An Announcement and a Proposal

[MotoX]

Nice to have you back Sid (as if that was a surprise), Liked you’re”block solution” hope it comes thru.

And w00t ever you say we still gone refer this new allie as a new born Fury concept!

btw, are you going to take in and teach new players how to handle themselves in here or
are you “handpicking” back the old gard?

[K-W]

Battle groups are crap. The only reason they existed was the watering down of alliances. Battle groups are an alliance by a different game and they were never indespensible or even very good. People just didnt want to give up thier old alliances, but still wanted to join a new energized alliance with thier friends, so they called the new alliance a battle group.

A good alliance means that a player has absolutely no need or use for a battle group. Battle groups are a part of and an enfrocer of stagnated blocks and no serious alliance should allow thier members to be in one.

[K-W]

Oh and good luck and everything.

[Lupin]

any information of who is in the high command?!

[Sevrok]

if it can be guarentied no blocking will occur i would agree to the same turns as those laid down by 1up, for my alliance which will be playing under our new name Lupine Crux next round!

[Colt]

hmm, dunno Lupin, although looking at the ppl with ops in their chan (if thats anything to go by) then it looks distinctly Ex-Fury

Anyhow, gl and everything, hope it works out for you ;p

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Colt

Fury

Who?

[Colt]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Who?

That occupation of yours

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Colt

That occupation of yours

erm.......it's a erm......


bah - found out :/

[Colt]

/me is the clever!

[General Martok]

Originally Posted by Lupin

any information of who is in the high command?!

[16:18:13] (MSG) (Vir) so Synthetic_Sid whats the line up of your command team if you don't mind me asking & positions do they hold
[16:18:30] (MSG) (@Synthetic_Sid) It's not fixed in stone yet
[16:18:46] (MSG) (@Synthetic_Sid) Some people still have to decide whether they're playing or not
[16:18:59] (MSG) (Assassin) in that case u dont have a shot Vir
[16:19:05] (MSG) (Vir) lmao
[16:19:16] (MSG) (@Synthetic_Sid) having ops here right now doesn't mean that person's HC - it just means they can recommend new members
[16:19:30] (MSG) (@Synthetic_Sid) as it means i 100% trust them

[Lupin]

still not the answer to the question but thanks.

[General Martok]

edited it a bit, might be more clear now.

[Cayl]

Lupin - here's the command structure with Job Titles so far

Sid = Sid
Ghengis = Cayl
Cayl = Zhil
Zhil = mazzellar
Cryptic = Killghost

Hope that helps

--Cayl

[Sevrok]

i would love for fury to come back in any form, we have some unfinished buisness to sort out! i never did pay them back for tearing my alliance apart with lies the first time it existed and now i have a comand structure in place and recruits signing on the dotted line! any comand with a majority of ex furry members has a war on their hands next round!

[Cayl]

Sevrok -

Several things to go over here.

Point A : You are a total newb who has been plastering every thread with his newbieness whilst trying to bluff your way as a seasoned veteran. I hope no actual players are suckered into following you.

Point B: I think its been pretty well established that any imagined grudge you have against Fury or Legion or whoever is not based in any kind of fact, but has taken form wholly inside your deranged head.

Point C: 1up is not Fury.

Point D: Holding grudges from one round to the next much less over 10 rounds is a major cause of the political stagnation that has taken hold of this game. People should see each round as a clearing of the board, and start fresh, making and breaking agreements based on their desirability from a strategic standpoint. Petty vengeance can serve no truly useful purpose in keeping this game fun (and alive).

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Lupin - here's the command structure with Job Titles so far

Sid = Sid
Ghengis = Cayl
Cayl = Zhil
Zhil = mazzellar
Cryptic = Killghost

Hope that helps

--Cayl

alright thanks.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Lupin - here's the command structure with Job Titles so far

Sid = Sid
Ghengis = Cayl
Cayl = Zhil
Zhil = mazzellar
Cryptic = Killghost

Hope that helps

--Cayl

demoted already

[tauric]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Sevrok -

Point D: Holding grudges from one round to the next much less over 10 rounds is a major cause of the political stagnation that has taken hold of this game. People should see each round as a clearing of the board, and start fresh, making and breaking agreements based on their desirability from a strategic standpoint. Petty vengeance can serve no truly useful purpose in keeping this game fun (and alive).

hohoho, any alliance can declare war on 1up from day one and for whatever reason.

Its a nice thought do, two alliances declare war on 1up, Sid considers them blockers, and all other alliances attack them. Nice hidden agenda Strategy Sid.

[Cayl]

I have faith in our ability to handle any two alliances currently in the game. If 3+ alliances of a given quality started gunning for 1up, I think they would be perfectly justified in rallying support and *poof* You have the blocking you always wanted.

And its hardly a hidden agenda, Sid made it perfectly clear that we want and expect to excel at a free-for-all round.

[Cochese]

All we need now is Minty.

He's apparently "ginger".

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Cochese

All we need now is Minty.

He's apparently "ginger".

I think blonde would be more appropriate.

[ronnie]

good luck to you

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Bashar

I think blonde would be more appropriate.

strawberry?

[Remy]

hehe, i knew it you was planning something.

Welcome back indeed!

[gzambo]

just a thought but if there are private gals next rd how will u fill them , will they be members only or will a gal shareing deal exist with another alliance (they call it blocking these days i think )


Ps good luvk with ur new alliance they are admirable goals that u have set for ur selves

PPS u do realise that everyone will call u guys fury regardless of how many times u deny it

[Cayl]

Early indications strongly suggest that there will be random galaxies next round. As such our planning is going in that. I would suggest that other alliances plan for the same until an official announcement contradicts this.

When we were Fury, people called us everything but Fury (Furry, Furby, Those !@#%ing !@#%ers, etc). Any individual member who is ex-Fury will of course be proud of their heritage, but we have a lot of our former rivals joined up already. Its important to keep in mind that 1up has different goals than Fury did, and a different means of achieving ultimate victory.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Cayl

I have faith in our ability to handle any two alliances currently in the game. If 3+ alliances of a given quality started gunning for 1up, I think they would be perfectly justified in rallying support and *poof* You have the blocking you always wanted.

that's called arrogance Cayl, then again I very well know the meaning of that word heh.

and no, you cannot take on 2 "any" alliances in the game. Then again I'm biassed and so are you so this isn't really a decent discussion

[Cayl]

If everyone agreed on who was the best alliance, who was the second best alliance, and so on, there wouldn't be any point in playing, we could save our five bucks and perhaps save our marriages/jobs/grades or whatever

I'm looking forward to finding out who's right.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Cayl

If everyone agreed on who was the best alliance, who was the second best alliance, and so on, there wouldn't be any point in playing, we could save our five bucks and perhaps save our marriages/jobs/grades or whatever

I'm looking forward to finding out who's right.

I didn't say you couldn't take on FAnG, maybe next round will give more clarifications for that as we're looking forward to play with/against a new yes decent alliance.

But saying stuff like, we could take on 2 alliances this round, no matter which is abit arrogant. And you might have all the experience and former Fury glory with you guys, it doesn't pay off this round. Fact is, you're probably good players who have alot of experience in politics and alliance business, but so have other alliances and other pple ...

A little arrogance is ok, but atleast do it in a round yer playing, it's easy to judge over things that happened and make claims cause we all know there's no way to check whether it'd be right or not.

nway, goodnight m8, will only reply tomorrow morning

till then

[Cayl]

Alright, if you would like the full clarification. Based on our best knowledge of currently existing alliances, and based on the assumption that all members of said alliances will be starting off more or less on equal footing at the beginning of round 11, and ignoring alliances which may yet come to be, my best assessment of our ability is that we could achieve victory in round 11 if the best two of those alliances formed a partnership against us.

I'm not saying that we could take Round 1 Concordium/RE, I'm not saying we could take Round 4 Legion/Xanadu, and I'm not saying we could take Round 10.5 FaNG/MISTU, because frankly thats the past, and your butt whipping is in the future.

[gzambo]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Early indications strongly suggest that there will be random galaxies next round. As such our planning is going in that. I would suggest that other alliances plan for the same until an official announcement contradicts this.

.

ever considered a career in politics
but back to the question if they decide on private gals will u be sharing gals or will they be pure 1up gals (hypothetically of course)

[Vaio]

Where do I sign up ?

Vaio

[Cayl]

Well Gzambo, in this regard I wouldn't want to speculate officially, so what follows is my own personal opinion.

And that is that it would be a strategic weakness for us to gather all of our members into a few galaxies.

It would also be problematic for us to have agreements with other alliances specifically working out private galaxies.

So my best guess is that we would probably allow our members to largely pick their own galaxies, which we would hope include members from a wide variety of alliances.

I could be wrong though.


And Vaio, look in #public on Netgamers

[Vaio]

I'm there in spirit now but exhausted. I'll try and be a little coherrent tomorrow

thanx for the info

Vaio

[[Graham]]

good one more alliance it seems to kick fang ass in line

even if you havent declared war or anything.

if fang don't block they will crash and burn, they do not know how to function as an alliance without the block to back them up.

[K-W]

/me goes and cries because sid doesnt trust him


Stopping stagnation blocking isnt nearly as hard as some people seem to make it out to be. Its pretty simple. Every alliance simply plays to try and win the game. The fact of the matter is that if everyone plays to win, everyone has a chance to win. Only through blocking and subjugation to we end up with a round that can only be won by the two alliances who dominate thier respective blocks. The traditional PA system is not only destructive, its stupid.

Due to grudges and fear you had the entire universe playing for the benefit of 2-3 alliances.

Also. If we can completely destroy the old block system, it would allow us to bring inter-alliance politics back into the game in a healthy matter. But we have to get rid of the old ways first.

[Heartless]

Welcome to the game 1Up.

I wish you guys a nice round 11 and given the faces I have seen in #public I am damn sure you will put up a nice game, and I hope there will also be new blood inside the game, not just old players returning; so far I have only seen a Fury-returns-smaller-and-with-a-new-name from the first look, but I'd be more than happy to be corrected on that point.

About your proposal, Sid:
It is one which is made every round, yet it failed every round. I am not going to speak for my alliance now, but personally I think it depends a lot on Round 11 details. Will there be private or random galaxies? What will the alliance limit be? - and so on. At least for the second question it looks like nothing will change from what Phil told me when I asked (actually interesting where you and cayl know all these things you claim to know from).
Also your proposal raises another question: What about temporary blocking to take down a certain alliance? It usually happens that at a certain point the #2-#5 team up to take down the #1.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I didn't say you couldn't take on FAnG, maybe next round will give more clarifications for that as we're looking forward to play with/against a new yes decent alliance.

But saying stuff like, we could take on 2 alliances this round, no matter which is abit arrogant. And you might have all the experience and former Fury glory with you guys, it doesn't pay off this round. Fact is, you're probably good players who have alot of experience in politics and alliance business, but so have other alliances and other pple ...

A little arrogance is ok, but atleast do it in a round yer playing, it's easy to judge over things that happened and make claims cause we all know there's no way to check whether it'd be right or not.

nway, goodnight m8, will only reply tomorrow morning

till then

Shut up.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Well Gzambo, in this regard I wouldn't want to speculate officially, so what follows is my own personal opinion.

And that is that it would be a strategic weakness for us to gather all of our members into a few galaxies.

It would also be problematic for us to have agreements with other alliances specifically working out private galaxies.

So my best guess is that we would probably allow our members to largely pick their own galaxies, which we would hope include members from a wide variety of alliances.

I could be wrong though.

Cayl I share your personal view there. Strategically it is the most clever one if you do not decide to block and to play for your alliance, whilst you try to rally your galaxy mates to put their galaxy over their alliance. Leads to a nice attempt in weakening the other alliances in some cases and therefore trying to gain a bonus. But then again, could we call it indirect blocking because the people in those galaxies would receive arbiter protection most likely? Questions over questions.
Only my 5 personal cents and thumbs up for that plan

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Welcome to the game 1Up.

I wish you guys a nice round 11 and given the faces I have seen in #public I am damn sure you will put up a nice game, and I hope there will also be new blood inside the game, not just old players returning; so far I have only seen a Fury-returns-smaller-and-with-a-new-name from the first look, but I'd be more than happy to be corrected on that point. .

What do you expect us to do? Whip new people into the game? Whilst I would love to help new people into the game I seriously doubt 1up will have the resources/manpower to run any kind of recruitment programme to teach them. Also, with alliance limits being reduced for next round I honestly can't see it as a possibility for r11. (who knows for future rounds?)

Additionally there are people joining 1up who were not Fury beforehand. And as Sid stated, the command staff are not set in stone - the ops are ppl who Sid trusts. Considering the close contact Sid has had with ex-Fury members, I think its rather obvious those he had close contact with before are those he trusts explicitly.

For my part, I will seek to provide the mentor programme with advise and look to the future of 1up in helping new players into the game. That is all I can do

Originally Posted by Heartless

About your proposal, Sid:
It is one which is made every round, yet it failed every round. I am not going to speak for my alliance now, but personally I think it depends a lot on Round 11 details. Will there be private or random galaxies? What will the alliance limit be? - and so on. At least for the second question it looks like nothing will change from what Phil told me when I asked (actually interesting where you and cayl know all these things you claim to know from).
Also your proposal raises another question: What about temporary blocking to take down a certain alliance? It usually happens that at a certain point the #2-#5 team up to take down the #1.

Sid is a position to know more about r11 than many other people currently on the boards (even you and myself). Whilst nothing is set in stone yet, private galaxies for the last few rounds have only served to show that the wars end much much quicker. The only reason r9 got any resembelence of fun was due to the fact there were 3 wars and many more alliances than there are today. Getting rid of private galaxies would remove one factor of blocking. What Sid is suggesting will remove another factor that supports blocking. (i.e the fear of being ganged up against). The alliance limit is definately being reduced. I doubt it will be reduced below 50 however. As for your last question, its entirely plausible for two weaker alliances to join forces to take on a stronger alliance. If it keeps competition within the game, I dont see a problem with it - especially if the two alliances do not stick together afterwards. Imagine a game of MissionRisk, everyone backstabs eachother in that. There are no "comfort" zones in it. You HAVE to make only temporary agreements.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

What do you expect us to do? Whip new people into the game? Whilst I would love to help new people into the game I seriously doubt 1up will have the resources/manpower to run any kind of recruitment programme to teach them. Also, with alliance limits being reduced for next round I honestly can't see it as a possibility for r11. (who knows for future rounds?)

Additionally there are people joining 1up who were not Fury beforehand. And as Sid stated, the command staff are not set in stone - the ops are ppl who Sid trusts. Considering the close contact Sid has had with ex-Fury members, I think its rather obvious those he had close contact with before are those he trusts explicitly.

For my part, I will seek to provide the mentor programme with advise and look to the future of 1up in helping new players into the game. That is all I can do



Sid is a position to know more about r11 than many other people currently on the boards (even you and myself). Whilst nothing is set in stone yet, private galaxies for the last few rounds have only served to show that the wars end much much quicker. The only reason r9 got any resembelence of fun was due to the fact there were 3 wars and many more alliances than there are today. Getting rid of private galaxies would remove one factor of blocking. What Sid is suggesting will remove another factor that supports blocking. (i.e the fear of being ganged up against). The alliance limit is definately being reduced. I doubt it will be reduced below 50 however. As for your last question, its entirely plausible for two weaker alliances to join forces to take on a stronger alliance. If it keeps competition within the game, I dont see a problem with it - especially if the two alliances do not stick together afterwards. Imagine a game of MissionRisk, everyone backstabs eachother in that. There are no "comfort" zones in it. You HAVE to make only temporary agreements.

So basically, Zhil, 1Up has an advantage above everyone else, given one of its HC's is involved in some kind of Round 11 planning, therefore they can already go and structure themselves, outline strategies and everything.

Anyways, I am not disagreeing on your major points that a certain form of blocking leads to stagnation and what are reasons for it and how they can be solved - I just need to refer to the one chat on NetGamers we had a while ago.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Rumad

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

by the time i was vsn hc we didnt allow people to be in other bgs than in our alliance bgs, im sure there still were some in bgs - but we tried atleast and it was a serious task for me.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

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

one of the few things i agree with you ;-)

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Heartless

So basically, Zhil, 1Up has an advantage above everyone else, given one of its HC's is involved in some kind of Round 11 planning, therefore they can already go and structure themselves, outline strategies and everything.

That would be a legitimate concern if FAnG did not also have a HC involved in round 11 planning.

So, its not a legitimate concern.

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Heartless

So basically, Zhil, 1Up has an advantage above everyone else, given one of its HC's is involved in some kind of Round 11 planning, therefore they can already go and structure themselves, outline strategies and everything.

Also - you could say 1Up has one up on everyone else. Your wit let me down.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Also - you could say 1Up has one up on everyone else. Your wit let me down.

MY sig damn you, my sig

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

That would be a legitimate concern if FAnG did not also have a HC involved in round 11 planning.

So, its not a legitimate concern.

I don't see a FAnG HC being involved into Round 11 planning.
Neither LB, nor Irvine nor me have been asked to present a representant or anything.
You mean alch and Kal? Well, they haven't said a single word about round 11 (which I respect), they haven't said they'd be testing at all actually, and they are not HC's.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I don't see a FAnG HC being involved into Round 11 planning.
Neither LB, nor Irvine nor me have been asked to present a representant or anything.
You mean alch and Kal? Well, they haven't said a single word about round 11 (which I respect), they haven't said they'd be testing at all actually, and they are not HC's.

Neither has Sid told 1up.

Fact is, you're complaining that Sid is involved and you aren't. Grow up. The reason Sid is involved is due to the fact he was wanted to be involved. He hasnt used such a thing to his advantage by revealing all the details to 1up members. Most he has told us is the same as he has said on the boards here.

Also, I know alot of alliances have access to a seperate alliance board on these forums. Something Sid doesnt (afaik).

[CrazyConrad]

Welcome back Sid and good luck