An Announcement and a Proposal

[Synthetic_Sid]

ANNOUNCEMENT

A new alliance will be entering the fray next round - with myself at the helm. This is NOT Fury reforming, although some of the faces in the alliance will be very familiar to ex-Fury members. Fury's success was forged to a large extent by political means: with this new alliance I intend us to be succeeding far more by more conventional (and sometimes unconventional) military methods.

Other than as detailed in my proposal below we will in no way participate in anything which could be considered "Blocking". We have no NAPs or Allies (either official or unofficial), nor do we seek any. Our members will be free to attack any target they wish in galaxies with none of our members in and will be free to defend their galaxy-mates against any attackers other than us (our members will always have the right to retaliate any attacker).

We will also enter next round with no enemies (at least none of our own making). Our member base will be drawn from both sides of this round's war - as well as from players who haven't played recently. The carrying over of "grudges" from one round to the next is one reason for the seemingly endless cycle of two sides having been drawn up before each round even begins. We want no part of that.

I've no doubt many of you will claim that I am adopting this "go it alone" stance out of some hidden (or obvious) agenda and not out of altruism. You would be entirely correct. I believe we have the quality to do well in a more free-for-all round - and I believe that our membership will have far more fun in such circumstances. I also believe that the game would be much more enjoyable for the vast majority of players - but I make no claim to that being my sole (or even main) reason.

So, here's a big hello from 1Up to the rest of you playing next round. I expect we'll be seeing all of you on the battle-field next round - but hopefully not all at the same time

Our public channel is #public on NG - smarter readers may be able to guess what our private channel is as well.


PROPOSAL

As described above, 1Up intend to enter Round 11 with no naps or allies. I appreciate that many alliances lack the ability or confidence to do that - and no politics at all would take a chunk of the fun out of Planetarion.

At the same time it is also my belief that the overwhelming majority of Planetarion players and alliances do not want every round to be a two-sided war that is over in a few weeks followed by stagnation. What I propose is that all alliances who DON'T want a round where the two sides are drawn up before the round starts make an agreement: namely that should anyone attempt to form a block then everyone else will immediately form a much bigger block - with the sole intention of smashing the other block then immediately disbanding. One of the main motivations behind making blocks is fear: the fear that if you don't block, you'll lose to someone who does form a block. Make it apparent that if you DO block you'll lose - and that particular motivation to block ceases to be a factor.

For such an agreement to work, a few issues would need to be addressed - starting off with a definition of what constitutes a block. My understanding is that the limit of members per alliance next round is most likely going to be 75. With that in mind, I'd tend to view any pair of alliances working together as a partnership - and any group of 3 or more alliances with a combined membership of more than 100 as a block. What constitutes working together? As soon as your members are forbidden to attack members of another alliance then I'd consider you as part of the same block. If your alliances all share target lists and insist on members only attacking those targets then that would make you part of a block.

Another issue which would need to be resolved is when the anti-block block would dissolve. Some simple criteria such as when no members of the block that is being targetted remain in the top 50 should suffice - something which is unambiguous and which guarantees that the block can no longer participate competetively in the round. Is this unfair on the block being targetted? I'd say no: for them to be defeated would mean that more people DIDN'T want a 2-block war than did (or we wouldn't be able to defeat them). If despite that, they insist on forming blocks, then we'd just be playing the round the way THEY wanted - and then, having dealt with them, revert to playing the round the way WE wanted.

Of course, it may be that nearly everyone DOES want blocks - and the public protestations against them are more inspired by being in the losing block. If so, then consider my proposal moot - and, albeit reluctantly, 1up will also have to consider one of two pre-formed sides.

By all means discuss here the detail of what constitutes a block, how badly one would need to be beaten before it could be considered dead etc. Ultimately however, should my proposal be taken seriously, then such details will be defined by those alliances party to it - irrespective of any input from pro-block alliances.

[Catwoman]

wb sid and good luck with it

[Zotnam]

for 1up

[Tomkat]

Nice one Sid.

The main problem with blocks is rumours. As most people here have noticed, a rumour has started that FAnG and MISTU will be allied next round also. Even though that hasn't been confirmed, other alliances will be looking to partner up, to fight them.

To completely stop all alliances from blocking, you'd need to get them all to declare, in some form of alliance meeting, that they will all go it alone. Those that decide to go against this would be cowards and pathetic.

Another problem is the private galaxies. Private galaxies lend themselves to blocking really. Either you go with a bunch of mates from just your alliance, or you fence-sit. Or you block.

[bintara]

good luck

[Outh]

good luck

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Nice one Sid.

The main problem with blocks is rumours. As most people here have noticed, a rumour has started that FAnG and MISTU will be allied next round also. Even though that hasn't been confirmed, other alliances will be looking to partner up, to fight them.

To completely stop all alliances from blocking, you'd need to get them all to declare, in some form of alliance meeting, that they will all go it alone. Those that decide to go against this would be cowards and pathetic.

Another problem is the private galaxies. Private galaxies lend themselves to blocking really. Either you go with a bunch of mates from just your alliance, or you fence-sit. Or you block.

Indeed - as I stated, one of the main drivers for blocks is fear: and that fear is not always unjustified. I have no doubt that at present many alliances intend to gun for Fang/Mistu next round - irrespective of whether you'd actually be allied or not. And the realisation of that drives you towards allying - whether or not you already intended to: and hence two sides begin to form. Revenge in PA is a very petty motivation - personally I'd rather attack the most roid-fat targets I can find, irrespective of what alliance they are or how well/badly they did in the previous round. And I'm by no means alone in that desire.

My proposal was in no way intended to be one-sided. Any alliance who is seriously interested in it would be agreeing not to block against FAng/Mistu as well as not to form a block with them. Personally i wouldn't even view a simple partnership between FAng/Mistu even as a block - but other alliances may rate your capabilities far higher than I do, and fear you far more.

Oh - and I'm pretty certain next round will be random: so that's another reason to block out of the window.

[Gerbie]

The proposal has been more or less tried before in rnd 9.5. There was a general agreement not to block. Several alliances did not speak about the issue. 2 alliances that secretly blocked won the round. (They were not the only block though.) It won't work. Ppl will work together sevretly.

I consider any co-operation that exceeds the alliance limit in size a block.

To: Tomkat: it's not fence-sitting if there are no blocks. It's just a very mixed galaxy. With galaxies of 10, there will always be alliances that can attack you.

[JonnyBGood]

A good move for PA. It'll be ****ing difficult though.

[General1]

GL, may the force be with you

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

A good move for PA. It'll be ****ing difficult though.

It'd be boring if it was easy.

[Assassin]

My god its the legend.. Gud luck Sid, hey stop by our channel sumtime..

Long Live the legend and do me a favour? Kicks FAnGS ass plz

[Kjeldoran]

Nice to see you back Sid.

Your idea of no blocking is noble and I think the FAnG command has no intention to block next round. But rumours says we will, so counterblocks might be formed etc ...
I sincirely hope this doesn't happen cause the more potential roids, the better. We've had our "petty revenge" from last round so (was meant as a joke so plz don't go crazy about it).

also, you said 75 is the alliance limit? if that's the case, you state that a combined score > 100 is a block. So basicly 2 alliances can't nap or ally or they'll break the non block pact?

Nway, it's nice to start this on AD but I'd rather call a meeting or make an official thread where 1 HC of each alliance states whether he agrees to a written agreement or not.

[Cochese]

I may just have to come out of retirement for this one.

Let me know if you need another scan planet Sid

[RealJames]

Intruiging.

I must say, it'll be interesting for the game to have you back Sid.

[General Martok]

So the rumours were indeed true Good luck with 1UP

[Rumad]

Excellent

A new alliance with an old pedigree - my hats of to you and zhil and all the old Fury command and members that will be playing with you.

While a noble attempt on your part to try and get alliances to fight solo and I will be suggesting to FAnG they make plans to fight the battle alone, I do wonder how realistic this is.
Several rounds have past since round 8 (or 9) where Titans and everyone else agreed to "not block" All it did was drive those agreements underground and people just denied there existence publicly.

Secondly you say you will "gang up" on an alliance if they attempt to attack together. BG's have become an indispensible part of pa - friends who trust each other attacking together. How will you know if they are a BG attacking "neutral" targets or alliances working together?

Thirdly, how would you avoid this steering group being used to level an ally becuase someone had the "evidence" that they did in fact have an agreement. Witchhunts are often launched in haste and the evidence shakey on the grounds of punishment. Such a big tool as all alliances blocking to stop some alliances seems a bit harsh - you might have the political power to stop them, but what happens if that group is manipulated by unscrupulous hc's? Also who has overall control and who wuld "decide" on such things?

"Two allainces working together are a partnership and 3 alliances a block" - i agree somewhat with that definition but more clarity needs adding. What you say is still fuzzy and there could be overlaps (A and B are allied and C and D are allied, neither have agreements, neither assists each other, but they have goals to hit X & Y who are larger and have constantly A, B, C and D all round. Why shouldnt they have the rights to hit X and Y? I know I would want to try and hurt them.

I am probably one of the pro-block hc's you talk about, but this is in fact not true. No one likes blocks, but hey are a necessary evil. PA has never had a no block round since its inception. Do you really hink you can change the behaviour of players that has been in place since PA started?

If it could happen it would be great for pa, but i am just unsure how some unscrupulous alliances will try to "beat the system".

Anyway good luck in your new venture

[Razorback]

wb

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Nway, it's nice to start this on AD but I'd rather call a meeting or make an official thread where 1 HC of each alliance states whether he agrees to a written agreement or not.

Its been done before - any irc agrement isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

[Leshy]

Welcome back, Sid, and best of luck to 1Up

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Rumad

BG's have become an indispensible part of pa

Only to some people. I've never been a member of a BG that I considered 'indispensible' or even particularly useful. BGs were always something of a false economy - they allowed an alliance to say "we're hitting 20 galaxies tonight!", ignoring the fact that their actual members were often gaining very little from these raids, whilst non-members were profitting significantly. Secondly, BGs were the result of blocks more than the cause of them. In an environment without blocks, alliances are much better off running raids for their own members only, perhaps offering some small targets to friends, scanners and the like. This is because there is no massive enemy that can only be defeated by mobilizing a huge force (using BGs to gain these numbers). Without blocks, alliances are better off focussing on quality roiding, rather than quantity of enemies hit.

[Borg]

hope to meet ya on the battlefield in a unblocked universe then m8

and I agree wholehearted about the definition of blockin

top the blocks, let it be war on a acceptable level, alliance against alliance, player against everybody other than his/her own gal/alliance

it would be a most glorious war

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Only to some people. I've never been a member of a BG that I considered 'indispensible' or even particularly useful. BGs were always something of a false economy - they allowed an alliance to say "we're hitting 20 galaxies tonight!", ignoring the fact that their actual members were often gaining very little from these raids, whilst non-members were profitting significantly. Secondly, BGs were the result of blocks more than the cause of them. In an environment without blocks, alliances are much better off running raids for their own members only, perhaps offering some small targets to friends, scanners and the like. This is because there is no massive enemy that can only be defeated by mobilizing a huge force (using BGs to gain these numbers). Without blocks, alliances are better off focussing on quality roiding, rather than quantity of enemies hit.

I agree with the sentiment of what you say, but there are so many "old" bg's who are just too lazy (or roid greedy) to set up there own alliance. I am jus debating what you do if you have a BG who is booking targets through several alliances and it "looks" co ordinated what you infact do.

I had 2 bg's I would have given my PA life for, both had members of preffered alliances and I guarantee 80% of the people would have and in somecases did put the BG before there alliance (that includes JoV with Legion), but with such strong friendships I just debate how you would deal with things.

This is a rather dissmissive repsonse in fact for the problem at hand which in my view is quite real.

[masterjw]

Sid u been away too long how u think this ll work out?

none the less i wish you suc6

[Psi_K]

Welcome back sid, glad to see you on the battlefield again.
Hopefully we actually have a 'free for all round' .. .... but I think we're day dreaming for that.
That would be my preference, but some people just 'want to win' at all costs.

[lokken]

Battlegroups that aren't within an alliance itself are just for selfish coonts who contribute to their roid count and someone within that BG getting a massive score rather than to the benefit of their alliance and imo are a load of tripe invented to help out the attack with 3 fleets brigade.

[Hesekiel]

the alliances and the blocking could always be supervised, ofc. there could be, say, 6 ppl to look after the alliances and the blocking, and one guy to supervise the supervisor team. the über-supervisor should be one of the operators, the 6 others could be just anyone, maybe the mentors team at the same time?
This team and the person commanding it should have some way to punish the alliances breaking the rules of blocking and allying, or any other suspicious activity they might face.


the question is, who is to supervise the supervisor of the 6 supervisors?



/me raises a hand *VOLUNTEERED*

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

Battlegroups that aren't within an alliance itself are just for selfish coonts who contribute to their roid count and someone within that BG getting a massive score rather than to the benefit of their alliance and imo are a load of tripe invented to help out the attack with 3 fleets brigade.

I agree mostly here. Trouble is if someone in your alliance follows your rules and books targets via you - how do you know?

DTA worked like that and several other large BG's will continue to operate like that. Butt how do you work out if its a BG multi booking or true co operation?

[TehVader]

Good luck, we'll meet on the battlefield

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Hesekiel

the alliances and the blocking could always be supervised, ofc. there could be, say, 6 ppl to look after the alliances and the blocking, and one guy to supervise the supervisor team. the über-supervisor should be one of the operators, the 6 others could be just anyone, maybe the mentors team at the same time?
This team and the person commanding it should have some way to punish the alliances breaking the rules of blocking and allying, or any other suspicious activity they might face.


the question is, who is to supervise the supervisor of the 6 supervisors?



/me raises a hand *VOLUNTEERED*

So you want super inspectors (like the UN iraqi weapons inspectors or perhaps the US and UK intelligence agencies which investigated? ) who checks for "evidence". Also how do you know you aren't being fitted up by somebody?

The people elected would in most cases have some vested interest in bringing the evidence to somebodies attention awhile maybe neglecting another alliance doing the same thing or at worst trying to cover it up.

Remember the saying "power corrupts - but absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Some truth in that.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Secondly you say you will "gang up" on an alliance if they attempt to attack together. BG's have become an indispensible part of pa - friends who trust each other attacking together. How will you know if they are a BG attacking "neutral" targets or alliances working together?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Cross-alliance BGs are by no means indespensible - I certainly intend to dispense of them as far as 1up members are concerned.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I agree mostly here. Trouble is if someone in your alliance follows your rules and books targets via you - how do you know?

DTA worked like that and several other large BG's will continue to operate like that. Butt how do you work out if its a BG multi booking or true co operation?

I don't care - why would any HC want to hear that a player is not attacking for the alliance on any given night? I see PA as a constant campaign, and every alliance member should be trying to attack with the alliance, on alliance attacks whenever possible be they arranged on IRC, via galaxies picking targets from those chosen by the alliance or selected groups of people picking targets and taking mates from outside the alliance with them.

I don't like the internal ones either really. They seemed to view themselves as 'above' everyone else and I don't see why that should be the case.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Cross-alliance BGs are by no means indespensible - I certainly intend to dispense of them as far as 1up members are concerned.

Thats a very very oversimplified variation and while yu may intend to get rid of non alliance BG's or evn BG's completely many alliances are not so fortunate to be so picky with its members. Especially the more "social" alliances who rely on there "community" being the main pull.

Also this oes not address areas such as hw you would decide, who would decide, what mechanism you woul dhave in place for the alliances in question to respond, and issues arising from this and elements of arguments which could be refuted by things like cross aliance bg's.

Also If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, could i not be a baby swan or somehing other creature wich has similarities.

Things are usually not as clear as you may make your argument to be.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

I don't care - why would any HC want to hear that a player is not attacking for the alliance on any given night? I see PA as a constant campaign, and every alliance member should be trying to attack with the alliance, on alliance attacks whenever possible be they arranged on IRC, via galaxies picking targets from those chosen by the alliance or selected groups of people picking targets and taking mates from outside the alliance with them.

I don't like the internal ones either really. They seemed to view themselves as 'above' everyone else and I don't see why that should be the case.

with 75 members you might find your atatcking options limited within alliances - especially thos less structured. The liklihood is members of those alliances will attack wit bg's booking targets through the "major alliances" you might have several members from one alliance in that BG - how do you ascertain if its a BG or if its a alliance working in cooperation. Also what if one hc has ruls and the members follow it, but they still launch attacks on a indie BG gal attack? Wat constitutes full co operation? Who decides what is the level at which such a claim becomes indisputable becuase of the amount of evidence?

The sentiment of what you say is right, but not every alliance has or wants that level of control over its members.

[Tomkat]

I don't think it's that oversimplified. I don't like BGs either (Alliance-BGs are ok though). People should attack with their galaxy or with their alliance.

It would not be that hard to regulate. If a member starts attacking targets that weren't organised by the alliance, then some investigation could be done into it. Either he leaves the BG, or he leaves the alliance. The loyalty should lie with the alliance. If not, they shouldn't have a place there.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I don't think it's that oversimplified. I don't like BGs either (Alliance-BGs are ok though). People should attack with their galaxy or with their alliance.

It would not be that hard to regulate. If a member starts attacking targets that weren't organised by the alliance, then some investigation could be done into it. Either he leaves the BG, or he leaves the alliance. The loyalty should lie with the alliance. If not, they shouldn't have a place there.

I agree - now try and impose that over pa and see how far you get.


Galaxies can also book through alliances. I know I would book with as many alliances as possibl to ensure as little chance of piggying as possible.

The final point - bigger alliances have that sort of level of control and they need it - not so sure its enforceable in smaller alliances.

[Jykke]

most interesting indeed
Something like this would have been the reason for me ever returning to get a planet..
Alas it is still impossible for me to contribute any reasonable time for the game and i
do not anymore wish to play a full round semi active, there's only going or not going
Wellcome back to the game old chief.
If things keep going for a half year more, dont be suprized if some Estharians will return to
give their time and knock the door of 1Up for a refugee place in this hazardious universe

Best of success, in everything.

[Tomkat]

If the alliance provides decent targets and regular raids, there should be no need for members to join BGs...

[newt]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

The loyalty should lie with the alliance. If not, they shouldn't have a place there.

why should loyalty lie with an alliance? I for one just use alliances as a last port of call for defense if none of my mates have any when I amsg my incommings all over IRC.

As for community spirit in an alliance, dear god. 90% of people on irc.netgamers.org are complete mind-numblingly boring idiots. So all my chatting always has and always will be confined to private channels with only my "friends" in them. I think LDK was the only alliance I've been in where the conversation in the main channel was bearable, and that only due to it being in a different language.

Or maybe I'm alone with this ingrown hatred for alliances and the hordes of retards in their ranks? mm quite likely.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

If the alliance provides decent targets and regular raids, there should be no need for members to join BGs...

*BINGO*

How many "good" bc's does this game have - now how many of them are in the top alliances. How many member have access to different bc's at different timezones?

This is probbaly the crux of why small alliances allow it and why small allince players use them, Independent BG's often use small alliances since they do not want there members soaking up defence. But a smaller alliance will always want to kep those players for standing and for the fact that it encourages more players of better abilities to join.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Newt

90% of people on irc.netgamers.org are complete mind-numblingly boring idiots.

Am I?

[Legator]

good luck sid, i hope you will have success

[AzureWrath]

very interesting...goodluck with 1UP

[Lord_Thunderball]

Well,

I always had my own BG running, and that's because I would like to attack with m8's. I never encouraged 3 fleets attacking, I always encouraged defending in your allaince, since you ain't special compared to any other members. Being member of a BG, just unsure's you to have daily decent attacks, with people who you know, where you can share fun with, and wanne rape people with. Setting up attacks for people I know good, gives me a lot of satisfaction out of this game. It has little to do with being selfish, unloyal to your allaince, or any other thing mentioned above. Maybe it counts for others BG's out there, but I can't recognize myself in those images.

[Nadar]

wb Sid and all the best for your alliance

[LB|away]

who's Synthetic_Sid again?

anyways good luck with FURY

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Rumad

*BINGO*

How many "good" bc's does this game have - now how many of them are in the top alliances. How many member have access to different bc's at different timezones?

This is probbaly the crux of why small alliances allow it and why small allince players use them, Independent BG's often use small alliances since they do not want there members soaking up defence. But a smaller alliance will always want to kep those players for standing and for the fact that it encourages more players of better abilities to join.

This is silly - alliances provide defense - so they hold all the cards. If all the members of an alliance attack with said alliance, it makes it X times more likely for the attack to be successful. With that success, alliances can better provide defense, making it easier to attack.

External Battlegroups don't provide defense, so they simply deplete resources from the group to benefit the individual. Not only are they unneccesary, but they're harmful as well.

[DrunkenViking]

stop it sid, you're turning me on.......
Tho seriously:
Good luck, and hope many more follows your example when it comes to blocking.

[ParraCida]

I'd come and kick your ass again, but it's just not worth it.

Good luck and all though.

[Bashar]

At bleeding last, I've been waiting all week for this post ffs.