'Blocks'

[Maddix]

Just realised reading something Eventh said in another thread...why does there always have to be 2 blocks these days? There hasn't been any more than 2 major blocks at any one time since Round 6 - excluding the Rock/Templar/etc tiny ones that didn't make any real difference from Round 7 etc.

Any time there has been (and thinking about it I guess Round 6 is included in this too, so maybe even further back) more than 2 blocks, they have divided themselves into 2 'sides'.

P.S. Yes I am bored etc

[Eventh]

Originally Posted by Maddix

Just realised reading something Eventh said in another thread...why does there always have to be 2 blocks these days? There hasn't been any more than 2 major blocks at any one time since Round 6 - excluding the Rock/Templar/etc tiny ones that didn't make any real difference from Round 7 etc.

Any time there has been (and thinking about it I guess Round 6 is included in this too, so maybe even further back) more than 2 blocks, they have divided themselves into 2 'sides'.

P.S. Yes I am bored etc

I would guess its because of the fear to loose?

[gzambo]

1 side blocks and the others gather together and call them evil and block against them

the eternal struggle between good and evil

[dabult]

It's human nature, and what Eventh said.

[DJet]

excluding the Rock/Templar/etc tiny ones that didn't make any real difference from Round 7 etc


we made more of a differance than some know...

[Maddix]

Originally Posted by gzambo

1 side blocks and the others gather together and call them evil and block against them

the eternal struggle between good and evil

You missed the point. Why two blocks and not 3/4/5 etc?

Originally Posted by DJet

we made more of a differance than some know...

I'd be amazed if you found anyone from the winning block saying "we wouldn't have won without you" or anyone of the losing block who says "we'd have won had it not been for you".

[Hector]

Originally Posted by gzambo

.....the eternal struggle between good and evil.

And who is the good and who the evil?

[Maddix]

Originally Posted by Hector

And who is the good and who the evil?

Obviously Legion and Fury are teh evil!!!112

[G.K Zhukov]

Maybe becouse most of those who call themselfs "HC" have no clue about politics?

[JonnyBGood]

Viewed in terms of basic probability it's a 50/50 shot of winning as opposed to a one in three shot of finishing on the winning side. Other considerations enter into it, if one group assembled 40% of the effective combat power of the remaining planetarion alliances the remainder would almost be forced by default to ally in some sense. This is hardly a new phenomenon though that has only arisen in the last couple of rounds. It's just become more apparent due to the fact that one war has a massive affect on the way the game develops.(You could compare it to real life where country A is slightly more powerful than B and less powerful than C, but after it defeats B it has the resources available to defeat C, which effectively forces C to act). The nature of PA now as a zero-sum game is due mostly to the decreased size of the memberbase, or the relatively increased power of alliances.

[Intruder]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Viewed in terms of basic probability it's a 50/50 shot of winning as opposed to a one in three shot of finishing on the winning side. Other considerations enter into it, if one group assembled 40% of the effective combat power of the remaining planetarion alliances the remainder would almost be forced by default to ally in some sense. This is hardly a new phenomenon though that has only arisen in the last couple of rounds. It's just become more apparent due to the fact that one war has a massive affect on the way the game develops.(You could compare it to real life where country A is slightly more powerful than B and less powerful than C, but after it defeats B it has the resources available to defeat C, which effectively forces C to act). The nature of PA now as a zero-sum game is due mostly to the decreased size of the memberbase, or the relatively increased power of alliances.

Unh, thats correct...

[DJet]

Originally Posted by Maddix

I'd be amazed if you found anyone from the winning block saying "we wouldn't have won without you" or anyone of the losing block who says "we'd have won had it not been for you".

Aye, because we always joinned the side that was lossing, we're not spineless and just jump on the winning bandwagon...

[RealJames]

Originally Posted by Maddix

Obviously Legion and Fury are teh evil!!!112

[K-W]

Its human nature of course. It happens in real life too. It is the predictable outcome of rational people playing a game with these rules.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by K-W

Its human nature of course. It happens in real life too. It is the predictable outcome of rational people playing a game with these rules.

On this basis, I pronounce the HC of Deus Ex Machina Sub-Human

[Sven]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The nature of PA now as a zero-sum game is due mostly to the decreased size of the memberbase, or the relatively increased power of alliances.

Sort of interrelated dont ya htink?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sven

Sort of interrelated dont ya htink?

Why I put them like that heh. Decline in the playerbase led to the increase of the power of alliances (in general as I understand fury and legion were often almost better run before p2p, although that's probably just comparative).

[K-W]

Originally Posted by lokken

On this basis, I pronounce the HC of Deus Ex Machina Sub-Human

Deus Ex Machina didnt buck this system. They simply switched sides in a polar conflict. In that round there was a always a 1 on 1 battle, the sides just changed during it.

[lokken]

It's the closest you will get to be honest - at least everyone was trying to out do each other politically even if it wasn't necessarily reflected in combat (which was very polar indeed)

[K-W]

I think the combat will always be polar or at least moving towards polar. THats not the problem. Blocks arent the problem. The problem is when alliances cease acting like alliances and start acting like wings of a block. Then you basically just end up with two entitites fighting, so when on dies the game is over. Thats what the problem always was. If only every alliance had simply played for themselves only, and instead of trying not to lose tried to win, we wouldnt have needed a deus to act the part of alliances being independent of blocks.

The trend of any amount of combat will be clumping. The question is, does the clump change when circumstances change and being in a particular clump is no longer in the best interests of an alliance if that alliance will accept nothing less than total victory. If only PA had been played like that.

[Forest]

Alliance 1 gets an ally.

Allance 2 gets an ally to combat alliance 1.

Alliance 1 worries alliance 2 is too strong and gets another ally.

Alliance 2 thinks alliance 1 is too striong and gets another ally.

Alliance 1 worries alliance 2 is too strong and gets another ally.

Alliance 2 thinks alliance 1 is too striong and gets another ally.

Alliance 1 worries alliance 2 is too strong and gets another ally.

Alliance 2 thinks alliance 1 is too striong and gets another ally.

Anyone standing alone is going to certainly die, so they HAVE to get aliles, who are strong enough to protect them, and as Alliance 1 v Alliance 2 has all strong alliances, they ahve to join one or the other :snowman:

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Hector

And who is the good and who the evil?

depends of which side of the war u are on

[Nadar]

EET is evil

[Eventh]

Originally Posted by Nadar

EET is evil

TEENHH is evuler

[RealJames]

Despite being Fury in R6 and having a hard time for most of the round (but still finishing t250) I found R6 politically more interesting. I only wish I'd been more senior at the time so I could have participated in the politics a bit more.

As was said before, it's much like picking sides for playground football these days.

[Tomkat]

I think it's strange how it always seems to go back and forth...
We'll count Eclipse as Fury, for arguments sake (because it makes my logic look better)

r6 fury lost
r7 fury won
r8 fury lost
r9 eclipse win
r9.5 eclipse lost(ish)
r10 we were always destined to win

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by RealJames

Despite being Fury in R6 and having a hard time for most of the round (but still finishing t250) I found R6 politically more interesting. I only wish I'd been more senior at the time so I could have participated in the politics a bit more.

As was said before, it's much like picking sides for playground football these days.

ffs

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

ffs

explain.

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Nadar

EET is evil

like i said depends on where u are standing

[TheACE]

That is the game, face it.

We shouldnt try to change that.

/me loves politics

[Colt]

Many HC's dont the balls to remain alone or when one 'block' has 3allies n there 'block' has 2allies, they feelt the need to add more, like Forest said. If they were as '1337' as they claimed to be, they wouldnt need to, as there military prowess would be superior, but guess they cant stand that there might be a chance that they wont win shocker

3 Block wars would be interesting tho, pity we dont get them. 4 would be even more fun

[K-W]

Originally Posted by Colt

Many HC's dont the balls to remain alone or when one 'block' has 3allies n there 'block' has 2allies, they feelt the need to add more, like Forest said. If they were as '1337' as they claimed to be, they wouldnt need to, as there military prowess would be superior, but guess they cant stand that there might be a chance that they wont win shocker

3 Block wars would be interesting tho, pity we dont get them. 4 would be even more fun

How many rounds will this game have to go before stubborn people like yourself deal with the fact that war in PA will always be 2 sided or moving towards a two sided situation. It has nothing to do with HC "balls" and isnt even bad for the game.

[Eventh]

Originally Posted by K-W

How many rounds will this game have to go before stubborn people like yourself deal with the fact that war in PA will always be 2 sided or moving towards a two sided situation. It has nothing to do with HC "balls" and isnt even bad for the game.

Weetnarfz VS vvomm wasnt bad for the game?

[auther pendragon]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I think it's strange how it always seems to go back and forth...
We'll count Eclipse as Fury, for arguments sake (because it makes my logic look better)

r6 fury lost
r7 fury won
r8 fury lost
r9 eclipse win
r9.5 eclipse lost(ish)
r10 we were always destined to win

eclipse isnt fury

[auther pendragon]

some people have been on 3 sides (hello heartless an crew)

next round there may be enuff ppl left to form 1/4 alliance blocks

[K-W]

Originally Posted by Eventh

Weetnarfz VS vvomm wasnt bad for the game?

You are absolutely missing the point. Having 2 sides is NOT bad for the game. Having two sides that act like 2 cohesive entities IS bad for the game. As long as the individual allainces act selfishly and independently, the 2 sides should change in thier makeup during the round as conditions change.

The problem in Planetarion has always been that alliances ally, feel a sense of loyalty to thier allies and a sense of hatred towards thier enemies, and basically turn a block into what for all effects and purposes is one giant alliance. So you end up with two giant alliances. That is indeed bad for the game. The funny thing is that often the people who enforce such loyalty and hatred are the same people who do most of the whining and accusing blocked allainces of being cowards.

The alliance is stuck in an odd PR situation. If they act selfish, they are seen as disloyal and they take a PR beating. If they stay in a block they are seen as cowards and take a PR beating. So, either way they are going to come out looking bad, they then tend to decide to stay in the block, in the hopes that at least that group will be viable for use in the coming rounds. The alliance that breaks out on its own is punished by finding itself out in the cold later and chastised for being disloyal.

The sooner we cut out this silly moralizing that shadows the actual causes of things, the sooner we could actually have a planetarion with more fluid politics. The fact is that blocks, like alliances are the inherent structure of this game, and are not in themselves bad. By simply blaming them and jumping to the silly conclusion that its just that everyone but you is a coward, you end up reinforcing the status quo.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by K-W

The sooner we cut out this silly moralizing that shadows the actual causes of things, the sooner we could actually have a planetarion with more fluid politics. The fact is that blocks, like alliances are the inherent structure of this game, and are not in themselves bad. By simply blaming them and jumping to the silly conclusion that its just that everyone but you is a coward, you end up reinforcing the status quo.

Totally agree. The presence of supposed morality as anything bar a tool to get people to fight harder for your alliance so you can **** them over later is a horrible attribute of the way the game developed. Right now I think I might cry if eclipse don't try and screw over elysium to add a bit of excitement to the end of the round :(

[Razorback]

@ Jonny:
if it was r7 i would agree just that nowadays ppl have no more interest to play PaX on any side. There is no more greed involved and nothing more to gain for the single player, just everyone wishes that this farce of a round is over asap with whoever ends first.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Razorback

@ Jonny:
if it was r7 i would agree just that nowadays ppl have no more interest to play PaX on any side. There is no more greed involved and nothing more to gain for the single player, just everyone wishes that this farce of a round is over asap with whoever ends first.

Yeah I suppose so. PA has been tending towards "I play purely for the community and my friends" for a while now. While that's nice and all it totally removes the excitement from the game, plus people don't tell others about this great, fantastically competitive game ruled by these two alliances whose members never sleep. Maybe next round if it goes free and we get a decent influx of new players we'll get a little bit of this back in the game. Certainly going by a cosmically just system PA deserves a stroke of good fortune.

[Razorback]

it depends on many factors and alot of fortune.
Something i sensed during this round (might be wrong) there is a lack of "doers" in this community aswell, every alliance i saw had a big lack of officers or hc who still could be bothered. This status was completely independed from the ranking of the alliance but i remember in r3-4 the alliances could actually "pick" from many willing ppl and not had to take what comes across. Same goes ofc with the general playerstatus.
Maybe (and thats just my personal view) pa is just overdue. Time over game over maybe. maybe...

[JonnyBGood]

Personally I think it's to do with a decline in general quality of the average internet user. Maybe I'm being horribly biased having played online games since I was 15 or whatever but trying to have a conversation with some people is impossible. It's an endless series of utterly crap jokes and complaints about hurting someone's feelings. You might be right about the quality of the alliance playerbase but then that could just be due to the shrinking playerbase and alliances needing to recruit less dedicated players to provide the necessary flak/cover to fight effectively. Certainly considering the user base in r4 was probably 80k (players) and now it's down to 2k one would expect in terms of pure maths that there would be about 2% of the dedicated alliance members that there once was. Just that back then the relative chaff weren't recruited into alliances. Pay-to-play just warped this effect as the "dedicated" players all paid for accounts. Eventually as they quit and weren't replaced in the same ratio we returned to normal though. Certainly I think if you look at r7-r8-r9-r9.5-r10 the decline in alliance quality is evident. As a game PA will either have to offer something new and totally different or become the best example of a tried and trusted concept. Are the players who PA once appealed to still out there though? Difficult question to answer right now.

[auther pendragon]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Time over game over maybe. maybe...

about right m8 i think we went past the full circle

It isnt about deciding decide wether to play for yourself, your galmates, or your alliance mates to offer your best for any more. An increasing number of people I speak to dont know why the hell they are still playing and in the end decide its only because of one of the former that they still bother logging on.

hope that makes sense (probably not)

the dynamics of this round have made things worse. in previous rounds you grew proportionally at an increasing ratio(until you ran out of targets) in this round you reach 6k roids 60 finance centres and thats your limit so even the better players run out of much incentive to do much more. ts sort of like a n00b friendly round which only the hardcore plays.

[K-W]

The thing is, with the lessened quality of alliances, there is a decent reason to hope that if indeed PA were made free, a new group of players could come in and make an immediate impact on things and really shake the politics out of a rut.

But I dont imagine freeness is ever going to work again. A completely free universe with the old stuff pooped out might even convince me to get a planet again.

[lokken]

This game needs new players with new life, new drive and they'll develop in time the same capability as all the old dinosaurs have had in the past.

The game is probably less past it than those who still play and those who could but don't want to.

No one except maybe LDK from r7 onwards has shown a real desire and intent to actually try and take a win.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

r9.5 eclipse lost(ish)

ish?

[Scouse]

Originally Posted by lokken

No one except maybe LDK from r7 onwards has shown a real desire and intent to actually try and take a win.

Yeah, because alliances used to always try and take the win, completely for themselves, before round 7, right?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

ish?

It was hardly a landslide victory for LDK.

I know many of Eclipse still had commendable sized planets, myself included.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by lokken

No one except maybe LDK from r7 onwards has shown a real desire and intent to actually try and take a win.

that's bull m8, this round there are atleast 3 alliances that went for the win. Not cause you're one of the oldies that you can look down on these past few rounds m8. I played since r1 aswell, I know the history more then well, and I don't see the value of your statement. Why did previous alliances play more for the win then currently?

rgds Kj