Copycats

[[i2k]Xy]

I'm not sure if there is a thread about this, because frankly, I'm too lazy to read all your rubbish, but isn't it blatantly obvious that dragons are trying to do the same as 1up did last round, and win with 2/3 size of maximum, or perhaps even fewer?

Is this an agenda, or is it just coincidence?

[alch]

blabla Dragons blabla

I'm sure if you will take the time to read our "rubbish" you will find out that dragons disbanded at end of round 10 and that there is no alliance called Dragons this round, however i think you are referring to an alliance called Exilition.

but isn't it blatantly obvious that dragons are trying to do the same as 1up did last round, and win with 2/3 size of maximum, or perhaps even fewer?

From the few lines you wrote, i came to the conclusion that you must reffer not only to Exilition but also to the 7 other alliances with less than 66 members in the top20. they all have the same goal at the begining of the round (winning) and all had around the same members count they have now.. Do you see my point?
With the cap to 100 members and with the new PAX+ mechanics, having 67 actives members is much more intelligent than having 100 average members.
A small core is much easier to defend, much easier to control. much easier to send on attack and much easier to motivate than a big alliance the HC dont have control over.

Oh and by the way, your post feel like you trying to troll some alliance, i am in no way affiliated to Exilition or any other alliances but i must say that your post lack of valid points.

This post would maybe be "OK" as a reply post inside a conversation but not a post that open a discussion.

[[i2k]Xy]

I was refering to Exilition as they were the only ones who at this point have a chance of winning with their limited numbers - and yes, I know dragons disbanded, please laugh at my "joke".

alch, this isn't supposed to be flaming, I was just curious, or perhaps I'm just stupid, because I remember certain people saying "we wont let that happen again", after 1up wtfpwn0rz0r0ed with 33 members short of the others, and at this point it seems like drag, uhm, exilition will do the same?

Oh, btw, could you please elaborate how having 67 members makes it easier to cover def/sending attcks this round? ( I'm not playing :\ )

[Bashar]

Exilition have fewer members because nobody wants to join them. 67 members doesn't make covering anything easier, it's the use of VNC that does.

[alch]

When i said covering is easier, my idea was that you need to cover less members and the actives one while when you have a bigger alliance, because of the lack of control over your alliance, you are bound sometime to cover planets that you really dont know what their activity and you waste on them usefull Defense fleets.

[G.K Zhukov]

VNC = tha latest b0t from Jonni?

[Bashar]

VNC lets you remotely login to someone elses computer and control that computer.

alch - what you are saying is not an issue for the top-level alliances. 1up has a simple defence point scheme of 1 point per defence, and certain boundaries that give you a priority of no -def/low/normal/high. That is then shown to officers when they enter a defence call, so those who are less active get a lower priority on defence. It is a fairly crude system, but it is simple which is what is needed for MO's when they have defence coming out of their ears. Lesser numbers doesn't make coverage any easier I wouldn't say.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Exilition have fewer members because nobody wants to join them. 67 members doesn't make covering anything easier, it's the use of VNC that does.

Difference is, when you have 67 members you have asmuch active members as the avg 100 members alliance due to quality recruitment control.

And the title if this thread .... copycats ... sounds so degrading imo, while having smaller but dedicated core is the future in PA (according to me that is). I don't think alliances need 1up to notice that this should be the way, although the victories if 1up were a great encouragement.

[Kushan]

I think smaller tighter controlled core member groups are definitly the way forward at the moment, I wondered if alliances might consider splitting thier 100 maximum member base into 2 small tight reliable groups of 50'ish, that could operate individual if needed or be coordinated together by High Commanders when needed? Is this a system that any alliance uses at the moment, does anyone think its a sound idea or is there some hidden weaknesses that anyone can pickup on?

[APA] Kushan

[JonnyBGood]

Well, alliance quality is not a necessary correlation with the fact that you have a small (ie ~50) memberbase kushan. If you got the 10 most inactive players from the top 5 alliances and put them together in a 50 player alliance I doubt there'd be a dramatic improvement in activity and co-ordination. The main benefit of smaller alliances is that the members you pick can be of a higher quality, therefore you'll spend less time during the round defending inactive planets and such. Reducing the amount of defence available at a given instant (by splitting the alliance) would definitely be a negative.

PS With the moderating hat on for a moment for ****s sake [i2k]Xy don't start a thread with "I'm not sure if there is a thread about this, because frankly, I'm too lazy to read all your rubbish" please.

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by [i2k]Xy

I'm not sure if there is a thread about this, because frankly, I'm too lazy to read all your rubbish, but isn't it blatantly obvious that dragons are trying to do the same as 1up did last round, and win with 2/3 size of maximum, or perhaps even fewer?

Is this an agenda, or is it just coincidence?

In reply to the original post, why does it even matter? If it works, why not employ the system yourself?

Are you now going to flame anyone who caps roids? or builds ships? Because thats what last rounds winners did!

[Sun_Tzu]

The original Ðragons was about 70 guys before making the transfer from BG to alliance. If you're gonna call Exilition Ðragons then let's say they're returning to their roots, which are far further back than 1up!'s.

[[i2k]Xy]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

In reply to the original post, why does it even matter? If it works, why not employ the system yourself?

Are you now going to flame anyone who caps roids? or builds ships? Because thats what last rounds winners did!

am I confusing you arfy? My question was basically; "Is there an agenda behind the non-recruitment policy of exilition?", as I'm sure there are plenty of players out there interested in joining them.

I figured this was a valid question :\

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by [i2k]Xy

am I confusing you arfy? My question was basically; "Is there an agenda behind the non-recruitment policy of exilition?", as I'm sure there are plenty of players out there interested in joining them.

I figured this was a valid question :\

That's a valid question, but the flame-like nature of your original post deserved flame-like responses. Had your first post been in the same context and format as your last, perhaps I would have been slightly less confused.

[steve]

dragons didnt actually disband at the end of round 10, they just played another game. its also very similar to the setup they had in this other game with a mix of ldk and dragons.

as for them doing a 1up. well ldk even if ppl dont like to admit it have always been a skilled group when it comes to the core and the same goes for dragons. also the advantages of there alliance size was pointed out earlier in this thread.

[Chika]

I don't think exilition are trying to copycat 1up. 1up proved that a smaller alliance can wtfpwn the entire universe. There are people that are trying to copycat, but not a huge bunch. Besides, there aren't enough decent people playing for every top 10 alliance to have close to 100 members anyway. I think most have understood this, and made the best of it.

[GonZo]

I'm sure that [1up] pioneered the way for alliances to begin having a smaller member base of only core players. I mean having an alliance win the game with only 67 members is pretty unheard of until they actually did it. From that, you saw alliances like Angels, ToT and Exilition appear who have also shown that they have a core group of players who can stand up to a "bigger" alliances. Its always quality vs quantity but its old news now seeing as [1up] were the first to show it could be done and done successfully.

--GonZo`

[Shev]

Originally Posted by GonZo

I'm sure that [1up] pioneered the way for alliances to begin having a smaller member base of only core players. I mean having an alliance win the game with only 67 members is pretty unheard of until they actually did it. From that, you saw alliances like Angels, ToT and Exilition appear who have also shown that they have a core group of players who can stand up to a "bigger" alliances. Its always quality vs quantity but its old news now seeing as [1up] were the first to show it could be done and done successfully.

--GonZo`

1up may have been the first to play it like that in PAX style PA, but they're definitely not the first alliance to take quality over quantity.

[Chika]

Lets just say that 1up motivated others to do it. before, noone dreamed of playing PAX with under about 85 or so members. When 1up pwned them, they felt that having a small member base actually wasn't bad.
I have to say this, because certain people would not have been a BG in certain "other" alliances, if they would have had the idea before 1up did.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

Lets just say that 1up motivated others to do it. before, noone dreamed of playing PAX with under about 85 or so members. When 1up pwned them, they felt that having a small member base actually wasn't bad.
I have to say this, because certain people would not have been a BG in certain "other" alliances, if they would have had the idea before 1up did.

I can"t speak of other alliances but what I can say is thatthe achievements of 1up gave us some EXTRA motivation and a proof that it can be done. But it was NOT the reason why "we" decided to go for a small core. We'd have done that even if 1up didn't exist.

It's not like they invented rocket science, they just applied it and showed how it worked.

[[i2k]Xy]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

That's a valid question, but the flame-like nature of your original post deserved flame-like responses. Had your first post been in the same context and format as your last, perhaps I would have been slightly less confused.

hey, since when have people been neutral, or formal for that matter, on AD?

[furssie]

I dont wanna sound concluding... but those so called 'copycats' are now en-route to WIN the round.

Their roid gain (5-9%) the past 4 days are very stable, eventhough 2-4 alliances targetting them. Seems they're hard to stop right now.

Bye bye WP on top

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by furssie

I dont wanna sound concluding... but those so called 'copycats' are now en-route to WIN the round.

Their roid gain (5-9%) the past 4 days are very stable, eventhough 2-4 alliances targetting them. Seems they're hard to stop right now.

Bye bye WP on top

I'm not sure if Mr. Furssie is just ignorant or blatantly stupid, but I went to see what sandman's statistics give out about Exilition. I missed the past 4 days 5-9% roid gains, actually, there was no day of 9% roid gain, rather 13% roid loss.

Today +5,4%
Wednesday +3%
Tuesday -3,0%
Monday -13,0%

.edit. to make it realistic, the rates are average size changes. it's hardly "great defence" if you grow by recruiting.

I'm not saying this refers to anyone's success on the alliance table, I'm just saying you exaggerate, or are just less adept in reading a simple table.

[alch]

Originally Posted by chika

Lets just say that 1up motivated others to do it. before, noone dreamed of playing PAX with under about 85 or so members. When 1up pwned them, they felt that having a small member base actually wasn't bad.
I have to say this, because certain people would not have been a BG in certain "other" alliances, if they would have had the idea before 1up did.

The true reason we were playing for ourselves was because all the HCs needed a break, and having another alliance to do the politics and other stuff for us seemed a pretty good idea, tho after few weeks, i did realised we made a mistake by joining an alliance who couldnt propertly functionate because of some people in command there, which is why we broke the BG off MISTU.
If i knew that would be the income, then im not that sure we would have played at all, as we werent mean to play anyway, just preserve a small core of the REAL friends from FAnG and the past rounds.
But in my point of view, if i start something i have to finish it and it was more meant to show some MISTU officer/HC how the whole thing should be done and show them that despite what they thought about our core, we did more than our share in their alliances, history speaks for itself.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Exilition have fewer members because nobody wants to join them. 67 members doesn't make covering anything easier, it's the use of VNC that does.

As the moderator it's my duty to warn you about such posting. Accusations of cheating without backed up evidence (not necessarily to the level that PA team would require for a deletion) are out of bounds.

I've put this publicly to ensure no one else follows this route without thinking fiirst.

Please don't reply to this post - if you've got a problem, you can lodge it to me via the report post function, pm or IRC if i'm on.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by furssie

I dont wanna sound concluding... but those so called 'copycats' are now en-route to WIN the round.

Their roid gain (5-9%) the past 4 days are very stable, eventhough 2-4 alliances targetting them. Seems they're hard to stop right now.

Bye bye WP on top

I think it all depends on the block which is going atm :/
If it stays the way it is now for the rest of the round we may aswell have had LCH/VSN/Exil in 1 alliance.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I can"t speak of other alliances but what I can say is thatthe achievements of 1up gave us some EXTRA motivation and a proof that it can be done. But it was NOT the reason why "we" decided to go for a small core. We'd have done that even if 1up didn't exist.

It's not like they invented rocket science, they just applied it and showed how it worked.

I can buy this answer. Its honest. Its where my point was geared but in better words.

[Helix]

Originally Posted by furssie

I dont wanna sound concluding... but those so called 'copycats' are now en-route to WIN the round.

Their roid gain (5-9%) the past 4 days are very stable, eventhough 2-4 alliances targetting them. Seems they're hard to stop right now.

Bye bye WP on top

Yes exilition have a very good chance of winning, they are at the point now where 1up was last round. They are slowly gaining on the top alliance. Their members are all large, and therefore it takes more firepower, and more importantly, more people for another alliance to successfully target them. This is where the quality is a big advantage over quantity.

WP is in a very delicate spot right now, as was shown in the past week or two, they are starting to get targetted more heavily (or perhaps their members are losing focus) either way they have been losing roids. Exilition while facing setbacks is still moving up. WP will have to play their cards right, or they will be the LCH of this round.

[furssie]

Another day the copycats got a handful of roid gains whilst being majorly targetted.

[Rinoa]

Originally Posted by noah02

I think it all depends on the block which is going atm :/
If it stays the way it is now for the rest of the round we may aswell have had LCH/VSN/Exil in 1 alliance.

I think Ex have a gd chance because i think WP have a lot of the big ziks in top 100 and ex have a lot of the fi heavy big xans. I think we know who wins in a fight versus those two...

[Alki]

fact is, with ziks being so value heavy they gotta be extra careful on attacks, they dont have xp to bounce back on so to speak. So a decent fleet catch on any of the big ziks and ull see them out of the top50 imho

[lokken]

first BC to organise a hit to freeze a top 50 planet's fleet, then steal it all without killing anything wins a prize.

[Rinoa]

umm lokken ive tried that 1once on a zik and what a surprise lol MASS CORSAIRS*

*see other thread

[jerome]

You do realise you are not limited to just using cr, right?

[lokken]

I don't care about your mass whining, i just want results, and preferably a photo of the top 50 planet owner's face when he sees his fleet get stolen in its entirety.

I have set a challenge, and I expect results!

[I am Idler]

1up will win this round btw, didnt you hear ?

Atleast Ill sleep with a clear concience knowing we didnt "bend" any rules

[Almeida]

and another: oh the bad eX are all cheaters post
pretty sad...

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Almeida

and another: oh the bad eX are all cheaters post
pretty sad...

Oh but they are.
Proving it to a point that the pateam can act upon is the thing though - but cheaters they undoubtedly are.
some people dont change

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by lokken

I don't care about your mass whining, i just want results, and preferably a photo of the top 50 planet owner's face when he sees his fleet get stolen in its entirety.

I have set a challenge, and I expect results!

pity zhil wasnt on a webcam when forest stole his fleet.
mind you neither are exactly in the top 50

[demiGOD]

I believe I haven't seen any Exil players posting yet. Unless I have and didn't know they were Exil.

Also,for some odd, preverted reason, I'm looking at this thread and thinking that maybe the purpose of this thread is to imply that Exilition are 1up multi's?

[lokken]

The only 'odd thing' i spot from exilition is that they've often gained massively when nigh on every other alliance has gained bar a couple who could nowhere near supply or warrant their roidgain.

The logical conclusion would be farming, but i can't prove it, nor wish to accuse it when no one can substantiate it.

simply hope the PA team catches those who are cheating. Otherwise you have to grin and bear it.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by lokken

simply hope the PA team catches those who are cheating.

Ive heard alot of the PA teams super duper multi hunting tools this round, yet ive yet to hear any exi being closed.

This leads to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either exi is playing a clean round, or the 1337 tools were just a bluff.

If we all are going to start assuming, ill assume the PA team have a faint idea of what they are doing and exi is clean thus far.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by lokken

The only 'odd thing' i spot from exilition is that they've often gained massively when nigh on every other alliance has gained bar a couple who could nowhere near supply or warrant their roidgain.

The logical conclusion would be farming, but i can't prove it, nor wish to accuse it when no one can substantiate it.

simply hope the PA team catches those who are cheating. Otherwise you have to grin and bear it.

This now seems to have stopped, and the 5 percent roid gains at 7AM when no major alliance has lost any roids doesnt seem to happen now. Someone got too big for certain targets?

[furssie]

Yes. I reckon someone telling me that the 14 biggest eXi planets cant attack valid target list anymore. That also goes the signs of winning time is starting. Its really hard to stop cheaters from winning indeed.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Ive heard alot of the PA teams super duper multi hunting tools this round, yet ive yet to hear any exi being closed.

This leads to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either exi is playing a clean round, or the 1337 tools were just a bluff.

If we all are going to start assuming, ill assume the PA team have a faint idea of what they are doing and exi is clean thus far.

there were a fair few of them closed earlier on in the round.
I dont believe in coincidences.
Personally, for me - "where theres smoke, theres fire " rings true

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Game^

This now seems to have stopped, and the 5 percent roid gains at 7AM when no major alliance has lost any roids doesnt seem to happen now. Someone got too big for certain targets?

Quite. I've received a pm from Almeida saying that it is currently impossible, and I agree with him. I got a pm on IRC from someone who was presumably Exilition, but refused point blank to defend his alliance on the forums, which is his choice.

What I didn't detail (and what I probably should have done) was this was something i saw a couple of weeks ago or more. It's something I would corellate with farming, but I can't prove it, so I won't accuse EX of farming, as it would be a futile act. Anyone who takes that post as me accusing an alliance of cheating is wide of the mark. I'm merely putting forward possible conclusions by looking at certain figures.

All I can do is recommend people come to their own conclusions and that PA team close cheaters whatever their alliance.

People will make their choice as to who wins very shortly, and I'm pretty confident as to which choice that will be.

[ComradeRob]

I'm not convinced about the farming. There's a couple of Exilition members in my galaxy and, while I haven't checked every single outgoing fleet they've ever sent, I've seen them hitting what look like "genuine" targets often enough to convince me that they're not farming.

They're simply playing a very shrewd round - LCH being ahead of them for much of the round has meant that LCH had more incoming. The fact that much of the #1 alliance (WP) is unable to hit Exilition due to agreeing to planetary NAPs (NAPs which still allow them to hit LCH/ToT) also makes defending their roids much easier. While everyone else is engaging in a tit-for-tat roid-swap, Exilition are making a fairly regular profit by simply losing fewer roids than they steal. As any good Risk player can tell you, the secret to winning often lies in not being the guy who gets hit hard when everyone else plays their last cards.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that Exilition could win this round even if neither of their allies are in the top 5 (a scenario that doesn't look entirely unlikely atm). Despite it being a very good night for their block, LCH are currently up only 0.8% in roids, following several nights of roid loss. Once more they seem destined to be the bridesmaid but not the bride.

[demiGOD]

How about the endless amounts of def fleets from Exil (or whoever they are coming from at this point tbfh).

Can all alliances check their arby's to see if Exil coords are actually defending other alliances? Or -- you know... there has got to be a way to prove that they're cheating or not.