So question to exilition...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Forest

Either Exi sit out the next round, leaving lots of smaller alliances alone, with lots of bigger alliances out looking for revenge, or exi play the next round, leaving the smaller alliances no option but to ally exi in an attempt not to get cnuted silly.

Either way, the game has been screwed over.

The desire for revenge has been the appalling factor dragging PA down. It's a political game. Play it.

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I think I was more making the point that we know eX are a good alliance but we will never know how good due to never seeing them without a bunch of other smaller [and perhaps weaker] alliances holding thier hands and doing a significant portion of the dirty work for them. I may be forgetting the crux of my posts you remember but I think it was more aimed at eX being better than 1up or Angels, or LCH etc etc in terms of a one on one. They were undoubtedly the best alliance in the arena at the time as they obviously played thier political hands more astutely than others at the time.

Fair enough, and I quite agree that they were the best alliance. However if we acknowledge the possibility of block wins in previous rounds then surely that could be extended to this round? To draw upon a hypothetical, if in r12 ND had finished as the number one alliance would 1up have played no part in that victory? Pre-round the statement was that 1up were not aiming for the number one spot themselves, an idea I imagine the HCs of HR, VGN and Subh could associate with.

[Forest]

Why shouldnt people get revenge on alliances who have efefctively ruined a lot of work by some of the top alliances to make this game more fun for all.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Let's cut the bullshit..

ND made the first move. If there was a gal with ND in it they were treated like any other planet in the gal with good roids... free game. Afterall there wasnt any NAP agreement between us.

Edit... If anything I was told by other HCs in subh not to go and pick a fight with ND from last round in an act of revenge.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Forest

Why shouldnt people get revenge on alliances who have efefctively ruined a lot of work by some of the top alliances to make this game more fun for all.

I'm not saying what anyone should or shouldn't do. I'm saying that the desire for revenge has led to many a shitty round of PA.

[Forest]

I am hoping that it certainly does.

Maybe it will prove a point to the community.

Exi walk in, block things up, then leave for a round whilst the other alliances try and do there best to sort things/keep blocking low, then they come back in and do the same all over again.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Fair enough, and I quite agree that they were the best alliance. However if we acknowledge the possibility of block wins in previous rounds then surely that could be extended to this round? To draw upon a hypothetical, if in r12 ND had finished as the number one alliance would 1up have played no part in that victory? Pre-round the statement was that 1up were not aiming for the number one spot themselves, an idea I imagine the HCs of HR, VGN and Subh could associate with.

To that degree yes I'd agree. 1up did in fact set out that round to make ND the winners and ourselves in second place or the prince to our kings if you prefer. To me that doesn't constitute a 'block' though given the amount of firepower remaining to punch holes in that plan (to which ends LCH actually managed by cnutting ND for the majority of the round thus allowing 1up to win). That was 67 guys trying to prove something after already achieving the key element of PA; winning. In my mind this isn't the same as ~320 guys saying "hell - we've done pretty much bugger all in this game so we'll spend the next 9 weeks making sure eX win. While we, again, achieve nothing other than a slating off AD"

I may be biased but the act of Kingmaking is nothing like the block scenario that we're currently embroiled in. I also completely understand the parallels you're drawing up between the block wars of the past apart from the major falling point of any round since round 10. The numbers and quality of alliances involved on both sides rather than one having a vast numerical advantage (this round) or skill and numerical advantage (R13).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

To that degree yes I'd agree. 1up did in fact set out that round to make ND the winners and ourselves in second place or the prince to our kings if you prefer. To me that doesn't constitute a 'block' though given the amount of firepower remaining to punch holes in that plan (to which ends LCH actually managed by cnutting ND for the majority of the round thus allowing 1up to win). That was 67 guys trying to prove something after already achieving the key element of PA; winning. In my mind this isn't the same as ~320 guys saying "hell - we've done pretty much bugger all in this game so we'll spend the next 9 weeks making sure eX win. While we, again, achieve nothing other than a slating off AD"

Well obviously the reasons leading to the conclusions were different in both scenarios. That's not really the point though, realistically neither subh, vgn, hr or lch could win this round. There were four alliances with the necessary military strength, political nous and member activity to compete for the number one spot. Everyone else had to decide what to do with their round. They did achieve something, they were part of the winning block.

I may be biased but the act of Kingmaking is nothing like the block scenario that we're currently embroiled in. I also completely understand the parallels you're drawing up between the block wars of the past apart from the major falling point of any round since round 10. The numbers and quality of alliances involved on both sides rather than one having a vast numerical advantage (this round) or skill and numerical advantage (R13).

It's hardly been a vast numerical advantage all round. LCH started off this round as 60 odd planets, similarly for HR and for most of the round after that, subh spent most of the round up until 2 weeks ago as sub-60 planets and vgn have stayed around about 65 most of the round. I'm not sure when all of those alliances aligned themselves with exilition, or even that they have, but that adds up to about 240 planets. Add on exilition and that makes it 320. Angels, ND and 1up are 240 planets. Considering relative member quality it's hardly an unbeatable scenario, as has been shown by the close-run nature of this round.

Originally Posted by Forest

I am hoping that it certainly does.

Maybe it will prove a point to the community.

Exi walk in, block things up, then leave for a round whilst the other alliances try and do there best to sort things/keep blocking low, then they come back in and do the same all over again.

Isn't everyone saying that this round has been one of the best and most exciting? It's not exilition's actions that will make the game dull, it's how people react to it the next round.

[HK]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

*whine*

Sorry but in r13 you cried that the eX/lch/tot blcok was too big against your block which consisted of twice the amount of alliances we had. In this round you're still bitching. You are not ministry, please stop it now. You're 1up and if you're not that great any more than you once were when eXi wasn't playing then sorry. Be proud that you were considered the most dangerous alliance in the start of the round. Still I'd like to remind you that the round isn't over and nothing in top5 is decided. Never give up, never surrender!

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Forest

I am hoping that it certainly does.

Maybe it will prove a point to the community.

Exi walk in, block things up, then leave for a round whilst the other alliances try and do there best to sort things/keep blocking low, then they come back in and do the same all over again.

How do you know what Exilition will be doing next round, im sorry but ive never chatted to you in all the time ive played PA, so im pretty certain you know close to nothing about the internal politics of Exilition.

And on this blocking instance, every round there has been blocking, 1up have openly boasted thanking all the players who had planet naps with them dedicating the win to them. I have nothing against this good politics, so why people feel the need to have a moan when there politics fail (In ND's case this round) is beyond me. I have always respected 1up as an alliance, but some of there players are openly biased to the extent of hypocrisy.

Story of this round, Exilition get targetted heavily just like Angels and 1up. No allinace can win the round on there own with that happening, and i can;t think of an alliance that has won alone in the time ive played PA. So certain alliances were formed (and possible alliance before the round made concrete mid-round, ive not been involved in the political side this round in PA though so i have limited knowledge on when certain alliances were formed). ND were trying to stay out of the wars, but i don't believe they thought they could last all round without getting heavy incoming from the alliances they were targetting. It's a war game, half the war is politics so stop moaning. Did you see anyone from Exilition moaning when we were getting heavy incoming from 5 alliances, or Angels (with the exception of KJ).

I understand Mazz's Argument going off the basis of a few Exilition members posts, but those members only speak for themselves and not on Exilition as an alliance. Claiming that any alliance has won on there own is utter ludicrous. But i do believe that two alliances with an agreement should be able to defend each other in extreme cases, it happened against me a number of times, one being when 1up/ND were trading def in R12 (only once occasion i can remember) no one complained as it's fair play, the new rule on support planets has only brought another possible loop hole in the rule to to the vague phrasing on the EULA.

Also just another hit at Forest and the rest of the people who still claim Exilition cheat, and this round were using support planets is so far to my knowledge utter BS. I was Head DC for the first half of the round (when the new rule was brought into place) and the only def i used was legitimate members some were out of alliance tag either becuase they were not added yet or were scanners, a legitimate tactic in my eyes as i have done it for numerous rounds myself.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's hardly been a vast numerical advantage all round. LCH started off this round as 60 odd planets, similarly for HR and for most of the round after that, subh spent most of the round up until 2 weeks ago as sub-60 planets and vgn have stayed around about 65 most of the round. I'm not sure when all of those alliances aligned themselves with exilition, or even that they have, but that adds up to about 240 planets. Add on exilition and that makes it 320. Angels, ND and 1up are 240 planets. Considering relative member quality it's hardly an unbeatable scenario, as has been shown by the close-run nature of this round.

eX have worked with these other alliances throughout the round. And you're definately jumping to conclusions when you put 1up, ND and Angels togather.

1up+angels = 160 at most (bearing in mind ND were keeping well clear of that little war.

Angels+Nd = 160 at most (1up haven't been involved in a triad with these two)

Thats a distinct numerical advantage whichever way you want to look at it. And I think it's unfair to make so much distinction between the quality of SubH, LCH, HR, VGN et al. OK, I agree they may be slightly behind the likes of Angels, 1up, eX and Nd but only just and LCH have more than proved that they are a fully functioning alliance as it stands at the moment.

And, once again, my main point is that, as yet, eX are still an unproven entity in my eyes.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

Sorry but in r13 you cried that the eX/lch/tot blcok was too big against your block which consisted of twice the amount of alliances we had. In this round you're still bitching. You are not ministry, please stop it now.

eX, LCH, ToT = 3 + NoS/Angels NAP'd
1up, ToF, NoS, ND = 4 -NoS = 3

Your maths isn't hot.

Originally Posted by RedCrab

You're 1up and if you're not that great any more than you once were when eXi wasn't playing then sorry.

And thats the crap I've spent the whole thread saying is bullshit for those that have repeatedly accused me of wittering on about other things. You talk like you came into the round, handed everyone thier asses and showed how ****ing great you were. Well, anyone can be great with another 4 allliances doing the hard work for them.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

eX have worked with these other alliances throughout the round. And you're definately jumping to conclusions when you put 1up, ND and Angels togather.

1up+angels = 160 at most (bearing in mind ND were keeping well clear of that little war.

Angels+Nd = 160 at most (1up haven't been involved in a triad with these two)

Thats a distinct numerical advantage whichever way you want to look at it. And I think it's unfair to make so much distinction between the quality of SubH, LCH, HR, VGN et al. OK, I agree they may be slightly behind the likes of Angels, 1up, eX and Nd but only just and LCH have more than proved that they are a fully functioning alliance as it stands at the moment.

My point was that the numbers and capability of countering the exilition block existed, not that 1up, ND and angels were all allied. The fact that you (general you) didn't form this block is irrelevant. It shows that exilition did not block to the point where you physically could not counter them. There were also alliances like tgv and tof who could have been approached.

And, once again, my main point is that, as yet, eX are still an unproven entity in my eyes.

This was not my point, but I am interested as to how you think they are unproven.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

And on this blocking instance, every round there has been blocking, 1up have openly boasted thanking all the players who had planet naps with them dedicating the win to them.

A handful of disloyals who put thier own planet above the well being of thier alliance definately does not constiture blocking. 1up won round 11 without any political agenda at all.

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Did you see anyone from Exilition moaning when we were getting heavy incoming from 5 alliances, or Angels (with the exception of KJ).

Which 5 alliances are these then?

I'm also fairly sure you haven't seen 1up moaning about how much incoming they've had an I'm fairly sure we're one of the only top 5 alliiances not to come on here bleating about how many def calls we've had in a night.

Other than that - nice post. I'd posrep you if I was able to :/

[Kal]

The EULA defines support accounts as follows:

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

I think it is clear that joining in on a fleet catch is unlikely to be covered by this as it is not a repeated action. It is also the case that the said planets are not dedicated to the cause of defending the soecific organisation in question as they are themsleves in an alliance and hence are at least partially dedicated to defending that alliance.

In essence a support planet would be one which in essence allways assits a specific group without being a member of it.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

How do you know what Exilition will be doing next round, im sorry but ive never chatted to you in all the time ive played PA, so im pretty certain you know close to nothing about the internal politics of Exilition.

Because I have never spoken to you in PA, I dont know about the internal workings of Exi? That sure makes sense

Originally Posted by Geezer77

Also just another hit at Forest and the rest of the people who still claim Exilition cheat, and this round were using support planets is so far to my knowledge utter BS. I was Head DC for the first half of the round (when the new rule was brought into place) and the only def i used was legitimate members some were out of alliance tag either becuase they were not added yet or were scanners, a legitimate tactic in my eyes as i have done it for numerous rounds myself.

I am sure I actually stated 'cheating accusations aside', and spoke purely on politics. So how it is a hit at myself, I will never know.
That exi used support planets is not actually up for debate, because I know of several personal friends not in exi aliance, who chose to play the round purely to support exi. Some of these have even stated so on the other thread. So I would be careful what you call BS

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And, once again, my main point is that, as yet, eX are still an unproven entity in my eyes.

And the fact 1up have not won a round without blocking alliances and/or planet naps shows that 1up are a proven great alliance. Your logic there is questionable!!

I myself believe 1up have undoubtebly proven that they are the most succesful alliance in the history of PA. The facts state that as 1up have won 3 rounds, 2 in a row. Can;t take anything away from that. Exilition have won 1 round the first that they played and have performed very well so far in the 2nd round they have played going off the stats, and in both the rounds Exilition have played, 1up have been hit hard and taken out of the race for #1 alliance. I don't believe in coincidences that in my eyes proves that Exilition are not an unproven bunch of misfits. But of course if your opinion goes purely on the fact that they have used a number of alliances aid to help them get there place then i must also question 1ups ability.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by noah02

Doesnt surprise me in the slightest tbh exil will doing anything to be number 1 would be to embarrasing not to win the round cheating or not but hey as long as they get warnings for first time offences or first time caught then they will always do things there way.

It's funny watching all this from a very wise all-seeing standpoint.

(Questioning my integrity would now be the lame thing to do)

[lokken]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And, once again, my main point is that, as yet, eX are still an unproven entity in my eyes.

What? Exilition are a full blown strike alliance. Which of 1up/exi are the better i'm not sure.

Those looking at numbers as being the key factor for exilition need to look again.

Being able to tap into others shitness for revenge against 1up is an art and exilition are very good at it. But it's not their fault that there are plenty of people shit enough to hate 1up.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

And the fact 1up have not won a round without blocking alliances and/or planet naps shows that 1up are a proven great alliance. Your logic there is questionable!!

1up remain the only alliance ever to won a round with no allies.

No-one else can claim that.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

My point was that the numbers and capability of countering the exilition block existed, not that 1up, ND and angels were all allied. The fact that you (general you) didn't form this block is irrelevant. It shows that exilition did not block to the point where you physically could not counter them. There were also alliances like tgv and tof who could have been approached.

You're making it far too cut and dried. You are instantly assuming that thes eoptions were there. Do remember that during the war between 1up/Angels/eX, ND decided to have a pretty hefty pop at Angels and vice versa.

ToF have already stated that they wanted nothing to do with 1up and it's my belief (although I no proof further than our incoming pattern) that ToF have been coordinating with eX throughout a good portion of the round.

I totally undestand the theory about what you're saying but I am applying the reality of this round to it.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This was not my point, but I am interested as to how you think they are unproven.

No, but it has been my point from the very start of my posting in this thread.

Unproven is probably the wrong phrase and I can't really think of a better fit. Don't think that I am saying eX aren't a good alliance. They are a superb alliance with great defence and attack capability. But they have also had it very easy in many ways. They've had alliances launch early waves to suck up def, they've had alliances retal defenders and attackers on thier behalf, they've had other alliances defending them. Now this, in my own opinion again, is all well and good when you have 1 or perhaps even 2 alliances providing this kind of support, but we are talking 4 or perhaps even 5. To me this is hedging your bets into as close a no lose situation as possible without creating the silly blocks of rnd 10.5 etc. This is all when and good and part of politics but to me it doesn't single them out as anything other than the strongest alliance in a block.

Like I say, unproven is the wrong phrase. Probably "nothing special" is a better fit.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

My point was that the numbers and capability of countering the exilition block existed, not that 1up, ND and angels were all allied. The fact that you (general you) didn't form this block is irrelevant. It shows that exilition did not block to the point where you physically could not counter them. There were also alliances like tgv and tof who could have been approached.


This was not my point, but I am interested as to how you think they are unproven.

It's all very subjective. I think the principal problem ND have had, is that they approach every player in the game and his cat for one thing or another and the tends to cause offence every now and again.

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Forest

Because I have never spoken to you in PA, I dont know about the internal workings of Exi? That sure makes sense



I am sure I actually stated 'cheating accusations aside', and spoke purely on politics. So how it is a hit at myself, I will never know.
That exi used support planets is not actually up for debate, because I know of several personal friends not in exi aliance, who chose to play the round purely to support exi. Some of these have even stated so on the other thread. So I would be careful what you call BS

My point was, the only people who know what Exilition are doing next round are the few people in command, which as far as i know are unlikely to tell you what the alliance is doing in the upcoming round before it tells it's members. Of course if your going of what other people in Exi are doing next round then thats there choice but i wouldn't say dictates what the alliance is doing as a whole.

And on the cheating accusations, in all the posts i have seen you put on this topic, you have openly expressed you firmly believe Exilition cheat, and have expressed it numerous times to Exi members during previous rounds. I apologise if you have changed your opinion. Those people you claim to have played to openly support Exi, are these people just created one account. That was not cheating when the round started, the people i know in this instance were scanners or players who were friends but couldn't play as actively or were not playing seriously this round. Now are you saying you have in no rounds got defence from friends outside the alliance, or scanners outside the alliance tag. Get real that what i meant by Utter BS.

I still stand by my opinion that as long as i was Head-DC to my knowledge know cheating was used in defence. The rules were changed to try and enforce the alliance tag, so be it. But at the time it was not cheating, and still shouldn't be in my opinion. And those who complain about it now are in my opinion hypocrits as i dought they have never used planets as defence that weren't in there own alliance.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by lokken

What? Exilition are a full blown strike alliance. Which of 1up/exi are the better i'm not sure.

Those looking at numbers as being the key factor for exilition need to look again.

Being able to tap into others shitness for revenge against 1up is an art and exilition are very good at it. But it's not their fault that there are plenty of people shit enough to hate 1up.

And hey, it's not like they've had over double the defence calls of any other alliance in the game.

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Forest

1up remain the only alliance ever to won a round with no allies.

No-one else can claim that.

What round was this??

[bwtmc]

Forest you know you moan about eXilition sitting out R14, you treat it like the command team is more than one person. And you're wrong

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

And the fact 1up have not won a round without blocking alliances and/or planet naps shows that 1up are a proven great alliance. Your logic there is questionable!!

I'm still intrigued why you think taking advantage of a few weak individuals is antyhing like attack and defence coordination between 3/4 alliances?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

What round was this??

Round 11

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

What round was this??

The round in which Sid stated he was happy to see 2 alliances co-operate against us (which did happen on occasions), and he remain unblocked.

This is not something that is debated within pa, it is fact.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Forest you know you moan about eXilition sitting out R14, you treat it like the command team is more than one person. And you're wrong

It really doesn't matter how mnay people it is, exi didnt play as an alliance. That again, is fact.

[bwtmc]

You say that like you have nothing better to offer than facts ;-)

I think it probably does, I don't think Mazz/Zhil/Cayl etc could or would run 1up alone for very long and expect to do it any justice.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

My point was, the only people who know what Exilition are doing next round are the few people in command, which as far as i know are unlikely to tell you what the alliance is doing in the upcoming round before it tells it's members. Of course if your going of what other people in Exi are doing next round then thats there choice but i wouldn't say dictates what the alliance is doing as a whole..

I dont think I remember stating I knew what exi would do next round. Would you care to point it out to me?

Originally Posted by Geezer77

And on the cheating accusations, in all the posts i have seen you put on this topic, you have openly expressed you firmly believe Exilition cheat, and have expressed it numerous times to Exi members during previous rounds. I apologise if you have changed your opinion. Those people you claim to have played to openly support Exi, are these people just created one account. That was not cheating when the round started, the people i know in this instance were scanners or players who were friends but couldn't play as actively or were not playing seriously this round. Now are you saying you have in no rounds got defence from friends outside the alliance, or scanners outside the alliance tag. Get real that what i meant by Utter BS.

No need to apoligise, I didn't change my view that a certain CORE cheat, and that exi as a whole bends the rules.
My point being, that in this thread, in MY posts, I CLEARLY stated I was talking of nothing other than politics. It was you who turned this into an issue of cheating.

Originally Posted by Geezer77

I still stand by my opinion that as long as i was Head-DC to my knowledge know cheating was used in defence. The rules were changed to try and enforce the alliance tag, so be it. But at the time it was not cheating, and still shouldn't be in my opinion. And those who complain about it now are in my opinion hypocrits as i dought they have never used planets as defence that weren't in there own alliance.

It doesnt matter what you think, its what the rules state that counts.

[Geezer77]

In R11 it wasn't a case of a few weak minded individuals it was the majority of the top members in opposing alliances. I had a planet nap myself in R11 for a short period of time untill i broke it due to me having enough with the 5 alliance targetting Mistu for a few nights consistently. You may call that coincidence, i have my doughts.

The planets Naps are in my opinion just as good as alliances if you have alot of the decent players in the top alliances napped, thats alot of ships from numerous alliances not targetting your alliance, plus the fact you stop these planets from defending against retals on certain planets with the threat of mass 1up waves, as i said before you have openly stated a couple of rounds that you thanked the players who were planet napped for you winning the rounds so easily in the end. I fell for the planet nap in the middle of R14 due to my galaxy and my alliance situation, it gave me my highest rank in PA. But it indeed took away the fun of the game, i will not be making that mistake again, although when i have a reason to fight then i will do with all my efforts.

I still question your argument, and i seriously questioned Sids claimed that his alliance didn't block/nap to win. It all goes on a matter of interpretation though, i interpret it different from Sid/Forest and Mazz, guess that my point on that matter.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

You're making it far too cut and dried. You are instantly assuming that thes eoptions were there. Do remember that during the war between 1up/Angels/eX, ND decided to have a pretty hefty pop at Angels and vice versa.

ToF have already stated that they wanted nothing to do with 1up and it's my belief (although I no proof further than our incoming pattern) that ToF have been coordinating with eX throughout a good portion of the round.

I totally undestand the theory about what you're saying but I am applying the reality of this round to it.

I don't think you're quite following. It is fact that exilition's block did not make up over 50% of the active universe's military strength. As such you cannot accuse them of over-blocking. Their "vast numerical advantage" came around to your (general your) inability to organise an effective counter-block.

No, but it has been my point from the very start of my posting in this thread.

Unproven is probably the wrong phrase and I can't really think of a better fit. Don't think that I am saying eX aren't a good alliance. They are a superb alliance with great defence and attack capability. But they have also had it very easy in many ways. They've had alliances launch early waves to suck up def, they've had alliances retal defenders and attackers on thier behalf, they've had other alliances defending them. Now this, in my own opinion again, is all well and good when you have 1 or perhaps even 2 alliances providing this kind of support, but we are talking 4 or perhaps even 5. To me this is hedging your bets into as close a no lose situation as possible without creating the silly blocks of rnd 10.5 etc. This is all when and good and part of politics but to me it doesn't single them out as anything other than the strongest alliance in a block.

Like I say, unproven is the wrong phrase. Probably "nothing special" is a better fit.

One could hardly say it's a no lose scenario when the eventual number one alliance only hits the number one spot five days from the end of round (assuming that they do in fact retain it). It seems like exilition's assessment of everyone's military capabilities was quite on the ball and given constant (in the sense of stable, not non-stop) activity levels and such this was about what they needed to finish as the number one alliance.

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Forest

I am hoping that it certainly does.

Maybe it will prove a point to the community.

Exi walk in, block things up, then leave for a round whilst the other alliances try and do there best to sort things/keep blocking low, then they come back in and do the same all over again.

On further reading of this post i thought you were talking about this round and next. If your post was meant as your description of what happened in R13 then i am sorry i mis-interpreted.

Originally Posted by Forest

It doesnt matter what you think, its what the rules state that counts.

And on this matter i was stating my personal opinon of the rules that were changed mid-round thus possibly changing the way the round was played and faught, controversial to be honest. Plus i could also go on to state that in no way should PA crew of made this rule retrospective to actions taken before it was put into place. How you can punish someone for doing something against a rule that was brought in mid-round when the offence was commited 4 days ago just baffles me (Example). That is like if a law was brought in saying you can;t smoke in pubs or get fined, but you were smoking there 2 days before it was brought into place and so you get fined, Illogical.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think you're quite following. It is fact that exilition's block did not make up over 50% of the active universe's military strength. As such you cannot accuse them of over-blocking. Their "vast numerical advantage" came around to your (general your) inability to organise an effective counter-block.

I follow you perfectly but you're suggesting an impossible scenario. 5 of the top 10 alliances are napped or allied. I believe the alliance in 13th is cooperating with this block and openly stated they would have nothing to do with 1up anyway. TGV openly went to war with SubH and left eX will alone. xVx didn't want anything to do with it. F-Crew, as much as I respect them, (and I truly mean no offence by this) wouldn't make a significant difference becuase of the nature of the way they work. Asking everyone who isn't in the eX block is a superb idea but you can't make them share an agenda they have no real need to get involved in.

Like I say, your theory is faultless but you aren't taking into account what people other than 1up, ND and Angels want to do with thier rounds.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

One could hardly say it's a no lose scenario when the eventual number one alliance only hits the number one spot five days from the end of round (assuming that they do in fact retain it). It seems like exilition's assessment of everyone's military capabilities was quite on the ball and given constant (in the sense of stable, not non-stop) activity levels and such this was about what they needed to finish as the number one alliance.

I didn't say it was a no lose scenario, I said it was close. Just because it's taken them this long to get here doesn't mean it wasn't nailed on. Look at the two alliances who this block has really taken on (assuming that ND stayed out of everything as we know they did until lately) throughout the round. Angels are 35million points behind and 1up are 70 million points behind and both getting left behind further every day. This is fairly conclusive in my opion as to the dominence of this block.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I follow you perfectly but you're suggesting an impossible scenario. 5 of the top 10 alliances are napped or allied. I believe the alliance in 13th is cooperating with this block and openly stated they would have nothing to do with 1up anyway. TGV openly went to war with SubH and left eX will alone. xVx didn't want anything to do with it. F-Crew, as much as I respect them, (and I truly mean no offence by this) wouldn't make a significant difference becuase of the nature of the way they work. Asking everyone who isn't in the eX block is a superb idea but you can't make them share an agenda they have no real need to get involved in.

Like I say, your theory is faultless but you aren't taking into account what people other than 1up, ND and Angels want to do with thier rounds.

Just so but between 1up, ND, Angels and with tgv attacking subh the exilition block is already being hit by them you've pretty much got an equal block right there.

I didn't say it was a no lose scenario, I said it was close. Just because it's taken them this long to get here doesn't mean it wasn't nailed on. Look at the two alliances who this block has really taken on (assuming that ND stayed out of everything as we know they did until lately) throughout the round. Angels are 35million points behind and 1up are 70 million points behind and both getting left behind further every day. This is fairly conclusive in my opion as to the dominence of this block.

I would tend to disagree. A gap of this small size at this point of the round indicates that it was a close run thing. For example if ND had jumped in earlier and hit exilition a bit more maybe things would have turned out different. One alliance changing its targetting slightly earlier affecting the outcome of a round means that the margin for error in their strategic planning was just about right.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Kal

The EULA defines support accounts as follows:

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

I think it is clear that joining in on a fleet catch is unlikely to be covered by this as it is not a repeated action. It is also the case that the said planets are not dedicated to the cause of defending the soecific organisation in question as they are themsleves in an alliance and hence are at least partially dedicated to defending that alliance.

In essence a support planet would be one which in essence allways assits a specific group without being a member of it.

Well to start off i'd take issue with the use of the word of specific in clause (f) which suggests isolated incidents can be a breach of the rule. In fact, that's precisely the effect this rule has, because it stops so called out of tag planets dead. The whole logic of the rule is to stop this beyond 80 members etc. stuff that you said would not be tolerated.

What you are effectively endorsing under this rule is that alliances are welcome to invite other alliances to defend their planets one at a time, which in this game is potentially 240 isolated defences which is a lot at stake. The point i'm trying to make is this: your inconsistent application of this rule prevents 2 defences being sent out of tag, yet allows tens and hundreds which makes the first group seem like a drop in the ocean.

The point is there is the reasoning this rule was put into place, the fact it isn't very clear at all, no one actually knows what the hell it means and to what extent you are willing to apply it. There is masses and masses of conflict - read this thread, no one actually has an idea what is going on with this rule. This rule is madness. Why do you have this rule? To add insult to injury not only have you got an absolutely absurd rule, the application of it is a mystery to most of us.

Whatever you decide in applying this rule is up to you.

But this rule does the game no good whatsoever and next round you should get rid of it, or simply hardcode it so people in tags can't defend or be defended from out of galaxy or out of alliance.

[lokken]

Blocks by their very nature are designed to dominate. To criticise a block for dominating is to criticise a block for serving its purpose. December in planetarion in my view has had little to do with politics.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Just so but between 1up, ND, Angels and with tgv attacking subh the exilition block is already being hit by them you've pretty much got an equal block right there.

Again, you're over simplifying. ND had a huge value and roid advantage over eX and haven't managed to stand up to the onslaught. Coming in earlier would mean the were weaker at the time and it would've been over quicker. You were also talking about relative ability earlier and as much as ND have played thier hand as well as they ever could've this round they simply cannot compete with eX, 1up and Angels on a military level. It's the fact they were left fairly unscathed that allowed them to build a lead in fleet and roids that meant it would even last this long.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I would tend to disagree. A gap of this small size at this point of the round indicates that it was a close run thing. For example if ND had jumped in earlier and hit exilition a bit more maybe things would have turned out different. One alliance changing its targetting slightly earlier affecting the outcome of a round means that the margin for error in their strategic planning was just about right.

I definately disagree. Nd coming in earlier would've meant eX getting further in front far quicker. The last week has proven that, although they have performed admiribly, even with a big roid/value advantage they couldn't cope with being hit the way they have been. Provoking this kind of war earlier woud've just meant more roid gains for eX and co and a much weaked ND in comparison to current state and therefore eX hitting the top quicker.


Evidently these are points on which we aren't going to agree. I do understand your theory but I cannot see a way of making it happen so it's probably better if we agree to disagree. I believe eX winning the round was inevitable with the political scenario they have manouvered themselves into and you believe otherwise. It's definately an subjective point of view so discussing it, as much as I have enjoyed it, has little merit when we know it's no going to reach a conclusion.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lokken

Blocks by their very nature are designed to dominate. To criticise a block for dominating is to criticise a block for serving its purpose. December in planetarion in my view has had little to do with politics.

It wasn't a criticism, it was what I believed to be a statement of fact. To that end the first part of your post has simply underpinned what I've been trying to say; the eX block has dominated and this is why they have won.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Again, you're over simplifying. ND had a huge value and roid advantage over eX and haven't managed to stand up to the onslaught. Coming in earlier would mean the were weaker at the time and it would've been over quicker. You were also talking about relative ability earlier and as much as ND have played thier hand as well as they ever could've this round they simply cannot compete with eX, 1up and Angels on a military level. It's the fact they were left fairly unscathed that allowed them to build a lead in fleet and roids that meant it would even last this long.

True, but equally angels or 1up would have been stronger at that point. Concentrated incoming depriving exilition of the ability to build their fleets up, by virtue of having no roids, would have left them with no way to win the round.

I definately disagree. Nd coming in earlier would've meant eX getting further in front far quicker. The last week has proven that, although they have performed admiribly, even with a big roid/value advantage they couldn't cope with being hit the way they have been. Provoking this kind of war earlier woud've just meant more roid gains for eX and co and a much weaked ND in comparison to current state and therefore eX hitting the top quicker.

Again, in the hypothetical I outlined (or did I even outline or did we just assume I did heh) angels and 1up would also have been involved. I believe ska said earlier in this thread that 1up are mostly just doing gal raids now rather than concentrating on exilition.

Evidently these are points on which we aren't going to agree. I do understand your theory but I cannot see a way of making it happen so it's probably better if we agree to disagree. I believe eX winning the round was inevitable with the political scenario they have manouvered themselves into and you believe otherwise. It's definately an objective point of view so discussing it, as much as I have enjoyed it, has little merit when we know it's no going to reach a conclusion.

Subjective you mean? And I have quite enjoyed it too. It's like being stuck in an elevator trying to argue with someone when all the while you're saying "think unsexy thoughts, think unsexy thoughts" to yourself.






PS probably gay

[jian_yee]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

It was a single alliance running the fleetcatch as far as I know.

nope, it was multiple allies doing the fleet catch.. go check ur intel

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

True, but equally angels or 1up would have been stronger at that point. Concentrated incoming depriving exilition of the ability to build their fleets up, by virtue of having no roids, would have left them with no way to win the round.

Thats all relative to how long it would take eX plus friends to peg a weaker ND back. Unfortunately that is the most hypothetical reasoning of all. If it had been 2/3 days would it have made such a difference?

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Again, in the hypothetical I outlined (or did I even outline or did we just assume I did heh) angels and 1up would also have been involved. I believe ska said earlier in this thread that 1up are mostly just doing gal raids now rather than concentrating on exilition.

Yes, 1up are doing gal raids and the thing that you're missing is that we're having, as any alliance would when not specifically targetting low ratio planets, more success but the non stop atttacking from eX and thier allies is still making it look like we're not up to much. If we were still embroiled in the war then we would be in an even weaker state and therefore even less use to a militant rising against eX than you might think given our current position.

Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood

Subjective you mean? And I have quite enjoyed it too. It's like being stuck in an elevator trying to argue with someone when all the while you're saying "think unsexy thoughts, think unsexy thoughts" to yourself.
PS probably gay

Yes, I did mean that. Now I just feel stupid

I'm not sure if I understand the "unsexy thoughts" bit though. Are you saying you think I'm too hot to argue with?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by jian_yee

nope, it was multiple allies doing the fleet catch.. go check ur intel

tbh I haven't even looked at the parse of the incoming - I simply passed it on to others. I don't think there were any 1up fleets doing the fleetcatch though.

To the best of my knowledge it was ND doing the catching and 1up and Angels doing the retalling but I'll stand corrected if thats not the case.

[Ska]

Originally Posted by Samandmel

People, keep refering to if it was "there Alliance fleetcatch". This wasnt 1 Allaince fleet catch, it was a number of Allainces who must have co-operated to arrage the fleet catch.

Please dont post if you dont know what you are talking about. ONLY ONE ALLIANCE WAS FLEETCATCHING 1:X:3, THERE WERE NOT MULTIPLE ALLIANCES FLEET CATCHING THAT PLANET.

There were multiple alliances involved, but there was no cooperation on single planets.

[bwtmc]

Ah, the guy who thinks it's productive to put detailed in-game information up for Alliance Discussion.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Ah, the guy who thinks it's productive to put detailed in-game information up for Alliance Discussion.

An awful lot of discussion was instigated by that post so I wouldn't say it was unproductive.

[bwtmc]

Yes that was clearly my point.

I wasn't saying that you or me would've had the decency to introduce it in a different manner.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Yes that was clearly my point.

I wasn't saying that you or me would've had the decency to introduce it in a different manner.

Sorry - maybe I'm being dense but I'm ultimately lost in exactly what it is you are trying to say :/

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Thats all relative to how long it would take eX plus friends to peg a weaker ND back. Unfortunately that is the most hypothetical reasoning of all. If it had been 2/3 days would it have made such a difference?

Possibly. But even so that was not my point, just that a single alliance altering their targetting earlier could made a real difference.

Yes, 1up are doing gal raids and the thing that you're missing is that we're having, as any alliance would when not specifically targetting low ratio planets, more success but the non stop atttacking from eX and thier allies is still making it look like we're not up to much. If we were still embroiled in the war then we would be in an even weaker state and therefore even less use to a militant rising against eX than you might think given our current position.

I'm not proposing that you'd be of much use now, I imagine many of your members have gone fairly inactive due to the fact you're not really playing for anything anymore. I would think that angels are in a similar enough situation. My point is that if all three alliances had concentrated on exilition earlier on they would have found it nigh on impossible to get to the number one spot. If at that point in time angels, nd and 1up had all consistently attacked exilition for an extended period of time we would be looking at a very different alliance ranking right now.

I think a lot of HCs really weren't sure how they were going to win this round. They knew who they were facing, they knew what they were capable but they didn't know what to do with this information. Exilition knew what they wanted to do. They identified 1up as their primary threat to winning the round, and angels as the next most difficult opponent. They had an aggressive pro-active approach and knew that this could get them into trouble towards the mid-point of the round. So they had allies who could do enough to keep the heat of potentially three alliances hitting them off, but none of whom would be thinking much about winning the round themselves. Of the top four alliances they had the best gameplan. I just don't think people do enough thinking anymore (if they ever did)

I'm not sure if I understand the "unsexy thoughts" bit though. Are you saying you think I'm too hot to argue with?

By this <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> much.