i doubt anyone actually WANTS to hit them now anyway.

Of course for this plan to be executed for a Reunion win, they would have to hope this war lasts 2 weeks at least, and in the final 2 weeks jump on whoever is winning the ND/LCH v 1up to try and propel themselves above them.

[Chika]

ironically game, an HC would need his alliances cooperation to pull this off. sadly, most allies are to inactive at this point. Reunion fighting 1up (which will never happen as both allies came throught the dirt together) would only benifit ND. ND has shown that it could get the best of Reunion. Lch is to inactive to be any threat for #1. A few of thier members have even jumped ship as of recent. So that leaves ND to pick up any slack and try to land a first place.
Sadly for ND, a good round for them goes to waste, and they look more like NOS than anything.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Chika

ironically game, an HC would need his alliances cooperation to pull this off. sadly, most allies are to inactive at this point. Reunion fighting 1up (which will never happen as both allies came throught the dirt together) would only benifit ND. ND has shown that it could get the best of Reunion. Lch is to inactive to be any threat for #1. A few of thier members have even jumped ship as of recent. So that leaves ND to pick up any slack and try to land a first place.
Sadly for ND, a good round for them goes to waste, and they look more like NOS than anything.

I arent saying Reunion to hit 1up exclusively Chika, im saying they do gal raids and dont target anyone in particular, while they hope ND/LCH and 1up battle it out.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

It certainly benefits ND for Reunion to stop hitting us and to start hitting 1up. However, look at the last few days. Reunion is not winning the war against ND.

It is not in their interests to keep hitting us either. They are losing ground to 1up and to ND.

It is like LCH in R12, it appears they do not have the confidence to go for the win.

Should Reunion turn on 1up, they stand a chance of winning this round. Should they not, they stand no chance. Ofc it applies to others aswell, but saying reunion hitting 1up benefits ND is short sighted. It also benefits them.

A half-accurate (at best) analysis.

Should reunion turn on 1up, they stand approximately 0 chance of winning the round - as their attacks are less efficient thans NDs, and with your curent roid count already much higher than theirs, you'd breeze past them leaving them in 3rd.

Your post suggests that #2 alliance should automatically hit #1 alliance - and that that's the only way it can win the round. At current rates, ND will pass reunion in about 2 days. By YOUR logic, at that point ND will attack 1up. 1up will obviously then focus their fire totally on ND - allowing reunion to grow very fast off of ND roids with no incs while 1up gets pegged back by LCH + ND.

Or is attacking the #1 alliance something which applies to reunion but not to ND?

Reunion's ONLY chance of #1 this round is an ND vs 1up war - with them getting to roid one of the two for free while hoping to outgrow the 2nd. In such a scenario If they hit 1up then they risk losing #2 spot - maybe even #3 spot - while hitting ND guarantees them at least #2, with a shot at #1.

ND+LCH have higher roid and score growth today than 1up+reunion - so it's hard to see how the current "sides" are totally unfair. It's not like it's actually JUST ND+LCH on your side anyway - you're getting SOME help from a few other alliances to balance it.

It seems to me that your side's current tactic of attacking the #2 alliance rather than the #1 alliance is one deliberately forumlated to try to appeal for a sympathy vote by making 1up look more dominant than we actually are. I believe a hypocrite is someone who accuses someone else of an action while doing precisely the same thing themselves. You accuse reunion of being scared of trying for #1 (and hence, by implication, of trying to keep #2 spot) - yet your own alliance appears also to be following a policy which looks very much like exactly the same.

Complaining about the current "sides" - which have maybe a 1.25:1 score differential - while proposing sides with a 2.5:1 score differential is weak. Your alliance's stance, as portrayed in this thread, appears to be:

"We haven't actually got the quality to deserve to get #1, so can reunion please help us make an overwhelming block (and in the process throw away any remote chance they have of #1) to try to give us #1 on a plate."

You're a hypocrite - and appear to believe Reunion HC are naive.

Your approach to reunion, which appears to be "If you won't help us get #1, we'll just keep attacking you to make sure you don't get it either" is pretty much EXACTLY what you accuse LCH of doing in earlier rounds.

[G.K Zhukov]

Nice PR attempt Sid.

But Game's suggestion for Reunion was way better I belive (for Reunion).

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Nice PR attempt Sid.

But Game's suggestion for Reunion was way better I belive (for Reunion).

Thanks for such a constructive approach. It's nice to see someone explaining in detail the reasoning behind why they believe one approach is better than another rather than just stating a conclusion with no supporting logic like so many other posters.

[Scorpio]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

-blablabla-

I was under the impression that Reunion started this fight against NewDawn

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I was under the impression that Reunion started this fight against NewDawn

Fish' post (which I quoted - and hence assumed readers would realise I was answering) was about the merits or otherwise of continuing the fight, not about who started it. Accordingly, my response addressed the same issue.

Any HC that bases their decision-making largely on who started a war, rather than on the merits/demerits of continuing it, is taking a very narrow-minded approach that restricts their ability to act and make decisions in the best interest of their alliance.

It's no wonder you're confused if all you could draw from my post was something that wasn't even mentioned in it.

[Almeida]

fs, for once i have to agree with Fish and Zhukov.

the hypocrite is you Sid. whenever another ally leads, u cry for an evening out of the battlefield, when 1up sits on #1 with a decent lead u do everything to keep your naps and keep your roids safe.

btw, reunion HC are not naive, but they rather help 1up win than any other ally.

ah and a quick note on the even sides: i won't call it even when your only real oponent is LCH
i know u will deny it, but isn't it true that (most of) the DLR group got planet naps with 1up?

i can't believe ppl still fall for your poor political tricks

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

It seems to me that your side's current tactic of attacking the #2 alliance rather than the #1 alliance is one deliberately forumlated to try to appeal for a sympathy vote by making 1up look more dominant than we actually are. I believe a hypocrite is someone who accuses someone else of an action while doing precisely the same thing themselves. You accuse reunion of being scared of trying for #1 (and hence, by implication, of trying to keep #2 spot) - yet your own alliance appears also to be following a policy which looks very much like exactly the same.

Let's start from the Reunion perspective:

Reunion hit ND either on the basis they believed they'd **** them sideways (look at the various logs and posts on this forum) and make substantial gains as ND were outnumbered by their membership, or lose and hope ND went elsewhere to get more roids and could feed off ND's gains thereafter.

By pursuing that policy, ND is given no choice but to be "locked in" to a war with them, similar to that between you and LCH. ND has little choice but to try and beat them till they become insignificant, because if they don't, they'll be exposed to whoever they choose to attack AND reunion who would feed off their legwork and pull away from them once more (except this time, not by recruitment)

So you are correct. Reunion HC are patient and aren't stupid. By the same token, ND can't afford to be ambitious, as they only stand to get burned by doing that. I am not poking fingers at anyone, I accept what either side is doing.

Personally I feel this round is pretty much coming to a conclusion. People will plug away of course, but that's because the ticker demands it. Once you cut 7 major alliances to 4, the fluidity of the round was pretty much lost.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Almeida

the hypocrite is you Sid. whenever another ally leads, u cry for an evening out of the battlefield, when 1up sits on #1 with a decent lead u do everything to keep your naps and keep your roids safe.

Is it?

I think of it as just another trick to win. It's just as valid as waving a galaxy, fx.
Sid is very good at it though, he's been homing his skillz

[Almeida]

well ofc he does it to win, but i still don't understand how someone cann fall for it

[lokken]

Mod post.

For what it's worth, if you aren't going to give a reasoning behind why you think Sid's post is a piece of crap PR, don't be shocked when he comes out and hurls flippant remarks at you.

If you aren't going to offer anything remotely constructive beyond "that was a weak piece of PR" don't bother - we have the rep function for such trivialities.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Almeida

fs, for once i have to agree with Fish and Zhukov.

the hypocrite is you Sid. whenever another ally leads, u cry for an evening out of the battlefield, when 1up sits on #1 with a decent lead u do everything to keep your naps and keep your roids safe.

btw, reunion HC are not naive, but they rather help 1up win than any other ally.

You're just wrong. When have I ever posted on AD asking for the sides to be balanced because 1up were losing?

And how do YOU define when sides are unbalanced? Is it by the combined roids/scores of the two sides? Or is it by which side is making the most gains (or least losses) each day?

Originally Posted by Almeida

btw, reunion HC are not naive, but they rather help 1up win than any other ally.

I think the turth is more along the lines of they'd rather finish 2nd behind 1up (with a chance of #1) than 3rd behind ND AND 1up with no chance of #1. Is that SO stupid of them?

Originally Posted by Almeida

ah and a quick note on the even sides: i won't call it even when your only real oponent is LCH
i know u will deny it, but isn't it true that (most of) the DLR group got planet naps with 1up?

Very few ND members have planet NAPs with 1up - literally a handful of them. Whether tha handful is DLR or not I can't say - as our tools doesn't record whether ND members are DLR or not as that's totally irrelevant to 1up.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

*snip*

Sorry Sid but this is less likely to bring a Reunion win than my suggestion simply because 1up have a 40mil score lead, and 50k roid lead over them, and requires Reunion to basicially double their roids in order to catch 1up, or get anywhere near them. In order for 1up to be pegged back Reunion actually need a good majority of the fire from LCH/ND to be directed at 1up. So that 1up actually recieve some losses.

Lets face it if i was leading ND/LCH and decided to go for 1up to try and bring them closer to the field, I wouldnt exactly be best impressed that an alliance then decides to target my alliance exclusively in the hope of gaining easy roids, id be actually more encouraged to target Reunion and just let 1up win. Seens as in my opinion Reunion are never in a million years going to catch 1up by taking a course of action of hitting ND exclusively.

Again though Sid this comes down to exactly what they want. This is not the same as LCH RD12, as Reunion ARE LCH in this example, they are the alliance hitting the 3rd placed alliance in an attempt to try and secure a second placing rather than attempting to do something that may result in them winning. ND are simply trapped between a rock and a hard place, you must surely accept yourself that ND cannot possibly target 1up while the incoming from Reunion continues.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I think the turth is more along the lines of they'd rather finish 2nd behind 1up (with a chance of #1) than 3rd behind ND AND 1up with no chance of #1. Is that SO stupid of them?
.

The truth of the matter is Sid that they would be silly to believe that course of action would leave them NO chance, just because it may lead to 1up actually being peg backed and maybe even *SHOCK HORROR* challenged on multiple fronts, rather than just ND/LCH doesnt mean you should attempt to convay that it is gospel that they cannot win if they cancel your NAP.

I thought that this was the entire of idea of fluid politics and that NAPs should only be temporary?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

Personally I feel this round is pretty much coming to a conclusion. People will plug away of course, but that's because the ticker demands it. Once you cut 7 major alliances to 4, the fluidity of the round was pretty much lost.

I'll agree totally that the root cause of the current situation is the existence of only 4 "major" alliances. It's hard to get a 2v2 situation that is fair and competetive - and impossible to get a 3v1 one situation that is fair/competetive. A free-for-all is essentially impossible - as even if such were agreed to I doubt that some alliances would last more than a day without starting to make new naps/attack cooperations.

The nearest I could see to "fair" sides out of the current top 4 alliances would be 1up + LCH vs ND +Reunion. But the likelihood of everyone agreeing to such "teams" is slim to non-existent - especially given that the main benficiaries of such "teams" would be LCH and Reunion.

I'd also find it hard to agree to artifical teams (made against the interests of the some involved alliances) created purely to try to achieve some kind of mystical "balance". If balance is such a driving objective in PA then we may just as well randomly populate alliances with members 1 day before the end of the round such that they're all the same size and guarantee that the #1 alliance won't be known until the final tick. This, I believe, is the issue noone seems willing to discuss - and just accuses me of PR every time I raise it. WHY is it important that the #1 alliance is unknown till the end of the round? IS it important that alliance(s) that don't deserve the #1 spot on merit should still have a chance of achieveing it until late in the round - and if so why? HOW is having 1 alliance that's a clear #1 worse for the majority of players in PA than having 2 alliances or 3 alliances that are clear of all the rest? All discussions on these issues seem to concentrate on the interests of the top 5 alliances - who, after all, are only a minority of the players in the game.

Ah well, time for more responses of "it's PR", "you're wrong" etc I guess.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Game^

I thought that this was the entire of idea of fluid politics and that NAPs should only be temporary?

Clearly you have an entirely different concept of what "fluid politics" is than I do. When I mention fluid politics I'm referring to the willingness of alliances to change their political allegiances when it's in their interests to do so - rather than automaticallyremaining locked into something that has no conceivable benefit to them. I've never proposed that alliances should take actions which are against their interest just for the sake of it.

Change can be a very good thing. Change purely for the sake of change is usually stupid.

[MotoX]

It would be nice if some of the Reunion people could make some comments in this matter?

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I'd also find it hard to agree to artifical teams (made against the interests of the some involved alliances) created purely to try to achieve some kind of mystical "balance". If balance is such a driving objective in PA then we may just as well randomly populate alliances with members 1 day before the end of the round such that they're all the same size and guarantee that the #1 alliance won't be known until the final tick. This, I believe, is the issue noone seems willing to discuss - and just accuses me of PR every time I raise it. WHY is it important that the #1 alliance is unknown till the end of the round? IS it important that alliance(s) that don't deserve the #1 spot on merit should still have a chance of achieveing it until late in the round - and if so why?

How exactly do you decide if an alliance "deserves" to be #1 or not, you will always hear different stories depending on which side of the fence your on, for example has it ever been agreed by everyone that an alliance EVER deserved to win a round, again though Sid i understand this stance you are taking due to the fact 1up has the greater majority of good active members and BC's, so if this is all the round boils down to why do we even bother to play this round, since it was appartent from tick start that 1up was the far superior alliance to any other.

This is not about trying to keep the winner of the round unknown, its about actually trying to keep the top positions interesting. I am actually of the opinion it is too little too late anyway to stop 1up due to the huge gap they command, you can talk all you want about total scores and alliances and such, but what the real issue is, is how fighting effective are these alliances in comparison to 1up?

[G.K Zhukov]

What Game said.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Clearly you have an entirely different concept of what "fluid politics" is than I do. When I mention fluid politics I'm referring to the willingness of alliances to change their political allegiances when it's in their interests to do so - rather than automaticallyremaining locked into something that has no conceivable benefit to them. I've never proposed that alliances should take actions which are against their interest just for the sake of it.

Change can be a very good thing. Change purely for the sake of change is usually stupid.

Personnally i dont see how the NAP with 1up benefits Reunion anymore, its not like 1up are going to want to attack the alliance with the least roids per member now is it. Also if they did drop the NAP it possibly enables ND/LCH to engage 1up, which is surely in Reunion's favour also?

As it stands at the moment the NAP between 1up and Reunion is like a security policy that 1up win the round. As while that NAP stands no possible political action can change the winner, or even peg them back probably.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by MotoX

It would be nice if some of the Reunion people could make some comments in this matter?

Why would they? I'll happily comment on what other alliances should do on AD - but it's not in my interests to discuss what 1up intends to do - or to explain the reasoning behind it. SImilar considerations undoubtedly apply to other alliances - which is why nearly all posts on AD are from people trying to either:

1. Explain (or more often state with no explanation) what other alliances should do,
2. Complain about what other alliances are doing (or about what the poster wrongly believes other alliances are doing)

No alliance HC owes the public an explanation of their actions. Trying to somehow blackmail an alliance into stating their policy is a valid tactic - but expecting alliance HC to jump to your cues isn't realistic.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Game^

Personnally i dont see how the NAP with 1up benefits Reunion anymore, its not like 1up are going to want to attack the alliance with the least roids per member now is it.

Well, according to the AD populace 1up has been hitting LCH while they had the least roids per member of the top 4 alliances so that's your theory straight out of the window.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Chika

Sadly for ND, a good round for them goes to waste, and they look more like NOS than anything.

Can you explain... how?

We have not NAPd both major sides, and we are hitting an alliance* which insists on hitting us. Eh? :/

*which is also larger than us in score and number of planets, and they therefore have more fleets

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Game^

As it stands at the moment the NAP between 1up and Reunion is like a security policy that 1up win the round. As while that NAP stands no possible political action can change the winner, or even peg them back probably.

Are you seriously saying that if ND/LCH attacked 1up and left reunion totally alone that reunion STILL couldn't win the round? If that's what you're saying then you're deluded. If it's not what you're saying then obviously you're wrong - as such an atatck would be a political action and COULD change the winner AND peg 1up back.

As with other ND posters you're confusing "ND can't win if .." with "Noone except 1up can win if ...".

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Game^

Personnally i dont see how the NAP with 1up benefits Reunion anymore, its not like 1up are going to want to attack the alliance with the least roids per member now is it. Also if they did drop the NAP it possibly enables ND/LCH to engage 1up, which is surely in Reunion's favour also?

As it stands at the moment the NAP between 1up and Reunion is like a security policy that 1up win the round. As while that NAP stands no possible political action can change the winner, or even peg them back probably.

I understand your point Game, and I think its valid. but you fail to add how this scenario Helps ND. I figure that ND beleives it has no chance if Reunion/1up stay napped. And they also beleive they have this huge chance if the NAP is broken. Funny thing is, noone told anyone not to hit anyone. Soooo, whats the excuse for
not hitting who you feel should be hit. "If we do this alliance will attack us"
So what, incoming is going to come reguardless. You cannot control your enemies attack fleets, and thats what it seems ND team wants to do.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Well, according to the AD populace 1up has been hitting LCH while they had the least roids per member of the top 4 alliances so that's your theory straight out of the window.

Lets take a look at sandmans today shall we.

1up gains 4.5k roids
LCH gains 3.5 roids

Granted both have recruited members but LCH must of done well to capture enough roids for 1up's gains and their own gains if thats the case Sid

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Gate

Can you explain... how?

We have not NAPd both major sides, and we are hitting an alliance which insists on hitting us. Eh? :/

I really don't know how much I am allowed to say, as I am a 1up *****, BUT, you Gate know who you approached, when, and why you approached. ND has played well, just like NOS did, but in the end, due to fear, lack of knowledge, or whatever the hell they were thinking, they ended 3rd, after playing one of the best rounds they ever have/will play.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Are you seriously saying that if ND/LCH attacked 1up and left reunion totally alone that reunion STILL couldn't win the round? If that's what you're saying then you're deluded. If it's not what you're saying then obviously you're wrong - as such an atatck would be a political action and COULD change the winner AND peg 1up back.

As with other ND posters you're confusing "ND can't win if .." with "Noone except 1up can win if ...".

Your missing the entire point of what Reunion do should that action take place, as that directly effects their chances. Now if they keep the NAP with 1up it stands to reason they wont be hitting them, so that means targetting of ND/LCH. Now i cant imagine ND just deciding that they will hit 1up and trade roids with them and simply allow Reunion to walk in and take any gains if any at all ND make, can you?

If that was to happen it would leave ND with no chance of #1, and as you say alliances should act to benefit themselves, so thus they would attack Reunion again and secure #2. So how again does that help Reunion ?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I'll agree totally that the root cause of the current situation is the existence of only 4 "major" alliances. It's hard to get a 2v2 situation that is fair and competetive - and impossible to get a 3v1 one situation that is fair/competetive. A free-for-all is essentially impossible - as even if such were agreed to I doubt that some alliances would last more than a day without starting to make new naps/attack cooperations.

The nearest I could see to "fair" sides out of the current top 4 alliances would be 1up + LCH vs ND +Reunion. But the likelihood of everyone agreeing to such "teams" is slim to non-existent - especially given that the main benficiaries of such "teams" would be LCH and Reunion.

I'd also find it hard to agree to artifical teams (made against the interests of the some involved alliances) created purely to try to achieve some kind of mystical "balance". If balance is such a driving objective in PA then we may just as well randomly populate alliances with members 1 day before the end of the round such that they're all the same size and guarantee that the #1 alliance won't be known until the final tick. This, I believe, is the issue noone seems willing to discuss - and just accuses me of PR every time I raise it. WHY is it important that the #1 alliance is unknown till the end of the round? IS it important that alliance(s) that don't deserve the #1 spot on merit should still have a chance of achieveing it until late in the round - and if so why? HOW is having 1 alliance that's a clear #1 worse for the majority of players in PA than having 2 alliances or 3 alliances that are clear of all the rest? All discussions on these issues seem to concentrate on the interests of the top 5 alliances - who, after all, are only a minority of the players in the game.

Well, I think you just put it in a nutshell. When we had 7 alliances or so (and pretty much a clear leader in 1up) the round was pretty exciting. As alliances faded, there was bunching up towards the top, but this only resulted in people being 'locked in' to what we have now, with elements of membership that would previously have moved things along in other alliances now unable to do so. Any chance to switch it round now is impossible. Roids will change hands, but the trends we see will probably not change and soon things will grind to a halt.

Round 12 infact (to which this round has been compared to) was inherently superior, as you saw alliances such as LCH fighting on pretty much to the end to stave off ND, ND had to fight to keep LCH at bay while keeping ahead of HR plus there were plenty other issues in the mixer during the round before that. There were interesting elements down the chain in what was essentially a blockwar that was reasonably healthy despite 1up's dominance, simply because it formed over time and mutual interests rather than existed from the off. I think that a promising round (and it certainly was promising) has turned into a pretty turgid, boring one, simply because alliances have collapsed and competition has disappeared.

While we had a dominant alliance in 1up in round 12, what we have now is worse simply because it's effectively a tacit oligopoly with a far wider reaching influence and competition between alliances is therefore far less.

If there's one thing i can suggest to prevent this in future, it's by cutting the maximum number of members per alliance.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Chika

I understand your point Game, and I think its valid. but you fail to add how this scenario Helps ND. I figure that ND beleives it has no chance if Reunion/1up stay napped. And they also beleive they have this huge chance if the NAP is broken. Funny thing is, noone told anyone not to hit anyone. Soooo, whats the excuse for
not hitting who you feel should be hit. "If we do this alliance will attack us"
So what, incoming is going to come reguardless. You cannot control your enemies attack fleets, and thats what it seems ND team wants to do.

Yes Chika it helps ND, but it also helps Reunion and LCH also, the only alliance that may end up losing a little, presuming of course that LCH/ND could even match them are 1up.

Also correct no-one is napped, but would you fight a person who is bigger than you while another person who is bigger than you also, that has your right arm and is swinging big hay makers at you?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by lokken

If there's one thing i can suggest to prevent this in future, it's by cutting the maximum number of members per alliance.

Yes please! Kal take notes!

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Chika

Sadly for ND, a good round for them goes to waste, and they look more like NOS than anything.

That's something of an insult to Dingo, he practically invented the back and forth NAP game, but unlike ND, he backed it up with military action. When he turned his back on Ve(X), he turned his guns on Ve(X). When he turned on Fury, he turned his guns on Fury.

Unlike ND who've bullocksed back and forth generally avoiding incoming by playing proactively in the political arena and reactively in the military arena. A bit like Angels, except Angels didn't really play in the military arena at all.

[MotoX]

Somewhere the hole point disappeared here, Sid:s 1up are ahead with a zillion in roids/score
and if things stays this static from today and until the end 1up are the winner, no doubt there and to that we all agree.

Ofc Sid argues for no changes and whatever…. This means for the rest of the community stagnation for the rest of the round = fact

Then we have all the involved alliances that ofc have different agendas but nevertheless; if those alliances aren’t prepared to drop those “old” agendas they have only themselves to blame for the upcoming stagnation!

If the above doesn’t happen I once again take my hat of for a nicely played political game from Mr Sid.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Game^

Lets take a look at sandmans today shall we.

1up gains 4.5k roids
LCH gains 3.5 roids

Granted both have recruited members but LCH must of done well to capture enough roids for 1up's gains and their own gains if thats the case Sid

I said "has been" not "is". If, however, you'd like to argue that 1up IS hitting LCH - and LCH are still growing - then you overturn your original argument on an entirely different point.

As with some other posters, you argue against something i DIDN'T say, rather than something I DID say - which may make you seem clever (in your mind at least) but isn't going to sway the opinions of anyone other than idiots.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Somewhere the hole point disappeared here, Sid:s 1up are ahead with a zillion in roids/score
and if things stays this static from today and until the end 1up are the winner, no doubt there and to that we all agree.

Wow - Motox has finally discovered a truism that noone else ever thought of. If the current #1 alliance stays #1 until the end of the round, they'll win! Who else could ever have worked out such a complex scenario so accurately and posited the correct end result of it?

Originally Posted by MotoX

Ofc Sid argues for no changes and whatever…. This means for the rest of the community stagnation for the rest of the round = fact

I haven't argued FOR no changes. What I've done is pointed out the logical flaws in the arguments put forward by some proponents of specific changes - which is an entirely different beast.

For the majority of the community I'm not clear how which alliance is #1 affects whether the round is stangated for them or not. I'd guess that irrespective of what's happening in the top places most other alliances have still got their own objectives to achieve - and will still receive incs from alliances much larger than them. If alliances not in the top 4 don't have their own goals then no amount of changes in the top ranks is going to allow their members to achieve anything. It may shock you, but some alliances set goals which don't involve the #1 spot at all - and some might even be ambitious enough to change those goals as the round proceeds.

Not all alliances objectives consist of "if 1up are #1 then our round is ruined, the game is stagnated and our members will all be suicidal".

[furball]

Originally Posted by lokken

If there's one thing i can suggest to prevent this in future, it's by cutting the maximum number of members per alliance.

It might prevent it, but I don't think it's necessary. A lot of players will return for Round 15, I don't think we'll get this situation again for at least a few rounds.


This round has been unprecedented in the number of merges and disbandings. That's what's created the oligopoly.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by furball

It might prevent it, but I don't think it's necessary. A lot of players will return for Round 15, I don't think we'll get this situation again for at least a few rounds.


This round has been unprecedented in the number of merges and disbandings. That's what's created the oligopoly.

Correct, but a reduction in the member cap would have prevented a lot of those merges and disbandings, and forced people to spread out more.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by lokken

Correct, but a reduction in the member cap would have prevented a lot of those merges and disbandings, and forced people to spread out more.

PA team following their own rules would have also prevented a lot of the mergers as well

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I think the turth is more along the lines of they'd rather finish 2nd behind 1up (with a chance of #1) than 3rd behind ND AND 1up with no chance of #1.

If Reunion keep the NAP with 1up and keep hitting ND, they will fall behind ND into 3rd, even if they don't they still have no chance of #1, 1up are too far ahead of them.
If Reunion drop the NAP, or at least stop the war, ND will be able to hit 1up and Reunion will have a chance of getting #1.

Also, I think it would be interesting to see all top 4 alliances to drop naps and hit each other and see who comes out on top. 1up should win a war like this as they have a score advantage but it would depend on who the other 3 alliances decide to go for more.


My views are not biased simply because I have no alliance

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I said "has been" not "is". If, however, you'd like to argue that 1up IS hitting LCH - and LCH are still growing - then you overturn your original argument on an entirely different point.

As with some other posters, you argue against something i DIDN'T say, rather than something I DID say - which may make you seem clever (in your mind at least) but isn't going to sway the opinions of anyone other than idiots.

Where did i argue that 1up IS hitting LCH, i was merely elaborating on what you say the masses are saying.

We could go around all day like this Sid to be honest.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Game^

Where did i argue that 1up IS hitting LCH, i was merely elaborating on what you say the masses are saying.

We could go around all day like this Sid to be honest.

You made reference to LCH's roid gains yesterday (today when you made the post) - which are only relevant to the incs they received on that day.

You totally ignored what I was responding to: namely that you stated that 1up wouldn't hit the alliance with the lowest roid count per member. 1up DID in fact hit LCH when LCH had the lowerst roid count per member (of the top 4 alliances) - so your point was clearly wrong. Yes, we can go on all day with you totally ignoring the fact that you stated something which is self-evidently wrong.

To reiterate: you said 1up would never do something - yet we'd already done precisely that thing. Pretending that you never said it won't alter the fact that you did - or the fact that an argument based on a false assumption is never going to be reliable.

[The_Fish]

On the points about ND being NoS/Angels/whoever -

Please remember we started the round with 40 or so members, and lost a lot of members and command from last round, we didn't hit the ground running, we had a tough job on our hands to keep ND fighting.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I think the turth is more along the lines of they'd rather finish 2nd behind 1up (with a chance of #1) than 3rd behind ND AND 1up with no chance of #1. Is that SO stupid of them?

Sid, if you were Reunion HC, would you think the best chance of finishing 2nd would be to keep fighting a war with the alliance in 3rd place, who were actually beating you, despite having 13 less members?

Personally, I would want to get out of that war immediately, and let the alliance in 3rd take their firepower somewhere else.

[Geezer77]

I got a bit bored of reading all the posts, but my opinion of this is that whoever finishes #1 deserved it cause they finished #1, it's that simple in my mind.

Now im not gunna say 1up will finnish #1 this round, as it not over yet and there is plenty of time for action, but this round they have so far been by far the best alliance, and have the firepower to back it up. MotoX is asking for everyone to block and bash them, but what would that prove and would it really work in the end of the day. I my self don't see the point of wanting an Alliance to lose so much that i would team up just to get anyone on #1 except 1up. 1up have pretty much owned me every round they have been playing in some stage of the round, but im not one to hold a grudge over, i enjoy a challenge and they are one of the few member bases that give that challenge from tick1 to the very last tick.

People have mentioned Exilition also, yes Exilition won R13 and deservedly so in my opinion, as much as some people still can't accept or refuse to accept or whatever excuse the come to use to try and make the victory tainted in some way, i think everyone who plays the game the way it should be played is happy to see the best alliance/gal/player win. Now if people are happy to moan about the better players winning then fine, the extent alot of players went too last round was quite surprising myself, bitterness i all around but in the end of the day it gets you nowhere, makes more enemies than friends and makes you come across as sore losers, or just plain jealous.

If ive missed something feel free to fill me in, as i said i didn't read evrything posted before me as some parts got boring. But to get my main point across, the round Isn't over, Let the best Alliance/Gal/Player WIN!!

[Desse]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

It certainly benefits ND for Reunion to stop hitting us and to start hitting 1up. However, look at the last few days. Reunion is not winning the war against ND.

It is not in their interests to keep hitting us either. They are losing ground to 1up and to ND.

It is like LCH in R12, it appears they do not have the confidence to go for the win.

Should Reunion turn on 1up, they stand a chance of winning this round. Should they not, they stand no chance. Ofc it applies to others aswell, but saying reunion hitting 1up benefits ND is short sighted. It also benefits them.

Should reunion turn on 1up, it will not give them a chance to win, since LcH/ND will most likely turn on them.

As it looks now, they might get 2nd.

[Tis]

does anyone else find themselves wondering if motox and almedia are the same person?