Top 10 Alliance spot: Overrated?

[Rimmerz]

when have i accused ND of blocking with 1up hmmm? my post clearly stated that 1up have been attacking us all round.

btw cheers for the banana, im hungry

[ygrzl]

If you say X/Y and Z vs A then that is more than a NAP, that is a coordinated attack schedule, etc that constitutes full blocking. I can confirm that ND has not, and has not had, any such relationship with 1up.

In order to take advantage of the "only hit hostiles" stance of 1up, certainly we didn't try to bring major attacks on us, as I feel sure many alliances did. I mean, we are hardly in a position to go head to head with 1up and target them... Most definitely there have been (in some cases quite heavy) exchanges of fire between ND and 1up, which would negate this idea of a NAP.

It is my observation that most of the recent posts stem from a personal matter between certain people, that in no way reflects their alliance's politics. I was sad that tygercub left ND,and many ND miss her. Please keep this discussion on topic about the relative merits of ranking.

Ranking is a measure of the alliance compared with the other alliances during the current round. A #10 spot in some rounds would be worth much more than in other rounds, due to the nature of the competition. In this round, we have a set of what used to be "medium" alliances (ND, ROCK, NoS, LCH, Vision, Pack, etc) and newish alliances (Mistu, HR, ToF, etc) and one "large" alliance which is a veteran in everything but name. No-one ever trembled in fear or begged to get into any of these medium/newish alliances, only 1up.

Since the "large" alliances have one by one folded, these alliances have been allowed to battle it out in the last few rounds. Although I applaud 1up's stance of no blocking, I think the lead between 1 and 2/3/4 and the fact that 2/3/4 consider it a waste of time to continue to challenge 1, shows us the state of PA today.

I agree, there is still some possibility of ranks 5 to 10 battling it out for their spots (hi HR) but I personally don't see any changes in the t4 unless there's a split in the 2/3/4 block or they have the balls to take on 1up. So we're playing the rest of the round, waiting only to see who comes 5th or 6th?

[Seth Mace]

As requested ygrzl, HR is NOT a new alliance ffs, unless formed round2 is deemed newish?;P

[ygrzl]

OK OK, sorry :-)

You guys have raised your profile a lot then in the last few rounds - take it as a compliment!

[Auro]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

As requested ygrzl, HR is NOT a new alliance ffs, unless formed round2 is deemed newish?;P

Sethy! Go bite his leg off!

NoS allied with 1up? Someone must've missed a memo as they still hit us as of, let's see, last night before ticks went out? We're as much in teaming up with 1up as Xy is sleeping with my cousin.

Also, we pick our attack targets by looking at not-friendly and roidsy targets, and targets our members can adequately take.

[Mistwraith]

Blocking.. what exactly does it constitute then for u tyger ?
.. i thought it was 2 or more alliances working together on a planned attack or attacks..
personally i dont think NAP's official or unofficial constitute blocking as its not a hostile action, and a block is an agreement on a hostile act.

[OneColourRed]

personally i think a block takes more than 2 alliances, takes 3 or more

[ygrzl]

With regards to LCH/Vision/Mistu blocking - admittedly this is just an impression being on the receiving end.

It would be interesting to see a comment from one of these alliances about whether they feel they are aiming for the alliance above them, in the manner than HR has done.

[aNgRyDuCk]

1. we are not the number 2 alliance, why would we attack the number one alliance when we are clearly outmatched, nothing stupid about that tactical choice. 2 3 and 4 have no like reason to not attack the alliance ranked above them, as HR has set their sights on us, and as ROCK did earlier in the round. If they are truly not cooperating, why have MISTU not set their sights on VsN, why has VsN not set their sights on LCH. My problem isn't that 2 3 and 4 have abandoned their quest for #1, problem is they are not going after each other for the #2 or #3 spot, explain that to me... and PLEASE don't try and tell me they haven't coordinated as late as the end of July to attack a target, my galaxy included.. I have logs to prove otherwise. You seem to keep tap dancing around that fact.

2. again, 6 wave attacks, with 2 waves from #2, waves from #3, and 2 waves from #4 = coordination

[Rimmerz]

i find this line of questioning curious Ducky - if VsN set their sights on LCH etc - who do 1up set their sights on hmmm??

maybe you should condemn them for attacking the #4 alliance a tonne because ALL bar 1 member DONT share planetary naps with them.
Then again atm it seems only 3 present HCs about that dont have this nap, myself, adastra and Fork

[tygercub]

i have nothing to say on the matter, all relevant posts have been deleted. it's not worth it, it wasn't worth it it ND, the constant arguing on forums... and it's not worth it here now.

good luck, AngryDuck. i haven't the energy to defend myself, so continue to flame away.

[Dice]

I agree that the number 1 spot is not really achivable, but as the leader of a start up alliance I think that getting into the top 20 is going to be an accomplishment! so the game remains compatitive! and, just a thought, if someone thinks they are not in a competitive alliance, even though its highly ranked, THEY may not be! for example, say I joined up with 1up now, from the impression i am getting in this thread, there would be little reason for the alliance, to push me or help me grow higher! But if i joined say the newbie alliance, bladeknight or SU or something I would problaly be expect to be pushed in a advancing direction! and they would probably help out with that, well I know bladeknight would, and I am fairly certain the others would as well! So in the end, I think it will balance it self out! but thats just my opionion!

[The_Fish]

I totally agree with Duck, it is pathetic of LCH/VsN/MISTU to just keep hitting us, as well as other alliances such as HR probably. Grow some balls and fight your own battle for your own personal goal.

Even if you cant end #1, end #2 then. Or, at least try.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

News-scan him if you know his coords. You'll notice a total absence of attacks from him on 1up - with one exception. He launched on a 1up, got to eta 1 with no defence, then recalled so he could keep his protection.

Most 1up members would love him to either attack 1up - or state that he didn't want to keep his nap - as until he does that he gets to keep his roids. There's more than 1 big vision planet in that galaxy - none of whom attack 1up (and that galaxy is not unique).

Similarly some LCH officers / HC currently have naps with 1up (by virtue of being in 1up galaxies and agreeing not to attack 1up or defend ingalaxy vs us).

Forest was wrong in including Mistu in his statement: whereas there are a number of Mistu planets in 1up galaxies that avail themselves of the NAPs offered by us, that does not include any of their command staff.

I can understand why individuals would take the protection - either to protect their own rank, or to help their galaxy achieve the best rank possible. It is slightly different, however, when the individual in question is responsible for setting 1up targets for the rest of their alliance - yet lacks the courage to actually participate in those attacks themselves.

What happened to the 'no NAPs' then?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

What happened to the 'no NAPs' then?

I think he meant on an alliance level that would directly alter the outcome of the round.

Let's be honest about the situation, these planets have agreed to the 1up policy to keep personal rank, gal rank and roids. 1up agree to this simply to make life easier for some of our members. If we wanted the roids I'm sure, and I genuinely don't mean this arrogantly, there wouldbe a queue of 1up members volunteering to take them.

This "NAP" is not beneficial in the sense that it is making the path to a victory for 1up in round 11 easier, far from it. To take those roids and remove the potential threat of these large planets would extend the gap at the top of the alliance rankings. However, it is beneficial in the sense of easing the already heavy burden of day to day asministration of the alliance and keeping the 1up unit a happy and well balanced one as it has been all round even in the face of, at times, impossible incoming.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I think he meant on an alliance level that would directly alter the outcome of the round.

Let's be honest about the situation, these planets have agreed to the 1up policy to keep personal rank, gal rank and roids. 1up agree to this simply to make life easier for some of our members. If we wanted the roids I'm sure, and I genuinely don't mean this arrogantly, there wouldbe a queue of 1up members volunteering to take them.

This "NAP" is not beneficial in the sense that it is making the path to a victory for 1up in round 11 easier, far from it. To take those roids and remove the potential threat of these large planets would extend the gap at the top of the alliance rankings. However, it is beneficial in the sense of easing the already heavy burden of day to day asministration of the alliance and keeping the 1up unit a happy and well balanced one as it has been all round even in the face of, at times, impossible incoming.

He didn't say anything about alliance level. When you say I'm not NAP-ed while you are then you are lying.

There is little difference between when the top players NAP or when the top alliances NAP. In both cases there is an amount of potential roids and a potential threat in case the NAP ends.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

He didn't say anything about alliance level. When you say I'm not NAP-ed while you are then you are lying.

There is little difference between when the top players NAP or when the top alliances NAP. In both cases there is an amount of potential roids and a potential threat in case the NAP ends.

This is why I said I don't believe we are napped. I don't think for a moment this is something that no other alliance does. I'm confident that this is an agreement that almost any alliance has concerning thier own members galaxies. I know for a fact WP will not hit a planet in one of thier gals until hostile towards WP. The only difference is that 1up put it in writing.

And at this stage I'm sure you'll agree that the potential threat from the "nap'd" planets is not likely to be round altering.

It seems to me you're just trolling for blood. If thats the case then fine but you might consider looking at the situation from a realistic point of view and really think about the effect it would have on the round if this policy wasn't in place. My guess would be, if you looked good and hard, very little other than making day to day life a real pain to look after.

[ComradeRob]

Galaxy protection is merely a recognition of the reality of random galaxies. If a 1up member has had his/her incoming reported every night by loyal galaxy members, been defended by those same galaxy members, and generally cooperated well with them all round, it would be counter-productive to attack those planets. It would only reduce the fleets available for the defence of the 1up member, and possibly turn the galaxy against the 1up member to such an extent that they would cease to report incomings. Whilst random galaxies are often inactive, this does give a chance for galaxies to cooperate without fear that they are merely being fattened up for later roiding. This basic trust is what allows a galaxy to work together, and that is supposed to be what Planetarion is all about.

I'd also imagine that most alliances have a similar policy. Avoiding raiding your own members' galaxies seems like a logical step to take. Of course, if those galaxy members attack 1up then they can expect to be attacked by 1up themselves; it makes for much more efficient targetting, as it narrows our list of targets down to those who are actively hostile and therefore present a genuine threat.

Galaxy protection isn't a general offer of protection extended to the wider community, it is an accident, determined by the random chance of the signup order. Nobody can apply for it and everyone is free to ignore it as they please. If some people are unwilling to fight for their own alliance, then I'd say that it's their alliance which has a problem.

[Phant]

Galaxy naps are definetely needed. I've saved my gal mates asses so many times that the consequences of their allies attacking me would be non-profitable for me and also the gal mate involved in a long run (staying up at night reporting incs or helping out doesnt seem that interesting then) (Uhm this has already happned though... *evil grin at mistu*)

And another point. Sure no blocking makes it more fun in the first phase of the game, but I think some blocking towards the end of the game would just enhance the gameplay experience. After all, politics is supposed to be an important aspect of the game......

[Rimmerz]

ok - im back from work now - lets see what ive missed......

ok mazzelaar - so you believe that the Napped planets have no effect in the game ay? those planets are mostly the non 1up in the top 100 and your saying these have no effect in the game?

i find it curious also that LCH and VSN have no say to this thread.

for the record though - we at MISTU have faught 1up pretty much all round - we knew of their threat and just it was the other alliances that chose to ignore that threat and pretend that nothing has happened.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Rimmerz

ok - im back from work now - lets see what ive missed......

ok mazzelaar - so you believe that the Napped planets have no effect in the game ay? those planets are mostly the non 1up in the top 100 and your saying these have no effect in the game?

i find it curious also that LCH and VSN have no say to this thread.

for the record though - we at MISTU have faught 1up pretty much all round - we knew of their threat and just it was the other alliances that chose to ignore that threat and pretend that nothing has happened.

I don't think they ignored it. They certainly tried. It wasn't only Mistu who knocked 1up out of #1 for a bit. There is this thing called "giving up" Mistu as well as other alliances were launching and going to sleep. No dedication. Where as 1up was awake defending and constantly launching attacks. Due to numbers, the other side took the upper hand early, but as we can see, endurance = teh pwn.

[Exode]

Well, HR is fifth now, ND sixth.

I just hope we'll have more fun in the last few weeks of the round than the rest. Dont you agree the_fish? Lets have our ways on the battlefield, and its nothing personal, you know that. We jsut want the 5th place thats all

And all you other mofo's attacking me, back off :/
I want ND to "try" to do the job

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Exode

Well, HR is fifth now, ND sixth.

I just hope we'll have more fun in the last few weeks of the round than the rest. Dont you agree the_fish? Lets have our ways on the battlefield, and its nothing personal, you know that. We jsut want the 5th place thats all

And all you other mofo's attacking me, back off :/
I want ND to "try" to do the job

Medium alliance action at its best. We shud see same action from top 3 ally's as well. and 7-10. Seems to be better fight at the 5-6 level. Is ND pwned?? :P

[Spritfire]

ND is not pwned. The reason for that we have been overtaken by HR is that we have incs from all top4 alliances , and HR.
So if they think they did this alone they are way of track.

I'm not sure , but I would guess that nd are one of the alliances with most incs atm.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Also the ND/HR "war" seems to be being conducted as much by recruitment as anything else. So far in August HR have added 10 members, whereas ND have only added 4. I think that probably has a lot to do with the change in ranks.

[Spritfire]

We have added new ones and lost some members. So I'm not sure 4 is accurate tho =)

[Brimstone]

Nah, ND had 87-ish members a few weeks back when i left.

And i must admit, since i left ND my incomings have somehow gone down, yet i have more roids in a smaller galaxy...

Also i do not applaud 1up in any way for the way they have played. It is no surprise that 1up has dominated, and will likely continue to dominate, with the #2-4 alliances largely giving up trying to hit 1up, not completely, but largely, while 1up still have some of the most active, dedicated and experienced players around, along with probably the strongest HC teams that has been around for many rounds.

This is not something to applaud, it is something to mark as cowardice, among all those i have mentioned.

I have said it for some time, if enough alliances simply started hitting 1up targets, not even if they co-ordinated the attacks, 1up would at least be slowed down. Its basic arithmetic... 700+ people versus 90-100 people means the smaller force is likely to at least be knocked down, if not defeated.

Grow some balls guys, and try attacking, rather than sitting back and saying "i give up" If i knew where to hit, even though my planet sucks and is n00b like in all aspects, i'd try at least.

Winning is great, but so is playing the game as its supposed to be.

If in WW2 the Allied forces had given up when the Germans etc had occupied most of europe, many of us would have had somewhat different lives. Slightly different analogy, but not far off.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Brimstone

I have said it for some time, if enough alliances simply started hitting 1up targets, not even if they co-ordinated the attacks, 1up would at least be slowed down. Its basic arithmetic... 700+ people versus 90-100 people means the smaller force is likely to at least be knocked down, if not defeated.

This has been the case for the majority of the round. 1up have been hit by everythng and the kitchen sink. Like it was said in a prior post it boils down to the fact that the 1up membership were on all hours every single night attacking and defending. Maybe other alliances did too, I don't really know. But I can guarentee we have had most hostile fleets incoming than most people can dream about and 1up have lost a bucket load of roids over the round. It's only through sheer determination and dedication that we managed to get a green figure on the roid count most nights.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Spritfire

ND is not pwned. The reason for that we have been overtaken by HR is that we have incs from all top4 alliances , and HR.
So if they think they did this alone they are way of track.

I'm not sure , but I would guess that nd are one of the alliances with most incs atm.

I cant help but see this as a mindless remark tbh, rank changes dont usually happen over night you know? And ND are certainly not the only alliance to get mulitple incomings on the odd night, HR and i would think every alliance has such unlucky nights.

Even tonight we had many, many incomings but thats just the way of the game somtimes!

Originally Posted by Sid

Also the ND/HR "war" seems to be being conducted as much by recruitment as anything else. So far in August HR have added 10 members, whereas ND have only added 4. I think that probably has a lot to do with the change in ranks.

Thats easy for you guys to say being at practically 100 members:P. HR has for most of the round been the smallest memberbase ally in the top10, while having a 5th place score average/ roid average.

And yeah, we have recruited more actively then ND recently but they STILL have more members then us. So i cant help but feel dissapointed that any1 would see our recent recruitment as something that "probably" had a lot to do with the change in ranks, like nothing else did:/

[The_Fish]

You have got to applaud HR for their performance this round.

Like I have previously stated, a war between us both would be nice, but its never going to happen, with all the concentrated incs we get from the alliances above us.

Good luck for the rest of the round, hopefully we'll beat you, but I am sure it will be close either way

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Thats easy for you guys to say being at practically 100 members:P. HR has for most of the round been the smallest memberbase ally in the top10, while having a 5th place score average/ roid average.

And yeah, we have recruited more actively then ND recently but they STILL have more members then us. So i cant help but feel dissapointed that any1 would see our recent recruitment as something that "probably" had a lot to do with the change in ranks, like nothing else did:/

It wasn't intended as a criticism - just as an observation. This month HR's member count has gone up by 6 more than ND's has. Without that, I very much doubt the ranks would have changed - hence my comment. If those 6 members had a combined score of less than 2.2 million then I do, of course, stand corrected.

And yes - HR's score/roids is very impressive given that you've played the round solo and with a smaller membership count than the other alliances around you.

[Ferretus]

Ok here are my opinions

The underlying thing is why don't top alliances hit eachother. Answer they have too much to lose so they hit smaller alliances. Q Why don't smaller alliances team up and hit the big boys? Because they often have not infiltrated the top alliances and cannot ensure victory. The simple answer to all these problems is to bring back tags! End of argument really. If ppl want to go for an alliance they can do easily without all this infiltration and spying crap.

To the original question. Is being top 10 overrated?
It all depends on who is there. Stagnation occurs in the top 20 total as everyone wants to maintain their spots. The closer you get to the top the less targets you have to choose from without causing a barney with one of your competitor aliances. If you went against that and attacked where you could to get there then the place is deserved, if however you became stagant then you would have had to do the initial legwork but essentially it is less deserving. The main problem in my opinion is the member counts, the higher the member count the higher your alliance, regardless of whether you are any good or not. Perhaps a better 'average thingy' should be putin place although I wouldn't know the best way to do this.

The funny thing for ARS is that we formed an early agreement with Bruderschaft simply due to our HC locations and similar alliance rankings (we were both around 30-40 at the time). Although we have not used our mutual standings to team up as such it is clear from our current rankings that we must have benefitted as we are side by side on the table. The really funny thing is that we also had an agreement with a lowly alliance down in the 40's after some minor skirmishing. Now they are ranked 1 below us, well done SU. So from our point of view it looks a bit dodgy as we are all grouped together. So the next question is, why don't we team up and take out one of the big boys? The simple answer is the issues with spies (ours and yours), we would if we could but we can't...hence stagnation occurs.

Re. Galaxy naps
Essentially your galaxy should be your fist line of defence and your greatest ally. It would be stupid for an alliance to attack a gal which had friendlies in it as all you are doing is weakening the defence of one your colleagues. In my opinion this even extends out to clusters if you have several members in it and I feel that everyone should maintain a cluster alliance. Though saying that this round is the first round where we have had a bunch of pricks (from the top alliances) who are in 2 gals who insist on attempting to farm everyone else. We tried politics and we were allowed back into the cluster alliance, shortly after they came back. This continued throughout this round and many ppl have left because of it. To name and shame the principle offenders were New Dawn. Which is a shame as I had respect for them before this. I have kept some of the mails for comedic value.

re.Alliances in general
The key problem with many alliances is that they are incredibly arrogant. It seems that they often feel that they can attack you without fear of any retaliation.

Also as many alliances infiltrate others the opportunitiy for retaliation is difficult. But then this comes back to my big moan about infitlration, if spies lost their use (ie brought back tagging for a start) then perhaps (with the exception of naps) there would be more action at the top.

(phew, take a breath)

[Envious]

you are totally over-estimating the importance of spies imo. intel about what planet is in which alliance is not gathered from spies but from their gal mates, from the attacks they take part in and from the defense they send and get

[Elder]

Originally Posted by Rimmerz

i respect you guys a lot, but if u talk about small amounts of fighting within the top alliances then you should see my defence department every night, trust me i applaud their efforts and will continue to for the remainder of the round

Good to see that someone here are able to correct a statement in a civil and polite way.. Haven't seen much of that lately.. I do not doubt that you people in the top alliances have enough incomings to make any of us smaller alliances sweat but my earlier statement was based on the fact that there seem to be very few changes among the top 5.. That has changed a bit now though but at the time I think my point was valid.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Envious

you are totally over-estimating the importance of spies imo. intel about what planet is in which alliance is not gathered from spies but from their gal mates, from the attacks they take part in and from the defense they send and get

spies are nothing more then an annoying plague that gives away your launchtimes and stuff like that and then afterwards when caught will whine for hours or when not caught will think he's DA MAN !!! and thus would pm HC's of that said alliance to tell em how 1337 they are etc etc.

Nobody particular springs in mind ... (NOT)

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Ferretus

Ok here are my opinions

The underlying thing is why don't top alliances hit eachother. Answer they have too much to lose so they hit smaller alliances. Q Why don't smaller alliances team up and hit the big boys? Because they often have not infiltrated the top alliances and cannot ensure victory. The simple answer to all these problems is to bring back tags! End of argument really. If ppl want to go for an alliance they can do easily without all this infiltration and spying crap.

A reasonably accurate 1up coord list was leaked during this round (around the time when 1up were ranked #2). It didn't really do any harm in the long run, especially as most alliances could have figured those coords out easily enough.

Originally Posted by Ferretus

To the original question. Is being top 10 overrated?
It all depends on who is there. Stagnation occurs in the top 20 total as everyone wants to maintain their spots. The closer you get to the top the less targets you have to choose from without causing a barney with one of your competitor aliances. If you went against that and attacked where you could to get there then the place is deserved, if however you became stagant then you would have had to do the initial legwork but essentially it is less deserving. The main problem in my opinion is the member counts, the higher the member count the higher your alliance, regardless of whether you are any good or not. Perhaps a better 'average thingy' should be putin place although I wouldn't know the best way to do this.

I'm not sure I agree with this either. What do you mean by "stagnation"? Stagnation has various components:

- Political situation. If your alliance is hopelessly outnumbered/outgunned, stagnation occurs because there is no real point in playing. Likewise, the winning block experiences stagnation from lack of targets.

- Human element. People simply get tired of playing Planetarion for weeks on end. As fewer and fewer attacks are sent out, attacking becomes more difficult (everyone has fleets home for def). This is an unavoidable problem, and can only be cured by a reset every 2-3 months.

- Game design. Early on, every attack you make will be profitable, because everyone has lots of roids and very few ships. By the late stages of the round, the reverse is true, and it becomes ever harder to find targets worth attacking. I'm sure most alliances are familiar with this problem, as finding good target galaxies becomes more and more difficult. This also contributes to the lack of attacks mentioned above. Thankfully, this round's ship stats seem to favour attacking and so this form of stagnation hasn't really occured yet.

If alliances really are too scared to attack each other, then that's disappointing. In my opinion, the #11 ranked alliance should be doing everything it can to get to #10 - they should aim to go as high as their abilities will carry them.

Originally Posted by Ferretus

The funny thing for ARS is that we formed an early agreement with Bruderschaft simply due to our HC locations and similar alliance rankings (we were both around 30-40 at the time). Although we have not used our mutual standings to team up as such it is clear from our current rankings that we must have benefitted as we are side by side on the table. The really funny thing is that we also had an agreement with a lowly alliance down in the 40's after some minor skirmishing. Now they are ranked 1 below us, well done SU. So from our point of view it looks a bit dodgy as we are all grouped together. So the next question is, why don't we team up and take out one of the big boys? The simple answer is the issues with spies (ours and yours), we would if we could but we can't...hence stagnation occurs.

I think you need to stop worrying about spies and go for it. If spies really are such a huge problem, then perhaps you should look at ways of removing spies, or of making sure the spies don't get access to good information. For example, keep the coords of your attack targets secret until just before launch, and insist on some basic security amongst your members (no mentioning coords even in the private channel, use of fake nicks for galaxy channels, and so on).

Originally Posted by Ferretus

Re. Galaxy naps
Essentially your galaxy should be your fist line of defence and your greatest ally. It would be stupid for an alliance to attack a gal which had friendlies in it as all you are doing is weakening the defence of one your colleagues. In my opinion this even extends out to clusters if you have several members in it and I feel that everyone should maintain a cluster alliance. Though saying that this round is the first round where we have had a bunch of pricks (from the top alliances) who are in 2 gals who insist on attempting to farm everyone else. We tried politics and we were allowed back into the cluster alliance, shortly after they came back. This continued throughout this round and many ppl have left because of it. To name and shame the principle offenders were New Dawn. Which is a shame as I had respect for them before this. I have kept some of the mails for comedic value.

I agree, though I think politics alone can't solve problems like that. If you put enough thought into it, you could come up with an attack strategy that would at least give the ND members in question a bit of a scare. Remember, people are much more likely to agree with your proposals if they are scared of you.

Originally Posted by Ferretus

re.Alliances in general
The key problem with many alliances is that they are incredibly arrogant. It seems that they often feel that they can attack you without fear of any retaliation.

Are they right, thought? Would your alliance retaliate me if I attacked you? (aside from my alliance, I'm a pretty good target for counter/retal, being in a quite inactive galaxy some way outside the t100.)

Originally Posted by Ferretus

Also as many alliances infiltrate others the opportunitiy for retaliation is difficult. But then this comes back to my big moan about infitlration, if spies lost their use (ie brought back tagging for a start) then perhaps (with the exception of naps) there would be more action at the top.

(phew, take a breath)

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. How are the spies making it difficult for you to retaliate, and how would public tags solve this problem?

[Assassin]

Chika i find you amusing to comment on me and ROCK.. its amusing we have removed through this round a total of 45 members.. most just upped and left when things got tough.. ROCK had at one point all of the top 10 alliances hitting them all the time and we have stayed there.. so how you can use ROCK as an example anoys the hell out of me.. not once has ROCK bin branded as a respected allie instead its just ignored.. running from round 3 till now and its still branded a noob allie.. amuses me the most. Perhaps people like LCH Mistu and VSN stop sucking each other and attacking us and instead hit each other.. perhaps that may make a difference dont you agree? But i think you speak utter shite regards to ROCK Chika.. unless you can see what happends in the alliance then i guess you shud shut up..

[Mistwraith]

Now all the yelling has died down ...

Is being top 10 overated .. yes and no... being in it does not signify a good round..

A good round is achieving the goals u set yourselves as an alliance.. if that was top 10 then fine.. if that was beating the guys above you .. then thats fine too, if that is for a new alliance .. gaining members and growing a member base, learning how to handle def and attack.. then thats fine too.. you all succeeded, you all had a good round.


Success can not only be measured by your place in the universe but also by your personal achievements, and the only people who know their personal achivements are the alliances themselves, so unless everyone publishes their goals for the round on AD at the start of the round.. no-one has the right to say .. you didnt have a good round cos you didnt make the top 10..

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Assassin

Chika i find you amusing to comment on me and ROCK.. its amusing we have removed through this round a total of 45 members.. most just upped and left when things got tough.. ROCK had at one point all of the top 10 alliances hitting them all the time and we have stayed there.. so how you can use ROCK as an example anoys the hell out of me.. not once has ROCK bin branded as a respected allie instead its just ignored.. running from round 3 till now and its still branded a noob allie.. amuses me the most. Perhaps people like LCH Mistu and VSN stop sucking each other and attacking us and instead hit each other.. perhaps that may make a difference dont you agree? But i think you speak utter shite regards to ROCK Chika.. unless you can see what happends in the alliance then i guess you shud shut up..

!up complained early that everyone was hitting them. Then HR complained everyone was hitting them. Then mistu complained everyone was hitting them. Then LCH. Now you. Sounds like everyone was being hit. I cba to scroll up and read what you are commenting from, but in essence, yes, i do think Rock is a crap alliance. In fact, the way I see it, everyone from #4 down is crap this round. I won't expand it to the "Blanket" crap award for thier existence. But certainly this round these guys didn't perform. Take this is a compliment in a way. Cause it would be worse if these alliances were trying and lost in this manner.
Thanks.
P.S
Assassin, personnally, I think you did a good thing for Rock handling recruitment and all. I applaud you.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

Now all the yelling has died down ...

Is being top 10 overated .. yes and no... being in it does not signify a good round..

A good round is achieving the goals u set yourselves as an alliance.. if that was top 10 then fine.. if that was beating the guys above you .. then thats fine too, if that is for a new alliance .. gaining members and growing a member base, learning how to handle def and attack.. then thats fine too.. you all succeeded, you all had a good round.


Success can not only be measured by your place in the universe but also by your personal achievements, and the only people who know their personal achivements are the alliances themselves, so unless everyone publishes their goals for the round on AD at the start of the round.. no-one has the right to say .. you didnt have a good round cos you didnt make the top 10..

I agree with you. And the part about the start of the round posting is the key in your statement. All to many times do people claim to have fun and all of that after they have been pwned. I think, after thinking about it, that it is idd a case by case basis. as so...
ah shyt I have to log back in lets see.... Ok...

1 1up 340813 96 8.295.076 796.327.329 --Of course #1 is an accomplishment
2 LCH 154399 98 4.801.956 470.591.702 -- Yes, #2 LCH i an accomplishment. if 1up wouldn't have formed they probably would have won. Plus 1up is full of guru's and stuff. they didn't have a chance in a solo fight.
3 [VsN] 133496 99 4.340.305 429.690.282 yes, VsN are a decent alliance and politically active.
4 MISTU 95818 90 3.638.686 327.481.776 - - No- they are to far behind #3 even to be considered anything. This was the round they had to prove themselves after riding FAnG last round. they didn't.
5 Howling Rain 98546 94 3.478.658 326.993.919 Yes, considering you know they did some work on ND for this position.
6 NewDawn 98236 98 3.242.086 317.724.464 No, though they say they just want to have fun, ND wants a top 4 top 5 position each round at least. no this is not an accomplishment for them.
7 ROCK 85096 89 2.722.092 242.266.249 No. considering you have a n00b alliance, weak WP, and 2 active members FAnG underneath them. They didn't do anything this round
8 WolfPack 69808 95 2.449.837 232.734.572 Definitely no.
9 Tides of Fire 60099 90 2.265.723 203.915.111 Hmm, yes and No. COnsidering all the Nod heads and Valhalla's I guess it is, but I was told that their command staff is highly inactive.
10 FAnG 54766 61 3.063.244 186.857.909 Definitly not.

[General Martok]

Originally Posted by Chika

blabla

I was tempted to ignore your arrogant posts, but you'd only think that we in essence agreed with your statements.

We know what our goals are, we know whether or not we achieved them or not. If you think that accepting lots very small (eg < 500k, new planets, mostly ex rock who didn't play a few rounds, and want to get the feeling of PAX for R12) planets, to get them familiair to the new PA again, is crap, then this community is crap. Be glad alliances like ROCK train newer and returning players. Without that the alliances you call "good" have nothing to recruit in later rounds.

Of course they are a drain on our defence. Ofcourse such small planets assets for attacks and defence is lower than our core members. I'm sure that we could raise our average several hundred k, increase our roidaverage, if we kick them. If all alliances would do that, a lot of lower active players will be allianceless, and will quit playing, deminishing the playerbase even more.

So if you think that makes an alliance crap, then, imho, YOU are crap.

[Seth Mace]

Then HR complained everyone was hitting them

No we didnt:P I may have something like "ND aint the only ally to get lots of incomings, HR has too" but i was implying thats just the way the game is sometimes.

5 Howling Rain 98546 94 3.478.658 326.993.919 Yes, considering you know they did some work on ND for this position

We are now 4th but ND werent the only alliance HR targetted. We have been constantly attacking numerous allies since beginning the round at 10th, ND were just recent ones and took the longest to overtake. We've worked ALL round for that rank.

[Kal]

HR is offically the alliance that has impressed me the most this round - 10th to 4th is great work

Veneratio is a close second and defintly as to get the "best emerging alliance" award imo

/me ponders holding some kinf odf between rounds competition

[ComradeRob]

HR definitely deserve congratulations - they've played the game well and in a good spirit, from what I can see.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by General Martok

I was tempted to ignore your arrogant posts, but you'd only think that we in essence agreed with your statements.

We know what our goals are, we know whether or not we achieved them or not. If you think that accepting lots very small (eg < 500k, new planets, mostly ex rock who didn't play a few rounds, and want to get the feeling of PAX for R12) planets, to get them familiair to the new PA again, is crap, then this community is crap. Be glad alliances like ROCK train newer and returning players. Without that the alliances you call "good" have nothing to recruit in later rounds.

Of course they are a drain on our defence. Ofcourse such small planets assets for attacks and defence is lower than our core members. I'm sure that we could raise our average several hundred k, increase our roidaverage, if we kick them. If all alliances would do that, a lot of lower active players will be allianceless, and will quit playing, deminishing the playerbase even more.

So if you think that makes an alliance crap, then, imho, YOU are crap.

ummm, what you posted makes sense, BUt only if 1up would not have taken new members in also. The RWS dudes went to 1up. ^^ infact a big chunk of 1up members never played a tick of the PAX code. ^^ You were not the only ally taking on n00bs. I am sorry, there is nothing that can take the load off how much you suck. You had it right in your first sentence. You should have said nothing.

[Chika]

Woah. HR at #4 is a HUGE accomplishment. Way-To-GO MISTU!!!! You guys really are Top alliance calibur.
Good job HR.

[The Real Arfy]

oi oi don't forget veneratio being #11!

it is a great achievement for us, especially as 8 days ago we were over 20mil behind NoS

[rshih]

Now you jus need to pass Fang and the round shall be complete o_O

[General Martok]

Originally Posted by Chika

ummm, what you posted makes sense, BUt only if 1up would not have taken new members in also. The RWS dudes went to 1up. ^^ infact a big chunk of 1up members never played a tick of the PAX code. ^^ You were not the only ally taking on n00bs. I am sorry, there is nothing that can take the load off how much you suck. You had it right in your first sentence. You should have said nothing.

I doubt 1up took in many < 1M planets last few weeks Besides, the huge reputation of their command made way over 100 apply for membership, so they could be picky. The "people who had never played PAX" were also mostly people who had achieved high planetranks in the past, ex-players of the old top alliances, who used to be active 24/7.

Rock has no HC's who commanded Xanadu, Legion of Fury in the past. Neither did we get dozens of (serious) applications for membership. The membership boost of this round isn't just due recruitment, VGN shares the ROCK tag. We had a combined membercount of 85 last round or so, several of them quitting PA. Assassin recruited a bunch of good members for ROCK, a lot ex-legion. Unfortunately several of them didn't have the guts to stick around when we had a rough time and shipjumped. But almost all our recruits who joined during the round, especially after tick 500, are late starters. Active, but not as hyperactive as those people you mentioned in 1up. We offer them a place to get the feeling of PAX, and assume that, in a decent gal and a bit of PAX experience, they will be of greater value for the alliance next round. Call them investments. And I dare to say that very few top10 alliances appected more of such member than Rock.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

oi oi don't forget veneratio being #11!

it is a great achievement for us, especially as 8 days ago we were over 20mil behind NoS

more like 12 mill, but still gg.
we seem to have lost some spirit and activity working on that
still, theres 9 days remaining