Alliance ethics?

[Narcissius]

I have played this game in the early rounds and was a member of IPC which had a honour code I rejoined last round and now play this round allianceless 'cause I dont have time to be in one.

Im one of those who now try to play this game for fun. When I attack I try to leave the planet almost as fit as before I stole some roids, so that they continue playing this game and have a bit of fun. Im in a 260+ galaxy and since I am the biggest planet in the gal and since im a cat I recently have gotten some income from people in top 100 galaxies. I know that these gals are usually controlled by the biggest alliances

What is the diffrence from the other attackers is that these players usually sends lot of structurekillers which people in "normal size" galaxies normaly dont send with its attacking fleet

In my view are structurekillers good for alliance wars or in major quarrels but that should also be the only reason to use them. I am a "normal" PA player, that means that I maybe check my planet 2-3 times a day and sometimes I dont check it at all This means that I dont have so many structures Until 5 days ago I had 43 and now after I made a scorejump and got all these incomings I have about 10 Some says that they use it 'cause it improves the score and some says nothing. I dont have problems with people attacking me and steal my roids and ships but its really demoralizing that people use this against us small "normal" players. Players that dont have a lot of time to build structures in the first place, players that make this game running (yes i have a paid account) Players that might not play more rounds 'cause the bashing seems endless

My questions are do the diffrent alliances have any ethics on this or do you just dont give a ...?

[Razorback]

the game is not just about "roids" anymore. You also get score for killing structures and ships.

This means that even with alot of roids you can be "behind" in score to someone who sees more battles but has a lower income.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Razorback

the game is not just about "roids" anymore. You also get score for killing structures and ships.

No you don't.

You get XP for capping roids only, and nothing for killing structures.
There is a dicsussion on planetarion suggestions about it, but if they brnig xp for structures, the game will simply die.

[TheRat]

I must say I fully agree with you. Theres nothing more anoying than getting your structures bashed (except getting fleetcought by 40 planets/3 alliances perhaps ), and there is absolutely no gain in killing structures. Its use is to cripple enemy planets, and as such should not be used in "nub bashing".

-TheRat

[Treveler]

I only bring along struction killers if I attack a known hostile planet as they work great as a motivation killer.

If I just attack for roids I leave them at home unless they are needed as flak.

[Narcissius]

Maybe its a misunderstanding that you get score for destroying structures, and probably its not the top alliance planets that uses it, but people (randoms) that end up in big allianceprotected gals. Maybe you should post a thread in your gals so that people know that structurekillers dont give you higher score. 'cause it doesnt does it?

[Hicks]

Hmm I quite like the idea of being able to destroy structures, maybe I'm just nasty though.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Hmm I quite like the idea of being able to destroy structures, maybe I'm just nasty though.

i know you would say that.
You would even want to destroy structures while you defend, you nasty british person !

[rshih]

Struct killing is hella fun =(
Now I get covopped by the ppl that I've struct killed . They kill like 2 of my structs compared to like the 15+ I kill of theirs o_O

[Cayl]

Structure Killing n00bs who build mines is counter productive. Those mines lead to roid initiation which then starts sending those rocks up the food-chain of alliances until they end up in 1up.

Structure killing non-friendly amps, distorters, or security centers is just a matter of prudence as there is no up-side to leaving those sitting around where they might eventually be used against you.

Besides blowing things up is part of what this is all about. If you just want to shuffle asteroids around, then the game is nothing more than Space Checkers.



And one last comment, never ever expect to be taken seriously by suggesting that any alliance at any time in history should be in any way like IPC. You got lucky this time

[Cayl]

And one further comment:

I barely played this game this round and I have the full 150 structures. I set Construction to priority 1, and tried to make 5 minutes available once every 4-8 hours and ended up doing pretty well.

Point being that your whole setup story doesn't really make sense. You don't have that many constructions because you don't care, not because you don't have time. Don't start caring suddenly now that they're gone.

[agrokid]

The difference being Cayl that you are 1up, and therefore if hit normally get defense. Therefore you have been able to keep your 150 structures and have not needed to put other things to priority 1 like for instance mining because you can easily keep your roids.
When your in lesser alliances or even no alliance defense is more sparse and therefore your structures go as fast as your roids.
Anyway thats just my opinion.

[Tis]

bah, i doubt anyone in 1up would defend his lazy arse :/

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Cayl

...

And one last comment, never ever expect to be taken seriously by suggesting that any alliance at any time in history should be in any way like IPC. You got lucky this time

Unlike 1up IPC actually did something usefull to this game. They have a history to be proud of.

[Forest]

Gerbie,

What exactly did IPC do for the game? They were just 'there'.

And 1up has been good for the game, whatever way u look at it, they ahve helped break up the blocking syndrome, over the past two rounds.

/me would personally like to openly block as many alliances as possible in r13, just to show we can win however the stage is set, but alas, I doubt that will happen.

[jerome]

I am a structure killing planet. Though I only attack wave distorter whores. Only real purpose for str. killing, practically is if targ has lots of res & you kill his factories etcetc

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Forest

Gerbie,

What exactly did IPC do for the game? They were just 'there'.

They helped train a lot of new players and made them enjoy this game.

And 1up has been good for the game, whatever way u look at it, they ahve helped break up the blocking syndrome, over the past two rounds.



/me would personally like to openly block as many alliances as possible in r13, just to show we can win however the stage is set, but alas, I doubt that will happen.

So this round has no blocks, all thanks to 1up?

[jerome]

"they have helped break"

note the "helped". Though I personally, amongst the majority too I`d say, believe we have helped the most. Facts support this. Unlike most/all of your claims.

Don`t put words in his mouth please.

Originally Posted by Gerbie

made them enjoy this game.

You think people in 1up don`t enjoy our games? What the hell do you think we are, we aren`t robotic nor emotionless, just because smaller/newber/crappier/whatever alliances claim to be "fun-only" alliances doesn`t mean the top alliances don`t aim for fun either, just that part of our fun comes from winning.


The rest from clowning about on irc or amusing ourselves on AD. Like the sad bastards we are.

[Forest]

Gerbie, did u miss the fact that a large percentage of 1up last round was completely new players who had never played pa before?

And yes, dont put words in my mouth.
!up came along at a time when someone was needed, and HELPED break things up.
And all the other alliances ahve been amazing these past two rounds also.

When did we last see a round, where a week from the end, ppl were still declaring war on each other, and the round hadnt been fully decided?

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Forest

Gerbie, did u miss the fact that a large percentage of 1up last round was completely new players who had never played pa before?

Aparantly I did. How large a percentage was it? 30%? 40%?

And yes, dont put words in my mouth.
!up came along at a time when someone was needed, and HELPED break things up.
And all the other alliances ahve been amazing these past two rounds also.

When did we last see a round, where a week from the end, ppl were still declaring war on each other, and the round hadnt been fully decided?

Nothing is broken up.

Do you honestly believe things have not been decided yet?

[Forest]

30% i think it was, which is idd a high percentage.

And by broken up, i meant, the big unstoppable blocks such as fang/mistu/phrak etc

[rnd|One]

Originally Posted by Forest

Gerbie, did u miss the fact that a large percentage of 1up last round was completely new players who had never played pa before?

Don't you mean players whom had never played paX before, but were familiar with pa?

[Hicks]

For the record 1up took a fairly sizeable number of new planets from a game called Dark Galaxy, they were active although none of them had ever played Planetarion before. It wasn't quite 30% but it was in the region of 20 planets. A far higher percentage than any other alliance took.

One of the largest forces in stopping blocks in the last two rounds has been 1up, blocks were already being formed when Sid posted and said 1up wouldn't block, by coming out and saying they wouldn't (Even though 1up could have built an uber block) 1up in effect removed the need for other alliances to build counter weights, it removed the element of fear which is the primary reason for blocking. However, they are by no means the only reason for the absence of power blocks, there were prevailing changes in attitudes caused by the disaster that was Round 10.5 however whether this and other factors would have forced the absence of power blocks without 1up is something that can only be speculated about. What Jerome said is quite accurate, I'm unsure why you'd even bother trying to twist his words when he couldn't have posted more frankly, he's also quite correct, 1up have been very influential in preventing power blocks and they have in my opinion been the catalyst for two very fun rounds.

As for this round I still don't think it's totally decided, if LCH weren't so inept and maybe forced their top planets to attack 1up they could bring them down, unfortunately it looks like their happy to sit there and say accept 2nd place with two top 5 planets who refuse to engage in the war. It's rather pathetic that alliances would prefer to be the bridesmaid and not the bride as Mistu proved earlier in the round and LCH are proving now/

For the record IPC for the record were a dreadful alliance, they have nothing to be proud of, they had years and years to get things right and never managed it, their argument that it was a community alliance was flawed (Alliances that are successful aren't communities er ? Nor was IPCs community special) as was their argument that they trained new players (They never really made a concerted effort to recruit newbies as alliances like SiN have, IPC always attempted to recruit second rate yet experienced players) as much as people try and argue it IPC was a failure devoid of any organisational skills which betrayed the original aims it set out with in Round 1 (Don't worry I won't expect you to have a clue what these are Gerbie). The blame for all this can be laid squarely at the door of Keystroke who managed to run IPC into the ground.

Frankly Gerbie you are a dreadful poster, every post I read by you is riddled with errors and poor attempts at twisting people's words. Your knowledge of the game past and present seems to have been largely composed of biased opinions you've heard on IRC and is riddled with more holes than a cheese grater, seriously get a life and get a clue before posting more of your drivel.

[AzureWrath]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Frankly Gerbie you are a dreadful poster,

i think he posts just to get attention

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Hicks

you are a dreadful poster, every post I read by you is riddled with errors and poor attempts at twisting people's words. Your knowledge of the game past and present seems to have been largely composed of biased opinions you've heard on IRC and is riddled with more holes than a cheese grater, seriously get a life and get a clue before posting more of your drivel.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Hicks

One of the largest forces in stopping blocks in the last two rounds has been 1up, blocks were already being formed when Sid posted and said 1up wouldn't block, by coming out and saying they wouldn't (Even though 1up could have built an uber block) 1up in effect removed the need for other alliances to build counter weights, it removed the element of fear which is the primary reason for blocking. However, they are by no means the only reason for the absence of power blocks, there were prevailing changes in attitudes caused by the disaster that was Round 10.5 however whether this and other factors would have forced the absence of power blocks without 1up is something that can only be speculated about. What Jerome said is quite accurate, I'm unsure why you'd even bother trying to twist his words when he couldn't have posted more frankly, he's also quite correct, 1up have been very influential in preventing power blocks and they have in my opinion been the catalyst for two very fun rounds.hey never really made a concerted effort to recruit newbies as alliances like SiN have, IPC always attempted to recruit second rate yet experienced players) as much as people try and argue it IPC was a failure devoid of any organisational skills which betrayed the original aims it set out with in Round 1 (Don't worry I won't expect you to have a clue what these are Gerbie). The blame for all this can be laid squarely at the door of Keystroke who managed to run IPC into the ground.

to some extent that is right, but did they really stop blocking as it where. What were faced with now is these so called 'naps' which basically is a new word for blocks?

[Narcissius]

Jezzes! Howcome every thread tend to end up in a pro et contra 1up? I have nothing against 1up nor do I mean that all alliances should be like IPC [edit: was intended to] 'cause then we all live in harmony and thats not what PA is for is it?

My point was this you big guys cant really imagine how it is to be down there (1000+ player) For your information there are 4000 registered planets, taking away the multis and not active it probably at least 3000 people that play this game That means its 2000 people that play this game without beeing in a big alliance My intention with this post is not just to whine 'cause whats done is done, but to point a finger to a problem that you might not recognize

When I think more about it I guess that the biggest problem is not the big alliance players but the randoms that you harbour in your gals. I think that you have a responsebility to give them info (like killing structures dont give you higer score) or maybe make a thread in your forum saying that since we harbour you you have to follow some ethical guidelines (like you dont bash people near the 40% limit in small gals back to the stoneage)

For the record since some people question my dedication to this I think its a better accomplisment to be a mill planet in a 4- 5 mill gal than to be a 3 mill in a 20- 25 mill gal Putting constructions at my main priority (I have it 2nd) would be counterproductive since my mines get destroyed so I have mining as my first pri And you cant really mean that all people that play PA should take is as seriously as some do I just read the thread about who thinks Syd messed up their life and I feel sorry for them Lastly, I wouldnt make this thread if i didnt care would I?

[MegaNova]

I have to agree with Narcissus, my gal has a value of 6.3mil and i get attacked by the randoms from the bigger gals who are around 1mil, and loosing roids is one thing, but loosing 25% of your structures each time aswell is very very annoying for those small roids you loose.

[cypher]

well the way i see it personally

the 'smaller' random players in big gals won't make a really good score so they play for fun a bit... meaning they try to really kill off others, seeing as no matter how you put it... structure killing or killing ships is fun for most pa players... else you're prolly in the wrong game.

so if it's giving them fun there aint much to do about it really, and i don't think those randoms think it gives score. personally the randoms in my gal either kinda know how to play the game or don't at all and ask me questions when they need help, i don't have time to teach them everything and tell them about every part of the game and how to be nicer to other players etc etc etc. and they don't wanna listen to it, so how do you suggest we should tell them?

[Narcissius]

You can tell them that if you do bash a small planet in a small gal back to the stoneage we wont defend you if he and hes smallish gal retal That would at least make it more fun he he Another point is that since your logo often are in the galimage you get a bad reputation for beein an alliance that bash smallbees

[cypher]

haha so cuz my galmate uses structure killers on enemies? (yes anyone not in my alliance/gal is a potential enemy) i won't defend him? that's kinda silly......

and i can hardly see how it would affect my alliance if a random guy in my gal sends some structure killers somewhere...

[Alki]

ur missing the point, he is talking about, speaking to randoms in the gal, teaching them, giving advise, telling them they are fortunate enough to of landed in a good gal and ease them off using structure killers if they wish to attack noobs.

yes it may not affect ur alliance, but it affects the game and future players.

[Cayl]

Last round, I rarely defended the small players in my galaxy anyway. If they couldn't be arsed to make it on IRC and say hi now and again, they were welcome to play their own way and defend themselves. The mere presence of 3 top 30 planets seemed to dissuade most attacks on them however.

I did get some 1up defence at the beginning that helped save a few of my constructions, then they booted me out to make room for some people who'd actually play Thats when I built a good chunk of distorters to dissuade the random attacks. Most people who can scan me have the resources of a dedicated alliance to draw on, and would be after bigger fish anyway. I haven't been attacked in quite some time, and my galaxy score hasn't broken 10 million yet.

If you want to play alone, thats fine, nobody's telling you you're unwelcome here. Playing with an alliance is really just how Planetarion is meant to be played. I don't think that changes should be made to tailor the game who want to play it solo, and I don't think that alliances much care about people who play on their own. They quickly fall below the 40% and make zero difference in round politics. As you say, its the random, barely an alliance or other solo types who are causing you the grief. Very few of these take orders from their big galaxy mates or the other alliances.

And I have no interest in seeing 1up spout out bald-faced exaggerations as propaganda. Nobody believes we had 30-40% brand new players last round because thats bollocks. We had maybe 50% players who'd never played PaX, including two HC, but were plenty familiar with Planetarion.

We did recruit some good active brand new people out of Dark Galaxy. I don't remember how many because only about 4 made it to the last part of the round, and I'm not sure that I've seen any still in 1up. (I'm not around very much and may have missed one or two).

And Gerbie, I hate to even seem to agree with you, but IPC did have at least one tiny impact on the game. If IPC wasn't around, Pop Krispey wouldn't have brought me to Planetarion r1 ("Come join my alliance Cayl!"), and I wouldn't have landed in Sid's cluster. However Pop quickly realized that between IPC and c7r/Fury, there wasn't really much of a decision to make, and was a good alliance mate in r2.

[macros69]

I just want to say a few things about structure destroying

1: When it comes to alliances structure killing should be allowed with nobody having a whine. A saying comes to mind in this instance All is fair In Love And War

2: If you attack a person purely for fun with no alliance ties and you send your structure destroyers your a dick in my book. However they are in the game for a reason so people should be able to use them without getting people whining at them. Hell if someone destroys your structures organise retal on them with gal mates or just mates in general thats fair but dont send them a message like "oh you destroyed my structures i think your a dick bla bla bla." either do something about it or shut the **** up.

3: Structure destroying in Information Black-out in covert - ops is perfectly fine. If you you want to do some sort of scan but they are to well protected - knock yourself out. Hell you don't know how good their security is and if it fails hell you might get F'ed up the A

but that is my feelings on the whole structure destroying business

[Neferti]

i'm somewhat sick of all you people bashing IPC when you were never in it. I enjoyed my time (about 2 years... round 6 to round 10.5 when we folded) in IPC more than any other alliance. Only ND comes close, and by modern standards ND is a 'good' alliance...

IPC players had fun. Why do you care how good we were?

And actually we had a couple of decent rounds. We didnt do too badly in rounds 9 and 9.5. Not saying we were a major force but we attacked well enough and our def system was decent. To be entirely honest, i think IPC in round 9 was about as good as ND is now. No offense to ND - though others will not take it this way i mean it as a compliment.

[The_Fish]

Offence is taken.

At its worst, ND was miles ahead of IPC.

[Forest]

I WAS in ipc so nah nah. It was r9, and it sucked.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Nor was IPCs community special) as was their argument that they trained new players (They never really made a concerted effort to recruit newbies as alliances like SiN have, IPC always attempted to recruit second rate yet experienced players) as much as people try and argue it IPC was a failure devoid of any organisational skills which betrayed the original aims it set out with in Round 1 (Don't worry I won't expect you to have a clue what these are Gerbie).

This has piqued my interest. As far as I recall (this would be about r2) IPC's big goal concerned not bashing and attacking "bashing planets". Do you think that IPC betrayed these goals or are there a different set of which I am unaware?

[Chika]

For the record, I was a noobie for about 6-7 rounds. Bashed to bits all of them. I still play. Its about if you like the game or not and want to do better. All of these people wanting big players to kiss thier bums can stfu. I was farmed by guild in cluster in round 6, ended the round 1mil score with like 200 roids. This is when i first started to take the game serious. i didn't whine to anyone about losing roids etc. Farmed by Wp in round 10. Like 3 waves per night the same planets. i had under 1000 roids. I didn't make a post about it, asking for people to let up. You have to know this is a game. Some people win some lose. You have to make a choice. Start being one of the winners, be a loser, have fun, quit. When i was getting bashed, I choose to have fun. After a while i chose to win. Stop whinning. it part of the game to lose structures. And its fun to kill someones structures. Why? Cause they get mad. Its a game. deal with it.

Also, ipc did idd recruit alot of noobs. that is also where I learned to play the game. So in their defence, I have to support thier community, noobie rasing alliance. Thanks.

[Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This has piqued my interest. As far as I recall (this would be about r2) IPC's big goal concerned not bashing and attacking "bashing planets". Do you think that IPC betrayed these goals or are there a different set of which I am unaware?

IPC's original aims were as you say to protect smaller planets, discourage bashing and bash back planets who were engaged in it, this was fine up until Round 3 when the game began to change and most of the original founders left IPC. The alliance then took a different direction and became Keystrokes pawn, he foolishly threw the alliance into a suicide run on Sid in which most of the top IPC planets were either killed or left the alliance in disgust, which is a shame as up until this point IPC still had a number of players worth caring about. This left IPC with pretty much a clean slate, Keystroke proceeded to rebuilt IPC his own way but he failed to rebuild it in the same way as the original IPC was set out to be, all he kept were their empty words, he built a second rate alliance with no principals as opposed to a second rate alliance which tried to make a difference.

For IPC to keep continuity with what it originally set out to do it needed to evolve as the game evolved, by Round 4 the traditional newbie bashing (Single late night hits again and again) was receding as a problem and IPC needed to retain relevance no longer were single hits on the offending planet an option, the obvious move would be for IPC to become more involved in the bigger picture perhaps heading up a block of the smaller alliances attempting to push against the bigger alliances on both sides while they were busy with one another, more realistically IPC could have been organising rival parallel alliances (In parallels where they were strong) of the galaxies the big alliances cast out, even where they weren't strong many of the alternative parallel alliances had significant command talent and with a little selective recruitment IPC could have tapped this. However IPC itself lacked the command talent to do this, actually that's not entirely true, they did have the talent but they were usually forced out by Keystroke the moment they had any success. Instead of doing anything to make a difference IPC fought a senseless war with a newbie alliance called Hive after Keystroke was attacked, IPC predictably lost, happily the main reason being Hive had actually managed to organise several parallel alliances of outcast galaxies in parallels where they had a heavy presence, I seem to remember a set piece IPC attack on Hive HC was easily blunted and a fair number of IPC ships were lost, they pretty much surrendered after that and decided not to fight wars anymore.

This left IPC stuck with no where to go, they retreated from the main stage and newbie bashing was hardly a problem anymore yet IPC were still preaching the same empty rhetoric laid down by Irons, Zeus et all, even where there were still instances IPC were doing nothing about it, hell even trying to attack a big alliance galaxy even with no chance of success would have been something. IPC simply behaved as any other small alliance would do, running galaxy raids on small galaxies committing many of the sins they claimed to be against themselves.

Now this wouldn’t be a problem for me plenty of alliances fail, it's no mark of shame my problem with IPC is the way they try and pretend they were something more noble than the other average alliances out there, IPC post Round 3 were just any other second rate alliance, their community wasn’t special and nor were their principals, the only thing mildly exciting about IPC was their HC who pretended to be a girl on IRC and cybered her way to an IPC HC position before coming out as a guy.

ND also were always far ahead of IPC, SL were far ahead of IPC, anyone who had access to IPC channels in R3 can confirm that as could people like Hardball who served on both sides of the line. From what I’ve heard about ND this round IPC would be no where near their league. Why do people care about how good you were ? Possibly because large numbers of people like to bring IPC up as if they really did stand for some great and good ideal or abided by half the principals they claimed to believe in.

[lokken]

A far superior method (than what IPC proposed) is to indeed recruit near newbies, and make them into solid or better alliance players who know what they're doing, who hopefully know how to behave and how alliance politics/the game in general works.

BlueTuba in r3 built its membership on that policy, and I'd like to think it served us well in the following rounds that we had hardened players who wouldn't throw in the towel at the first opportunity and who were able to walk into most top alliances the moment we disbanded.

ND are performing very well this round, our position belies our performance on the basis we've been so heavily targetted, as people think they're too shit to go for 1up properly.

[wakey]

And once again we get the likes of Hicks and Forest being total twats who think they have some god given right to sneer at others. Yes alliances like IPC werent when up there with the top alliances when your looking at things like effiency and success ect ect BUT as Gerbie said they were doing alot for this game while most other alliances were ultimatly doing alot of damage outside of their own communities. I'm sure Hicks or Forest will pipe up with the "We brought many players into the game and gave many people a reason to stay" and while that may be right lets be honest how many players did the underhand tactics that these alliances used drive away. I think your find it outnumbers the amount they brought in/kept. Its improved a bit recently and i'll certainly give 1up alot of praise for helping break blocks up its just a shame most of their members have such an inflated ego that sees them devaluing everyone elses acheivements in the game.

IPC stuck to playing the game with some ethics and morals, they may have changed a little over time BUT unlike 99% of alliances they didnt completly disregard their beliefs simply to have it eaisier and have more success. They took the hard route and trust me it is alot harder doing what they are doing because an ethical alliance simply cant compete with a unethical one who will do anything to win, made even harder by the fact that most players want success and will drop an alliance at the first chance to move up. Your find that the likes of IPC lose the majority of their players each round with only the core staying put (ok you may keep a few new members but even core members drop out from time to time so basically any retained members just replace lost core members) which makes advancing hard as all your ever doing is training up the next batch of players for those above you. While the end product is rewarding its intially disheartening and just keeping going each round is a major achievement for these people.

As a closing line all i have to say is your not the only people in this game and just because others may not be playing the same way as you or have the same score doesnt make them anyless important and you need to learn to show those who decide to play differently some respect otherwise please stfu

[Hicks]

Speaking of second rate alliance why don't you tell us how you beat WaC again Wakey ? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The problem with your whole post is that IPC didn't really stick to playing the game like that, they evolved into any other second tier alliance, they behaved as all the other second tier alliances, IPC are no more deserving of recognition than Rock or GLX, the only basis people seem to have to think otherwise is something that a bunch of long retired players said in Round 1 largely motivated by self interest it must be added. To be honest people posting on AD that IPC was anything like their ideals need to get a clue, they were long abandoned before most of you got Internet access let alone stumbled upon Planetarion.

[Chika]

Well, Hicks is right in a sense. Openly IPC did not stress these goals, nor did they act on them intentionally. I think it was all mistake in a way, at least from the point of veiw I had. But mistake or goal, they did have a nice community, and they did help me learn the game, and structure etc. From my point of view at the time, which was a noobs point of view. You start at the bottom in PA, IPC was my bottom. I would start there again if i had to. publically they did stink, but in essence they helped alot of people.
I hope Forest is lying about being there in round 9 also. Even I had moved on by that point.

[Hicks]

I'd imagine Forest had similar motivations to me when I was there, a relatively experienced wanting to help newer/smaller players, unfortunately this aim wasn't usually compatible with Keystroke's ego.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Hicks

the obvious move would be for IPC to become more involved in the bigger picture perhaps heading up a block of the smaller alliances attempting to push against the bigger alliances on both sides while they were busy with one another

Idiot, if you knew anything IPC did this. The problem was a block of smaller alliances especially when your an alliance with ethics is difficult to achieve anything with. After all whats the key goal of block, its to make you larger and ultimatly stronger than your rivals so you can 'terrorise' them with the threat of being destroyed which goes as far away from IPC's original goals as is possible. At that point they may as well just become another Random Big alliance whos only care is themselves and not the game. IPC and F-Crew were forced to make their block a rather toothless one which was only really any use as an additional defence source for the alliances involved. The only way it really could achived anything would have been to get so many alliances involved that the combined score would have eclipsed those of the rest of the blocks and that would have been doomed to fail anyway as we all know that when blocks are concerned its a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". Each alliance added to a block means it becomes less efficient due to more people involved in decisions, differnt pov from each alliance ect. We would have been forced to be looking at something like 10 alliances atleast which would have been a nightmare (it was hard enough with IPC, F-Crew, OPA in one round and IPC, F-Crew, NV and LOST because while we were simerlar in goals we each had out own take on it)

A block of smaller ethical alliances which can complete is simply a pipe dream that simply isnt substainable long term, ICD probally came closest to achieving it but most of their success came after they stopped being a 'block' and became one alliance (and ICD's success at a block generally came in r2 and r3 when blocking wasnt really something that everyone was doing so the block advantage for them was an advantage)

[Hicks]

Idiot, if you knew anything IPC did this.

Really ? What was this mythical block they were in ? I maintained accounts in IPC from when I left in mid Round 3 up until the end of Round 7 when I stopped playing as actively, if I remember correctly Keystroke actually went to the police at one point when he found out I had an officer level account in IPC, apparently obtaining an account of their site under false pretences was going to land me in quite some bother. The two "blocks" that stick out in my memory are the aforementioned suicide run that IPC was pulled into and that useless #common-ground channel that was shared with F Crew and some other no name alliance which was barely used. By smaller alliances I meant someone with slightly more credibility than F Crew.

That isn't the main goal of a block, blocks are actually built out of quite the opposite emotion, fear, the only place they've been built to sow terror into the hearts of men is in your head. In Round 4 especially IPC could have done quite well maintaining either a small well organised block making targeted attacks while VeX and Fury/Wolfpack were busy with one another or by controlling parallel alliances. Fine maybe they'd have both ended in failure but at least it would be a failure that would be remembered, a failure stemming from fighting back and taking it to the big alliances which is what IPC should have been about. Instead all IPC had was a failure from not having the balls to do anything and the blame for all this can be laid squarely at the door of Keystroke and the cronies he had on IPC HC.

Oh God - 18 [F-Crew] - Still trying :laugh:

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by wakey

total twats who think they have some god given right to sneer at others.

Funny thats the first line in the Encyclopedia Planetaria when you look up IPC.

My disregard for IPC stems from its round 1 and 2 incarnations. They were annoying and arrogant and thought everyone should play the game their way (ok that sounds familiar, but here's where we diverge) They had very little actual success in the game to back up their theory of how Planetarion life should be. When they had principles they had a bit of my respect for presenting a different type of alliance, but they were a joke when they tried to throw ultimatums around to influence politics of the first tier alliances, and I laughed.

BUT unlike 99% of alliances they didnt completly disregard their beliefs simply to have it eaisier and have more success.

Right you are wakey. Nobody's quite sure WHY they disregarded their beliefs but it certainly didn't make them more successful when they did. IPC beyond r3 ranks up there with cluster alliances as far as registering any kind of memorable activity in my mind, and I don't remember some of their leadership, but I do remember that it was that crowd who had the ear of PATeam and preached some of the most damning policy decisions to ever be inflicted on a game from round 2 through maybe 5ish.

Anyway, remember, my original comment is that nobody should assert that an alliance should be like IPC.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Speaking of second rate alliance why don't you tell us how you beat WaC again Wakey ? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Except I never said that, the likes of you just like picking removing random words from things people say to give you an excuse to slag them off. What I did say was that we felt we had the beating of them (backed up by the fact that we were doing more damage to them than they were doing to us, plus the fact that when they arranged really big attacks on us such as the attack on oter we were able to match them ship for ship) and if legion and the fence sitters, sorry i mean fury (hey why should i show fury any respect when their members dont do the same, like them i'll just pick a few bad points and ignore anything they did well, although admittedly while i think this fence sitting was a little gutless it was also kind of smart) hadnt decided to take advantage of the various command problems that legion leaving and other events we we sure we would have had WaC in a situation where they werent a major threat to our survival anymore.

Ofc you will probally find a way of twisting this like you lot always do with my posts

Originally Posted by Hicks

The problem with your whole post is that IPC didn't really stick to playing the game like that, they evolved into any other second tier alliance, they behaved as all the other second tier alliances, IPC are no more deserving of recognition than Rock or GLX, the only basis people seem to have to think otherwise is something that a bunch of long retired players said in Round 1 largely motivated by self interest it must be added. To be honest people posting on AD that IPC was anything like their ideals need to get a clue, they were long abandoned before most of you got Internet access let alone stumbled upon Planetarion.

Ideals change for all alliances over time just like the game changes IPC's however changed alot less than most alliances do. I mean just look at 1up, they came into the game with the ideal of not blocking and to take out any alliance who did YET half way through the round what poped up on these forums? Yes a thread by sid himself stating that 1up were planning to block because they had heard rumours others were about to, and he seemed to make it clear this wasnt the tempory type of block that sid had stated in his mission statement which stated the only block they would join would be the one of all alliances to force the block to disband. So perhaps you shouldnt be so quick to start preaching about changing of goals and ideals.

[Neferti]

sorry to go back to my ND comment but i have to say having experienced how things are run at officer level from the inside, IPC were at least as good as ND was last round... though things i do admit seem to be slightly better. Though at the HC level i have to admit IPC wasn't particularly good... in round 10 the HC quit before the officers did (which was bad). and by quit i dont mean they went a bit inactive - i mean they ALL virtually dissapeared altogether.

And insulting an alliance for its round 1-2 members when an alliance lasts 12 rounds seems a bit silly to me, sorry.

I still don't get why people can't get over the fact that a lot of IPC members managed to have this shocking thing called 'fun' playing Planetarion. Perhaps you're all jealous