What Should Be Considered As Blocking

[Heartless]

Blocking, defined as "2 or more alliances cooperating."

Let's give this the ultimate piss then:

- Creating Recruitment Wings will be considered as blocking
- Napping is of course considered as blocking
- Splitting your alliance into two or more parts is considered as blocking
- Granting planetary protection to people not in your alliance will be considered as blocking
- Setting up a multiple-alliance attack at any point is blocking, even without further agreements, cooperating in any kind will be considered blocking, thus we dont want it in the game.
- anyone who attacks the same planet from different alliances in waves, purposefully or accidental, is blocking
- helping someone not in your alliance is definately blocking, he is not part of your alliance, so you are not there to care for him
- defending anyone from another alliance is considered blocking, even defending your gal mates

Anything else which can be seen as blocking?
Not coming up with anything else right, but I am sure everyone will agree with this, no?

I think nobody wants blocks, no?

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I think nobody wants blocks, no?

Why?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by xtothez

Why?

Only Sid and me not wanting blocks anymore then?

[Barrow|Pony]

Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).


Bringing new meaning to the term 'swiss cheese argument'.

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Only Sid and me not wanting blocks anymore then?

It was short for "Why bother making this thread?".

[Gerbie]

I think most alliances want to stop overblocking. However all alliances want different things.

Some smaller alliances want to co-operate, so they can set up decent attacks. Some medium alliance want to be able to hit top gals. Big alliances want to split their alliance or form a 2nd alliance used as recruitment alliance. Some alliances will want to co-operate after a while to take down the alliance that is too strong. Some alliances want to make sure Fury3 won't get too strong. Others want to teach FAnG a lesson. And ofc there will be loads of (false) blocking accusations.

You'll never get all to agree on a limit that will work for everyone.

[The_Fish]

Fluid blocks = the win.

Blocks = good, overblocking = lame.

[K-W]

A block is any grouping of alliances. The alliances block together to increase thier power. The problem is that of the many blocks weve seen in PA over the rounds, a large portion of them have been permanant blocks. Which basically means one giant alliance. This permanant blocking has driven rounds into the dirt because the larger the functional groups in a round the faster the round will generlly be decided.

If every planet acted alone, it would be an incredibally long round. If it was just galaxies it would be a long round. Just alliances would probably produce the kind of round weve tried to have before. Unchanging blocks often creates 2 week rounds.

[fuz]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).


Bringing new meaning to the term 'swiss cheese argument'.

No further replies to Heartless needed i guess

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Heartless

- defending anyone from another alliance is considered blocking, even defending your gal mates

i understand your reasoning, but as long as there are universe rankings of gals, people will need to be allowed to defend their galm8s.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Heartless

- Creating Recruitment Wings will be considered as blocking

As long as we're refering to multiple ingame alliances, I agree. Having a recruitment wing that either is not in any ingame alliance or in the main alliance is fine (imho).

- Napping is of course considered as blocking

Of course.

- Splitting your alliance into two or more parts is considered as blocking

Agreed.

- Granting planetary protection to people not in your alliance will be considered as blocking

I disagree to an extent here. There are valid reasons for it this in some cases, but planetary protection is more often folly than gainful, so I don't see why one should care.

- Setting up a multiple-alliance attack at any point is blocking, even without further agreements, cooperating in any kind will be considered blocking, thus we dont want it in the game.

I strongly disagree. The only way to dislodge a superpower is to join up against them. Now, granted, continual cooperation is obviously blocking, but if the fluidity of the game can be maintained then surely it is positive?

- anyone who attacks the same planet from different alliances in waves, purposefully or accidental, is blocking

I'm not sure I understand this one. Do you mean that if a planet is launched upon by multiple alliances by accident, then those alliances are blocked? If so you'll have blocking from the moment people can attack. It's a tiny universe, there's a finite set of worthy targets.

- helping someone not in your alliance is definately blocking, he is not part of your alliance, so you are not there to care for him

Yes, let's not have friends!

- defending anyone from another alliance is considered blocking, even defending your gal mates

Idiot.

Anything else which can be seen as blocking?

In my opinion any longterm (more than 2-3 days) agreement between alliances on a command level is blocking. It doesn't have to be official, people falling into a habit of contacting the same people to organize larger attacks can easily form blocks by mistake (as it were).

Not coming up with anything else right, but I am sure everyone will agree with this, no?

Are you on crack?

I think nobody wants blocks, no?

To be honest, there are many pitfalls with blocks, but in essence I don't see a problem with them. The problem is with the sycophants more willing to be lackeys than victors. A lack of arrogance on the part of allies to the major players if you will. Very much of PA alliance politics is simply smoke and mirrors. Speaking from personal experience people viewing their own alliances as 'not nearly good enough to match battle with X' (X being some badass alliance) have often seen their alliance crumble and their players go on to commanding (either literally, or merely by way of large planets) positions in great alliances. Fear is the mindkiller, to steal an overused saying.

Within the blocking paradigm, you can easily make your alliance best by having no fear, no respect for names and a willingness to piss on anyone. Hell, you can get by with fear as long as you don't show it in public. Make sure your members believe you when you say 'we can take them'. An excellent example of this mindset can be seen in Xanadu, who while only winning 1 round, entered every round thereafter prepared to crush their enemies.

But obviously it's easier to remove the blocking paradigm and instead play PA without proper blocks as you suggest. Trying to agree on some set standards for what a block is will prove very difficult. Again, fear is a central factor. I remember from previous rounds that rumors that two alliances were discussing cooperations could lead those alliances together.

Perhaps next time you figure out someone is blocking, instead of running to AD and shouting 'they're blocking!', you might ask 'is what they're doing harmful? Is it blocking?' The problem with the heavy anti-blocking attitude that we have often seen on AD in past rounds is that it leads to blocks. Again, two alliances fearing other alliances are planning on working together band together only to find that they in fact started the first block.

</rant>

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Banned

I strongly disagree. The only way to dislodge a superpower is to join up against them. Now, granted, continual cooperation is obviously blocking, but if the fluidity of the game can be maintained then surely it is positive?

The moment a group of alliances band together to take down a super power blocking has started. In fact the moment 2 or more alliances start talks of getting together to take down a super power blocking has started. What do you expect the big guy to do? Sit back and take it with no try to counter block? Please. Blocking starts with the first pm from one alliance to another discussing getting together to attack some other alliance

Fear is the mindkiller, to steal an overused saying.

Not fear but mistrust. PA is rampant with cheaters and liars. and an alliance would be foolish not to guard its side door.

Perhaps next time you figure out someone is blocking, instead of running to AD and shouting 'they're blocking!', you might ask 'is what they're doing harmful? Is it blocking?' The problem with the heavy anti-blocking attitude that we have often seen on AD in past rounds is that it leads to blocks. Again, two alliances fearing other alliances are planning on working together band together only to find that they in fact started the first block.

</rant>

In utopia people will ask themselves 'is what they're doing harmful? Is it blocking?' In the real world we surround ourselves with others. Name a major war in the past 100 years that blocking hasnt occured in some manner? This is a war game. I hope my alliance starts the first block. In r/l i know i fear getting into a fight without my buddies around. Not that im afraid that ill lose the fight, but fear of getting sucker punched by one of his buddies while fighting the first one. Blocking is human nature my man.

[Razorback]

Heartless in another non-funny trolling shocker.
Learn that not every topic is worth making a thread about.

[Tomkat]

Blocks are ok if there are a few of them.

For instance, say we had 10 alliances playing. And each alliance paired off. So we had 5 blocks, of 2 alliances each (2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2). I think that would be allowable - it would make the game just as interesting. It's when the blocks start to cooperate with each other, that the game becomes boring and stagnation sets in.

[Stealth]

The probability of getting every alliance to agree on such a public forum is extremely small. To do this effectively, you need to speak with HC's who want part in it directly. In any case, a lot of your points aren't very well thought out, as a lot of people have begun pointing out.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Stealth

In any case, a lot of your points aren't very well thought out, as a lot of people have begun pointing out.

Who are you talking to?

[ParraCida]

A block would be a force strong enough to take on the rest of the universe, if the said universe would not be organized in any way directly against this block.

[xtothez]

Can we quit posting serious replies to his trolling attempt?
ta

[Tomkat]

k sorry ;(

[Jackal2112]

Originally Posted by Heartless

What Should Be Considered As Blocking?

My interpretation of blocking is;

A group of alliances working together with the sole intent to overpower and outnumber their adversaries whilst having no intentions to break up this cooperation, even after their adversaries have been defeated, causing stagnation in the game.

[Stealth]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Who are you talking to?

Heartless

[Cayl]

He may be a troll, but ultimately the subject is worth some discussion.

[ComradeRob]

My definition: blocking is any agreement between two or more alliances which exists to protect the existing ranks of those alliances rather than to defeat a larger force. The main problem with this definition is that it is highly subjective.

I'm not going to make another rant about the nature of blocks. Jester said pretty much everything I would have said already anyway.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

My definition: blocking is any agreement between two or more alliances which exists to protect the existing ranks of those alliances rather than to defeat a larger force. The main problem with this definition is that it is highly subjective.

I'm not going to make another rant about the nature of blocks. Jester said pretty much everything I would have said already anyway.

I'd largely agree with that definition - however where it breaks down is when you consider smaller alliances grouping together to defend themselves vs larger alliances. In that situation they ARE cooperating to protect their existing ranks - as they still have no hope of defeating the larger alliances.

Perhaps the whole issue has been clouded slightly by an over-emphasis on what constitutes blocking, rather than by focussing on what really counts - unacceptable blocking. How about this as a vague definition:

Unacceptable blocking: Any agreement between two or more alliances which gives them a combined military power substantially greater than that of any other alliance (or group of alliances) in existence.

I don't see the objective as being the main issue to the extent that Rob's definition would imply. Certainly for all but the very top alliances grouping in small numbers to be able to sustain their position (and put up a decent fight) isn't, of itself, a bad thing.

[Cayl]

Thats not too bad Rob, but ultimately would be picked apart by the lawyers among us.

As has been stated elsewhere, the primary problem with blocks is they become permanent. People feel bound by things like "honour" ('lo Rob's old thread) and don't leave clear exit conditions that enforce a single winner philosophy.

My definition would allow for cooperation, but imply that that cooperation is both temporary and limited from its inception by clear conditions that will actually come to pass.

[Kjeldoran]

PA is like Risk. If you've ever played Risk you'll know that each team has its own mission. To achieve that missions they sometimes make agreements which make it easier for them.
Nway, when everyone in PA will swear to go solo then the following will most likely happen:

Like in risk, you attack the winning team. Why? cause if you let him grow big, he can put in more units every round and pull away further and further. Same is with PA and roids, every tick you gain more resources and you're able to put in more ships.
So what will happen in PA if everyone plays solo? well, alot of alliances will aim at the #1 alliance. Meaning that alliance has to battle 3-4 other alliances. That imo is exactly the same as blocking. Infact, it's even harder for the #1 alliance cause if a block attacks you, you can more or less predict what they'll do, who they'll conentrate on and when they'll launch and what strategies they'll use.
But if 4 alliance independently attack the #1 alliance then it's alot harder to defend yourself against it.

So in the end, alliances will most likely unintentionally band together to fight a common enemy.

That's why I think that "everyone goin solo" is a fairytale and higly realistic. Maybe at the start it is, but during the rounds it no longer will be.

nway, that's my opinion on this matter

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

That's why I think that "everyone goin solo" is a fairytale and higly realistic. Maybe at the start it is, but during the rounds it no longer will be.

nway, that's my opinion on this matter

Well, even if we can just achieve the round STARTING without any blocks it'd be a vast improvement on previous ones. That has to be better than than the obvious scenario - that 2 blocks form, one based around Mistu/FAng the other those with a grudge. I think a lot of people's main issue with blocks is that historically the form before the round even starts - based on ideas of which alliances will be how strong.

With pre-formulated blocks the risk exists of a totally imbalanced war (as happened this round): not necessarily because either side WANTS a one-sided war, but because the actual strength of alliances in a round is often dramataically different to that anticipated before ticks start. If blocks formed in the middle of a round, based on alliances' actual strength/performance then the situation would be nowhere near as bad - as at least the sides would coalesce based on realistic estimates of alliance strengths (though admittedly that, of itself, is no guarantee of evenly matched sides).

[lokken]

Alliances mostly form on the basis of grudges and disagreements from past events in PA out of 'mutual dislike' for someone. If those alliances happen to like each other it will last, if not, it won't.

The very idea of blocks is to cause imbalance (because one side wants to win). I see the problem with blocks is not in the forming, but more in the dissolving and deciding where to progress from there after alliances are taken out of the running for the big prizes.

[Jackal2112]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

PA is like Risk

In RISK, the 2 biggest remaining players battle it out in the end. Haven't seen that happen in PA yet (not just FAnG/mistu this round, but the last xxxxx rounds of planetarion). I wonder which round PA had a sole winning alliance, which wasn't part of any major block.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

In RISK, the 2 biggest remaining players battle it out in the end. Haven't seen that happen in PA yet (not just FAnG/mistu this round, but the last xxxxx rounds of planetarion). I wonder which round PA had a sole winning alliance, which wasn't part of any major block.

In risk you also know at very time what the full strategic situation from the start, in general who is sitting where and so on. Also, you don't share your countries (galaxies) with your ally there, which could lower your armies (planets) morale in case you and your ally should break up.

[mikay]

Blocking isn't really the problem. See blocking is what gets blamed for the real problem - which is stagnation. Nobody really cares what happens as long as they have someone to attack and don't get roided mercilessly more than once a week.

2 equal blocks - that's all good cos the nooby alliances with 10 members get to join in a proper war, get to have an impact.

What is bad is when the war is won the winning side is so integrated that they can't duke it out. Block galaxies just transfer a difficult situation to players who really don't want it.

How about mono-ally galaxies (could be forced in game) and then once war is won everyone can divvy up and turn on each other. No difficult situations for the galaxies and the #2 guys would constantly be after the #1.

[mjrTorspo]

What's wrong with alliances 2-99 targetting #1 so it doesnt get too far ahead?

When a HC of some alliance go speak to HC of another alliance about both targetting the #1, then it would be WRONG! ofc (hard to prove if they do or not but so what..)

This kind of political situation would give many more players a chance to be #1 at the end, and also many alliances could keep fighting to the end and stagnation would be just a bad memory from the past.

Might not be the best choice for an alliance to try be #1 the whole round, but wait closeby and pass #1 just before the end, like what happens in motogp many times...

Would seem alot more interesting then the last few (14?) rounds.


The next 10 replies will whine ("its not possible to win the game with having the best players")about the fact they cannot ruin most of the round anymore for every1 else with this plan.

agh.. cba to finish this reply properly, or even edit it to say what it was meant to say, i know what i wanted to say and no1 is going to read this anyway.

edit: in RISK i always found someone to block with to kill Sakera and then the rest was easy
another useless edit: why does Sid use darger green on his "1up" then the others?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I'd largely agree with that definition - however where it breaks down is when you consider smaller alliances grouping together to defend themselves vs larger alliances. In that situation they ARE cooperating to protect their existing ranks - as they still have no hope of defeating the larger alliances.

Perhaps the whole issue has been clouded slightly by an over-emphasis on what constitutes blocking, rather than by focussing on what really counts - unacceptable blocking. How about this as a vague definition:

Unacceptable blocking: Any agreement between two or more alliances which gives them a combined military power substantially greater than that of any other alliance (or group of alliances) in existence.

I don't see the objective as being the main issue to the extent that Rob's definition would imply. Certainly for all but the very top alliances grouping in small numbers to be able to sustain their position (and put up a decent fight) isn't, of itself, a bad thing.

I agree with th general tone of what you and rob are indicating - maybe to extend that there should be "overwhelming" evidence of shared resources which may include:

*Shared defensive resources (Defending a planet together)
*Shared target co-orination
*Shared attacking resources (Attacking a planet together)
*Shared hc channels with intent to share information and / or resources
*Intent to impede the round or one or more alliances by cohersion

I would also put rough limits on shared co ordination (even temporary) against one or more alliances with intent of finishing their round - especially if they themselves are over 75% of the alliance size the are targetting.

[mjrTorspo]

Wont add anymore to the older post, the idea was that everything that doesnt involve an agreement between people in 2 or more allies is ok, even if that is top3 alliances targetting top4-5 because they are each thinking they can be #1 and might get to keep that position after bashing the smaller ones and then targetting the others in top3 again.


<Alliance Y HC> Lo, join me for a drink at the Blue Oyster?
<Alliance X HC> Yayayayay!

^that scenario would turn the whole thing not ok again.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mjrTorspo

1) What's wrong with alliances 2-99 targetting #1 so it doesnt get too far ahead?

When a HC of some alliance go speak to HC of another alliance about both targetting the #1, then it would be WRONG! ofc (hard to prove if they do or not but so what..)

2) This kind of political situation would give many more players a chance to be #1 at the end, and also many alliances could keep fighting to the end and stagnation would be just a bad memory from the past.

3) Might not be the best choice for an alliance to try be #1 the whole round, but wait closeby and pass #1 just before the end, like what happens in motogp many times...

4) Would seem alot more interesting then the last few (14?) rounds.

5) The next 10 replies will whine ("its not possible to win the game with having the best players")about the fact they cannot ruin most of the round anymore for every1 else with this plan.

agh.. cba to finish this reply properly, or even edit it to say what it was meant to say, i know what i wanted to say and no1 is going to read this anyway.

6) edit: in RISK i always found someone to block with to kill Sakera and then the rest was easy
another useless edit: why does Sid use darger green on his "1up" then the others?

1) 2-99 attacking the number 1 aliance in co-operation and completely with no other goals would be bad - unless ofcourse the number 1 alliance is so far ahead no one can help them.

Thats tant amount to blocking - and that has no reasonable justification in my opinion.

2) It may give "more" chances f it may no - its by no means proven by point 1 since you propose a superblock to kill off 1 alliance.

3) Will be a tactic that will be used anyway to "take" focus away from onesself. However again it will be the juiciest targets which are tagetted or shoul be so this again has little to suppor your argument.

4) I think wha you wan is something like sid actually wants - lots of small wars with only alliances atacking each other for roids not for grudges. I think this is all anyone wants, bu I d think unles you haven't stated your views well your reasoning behind what ou want is a little off.

5) I don't think thats whining its a fact. However smaller alliances in ales block basd universe should be able to support there members better. Fr me it woul uncover not only the "best" alliances and members, buta non block universe should show which alliances "defend" the best. will be a interesting and complex round if it des come t settle there will be a no block round

6) Spurious unrelated comment

[mjrTorspo]

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) 2-99 attacking the number 1 aliance in co-operation and completely with no other goals would be bad - unless ofcourse the number 1 alliance is so far ahead no one can help them.

Thats tant amount to blocking - and that has no reasonable justification in my opinion.

2) It may give "more" chances f it may no - its by no means proven by point 1 since you propose a superblock to kill off 1 alliance.

1) Who said anything about co-operation?
2) Who said anything about a block / superblock?

It would be in the best interest of every alliance to not let any other alliance to grow much bigger then them. A bit similar thing like catchup/handicap in arcade racing games, keeping the race interesting to the end and then ramming your #1 rival off the track in the last corner

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mjrTorspo

1) Who said anything about co-operation?
2) Who said anything about a block / superblock?

It would be in the best interest of every alliance to not let any other alliance to grow much bigger then them. A bit similar thing like catchup/handicap in arcade racing games, keeping the race interesting to the end and then ramming your #1 rival off the track in the last corner

1) If you had so many alliances targetting one alliance you can guarantee in some way it would be co operating. To assume that would mean 1 alliance has all the best targets which I find immensely unbelievable.

2) The essence of what you said would form the basis for a superblock - use ths words or dont but by all those alliances targetting 1 alliance I think you can assume there is little 1 alliance could do. I also hin uch constrained targetting woul dhave to result from intel swapping at least which is a form of co operation. But it could meas something as siniste as target sharing or even target booking.

It is in th best interests of all alliances, however its easier to let someone else fight your wars while you concentrate on the easy roids. Thats how pa works .

I think if this is the basis of your analogy its a little unreasonable, what you say might happen, but I really doubt it. I know if I knew all and sundry were targetting one alliance I would make sure my guys were geting easy roids elsewhere.

[mens]

blocking without backstabbing is bad.

[mjrTorspo]

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) If you had so many alliances targetting one alliance you can guarantee in some way it would be co operating. To assume that would mean 1 alliance has all the best targets which I find immensely unbelievable.

2) The essence of what you said would form the basis for a superblock - use ths words or dont but by all those alliances targetting 1 alliance I think you can assume there is little 1 alliance could do. I also hin uch constrained targetting woul dhave to result from intel swapping at least which is a form of co operation. But it could meas something as siniste as target sharing or even target booking.

It is in th best interests of all alliances, however its easier to let someone else fight your wars while you concentrate on the easy roids. Thats how pa works .

I think if this is the basis of your analogy its a little unreasonable, what you say might happen, but I really doubt it. I know if I knew all and sundry were targetting one alliance I would make sure my guys were geting easy roids elsewhere.

There is no way all those alliances would target #1. The point is now lost far far away.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mjrTorspo

There is no way all those alliances would target #1. The point is now lost far far away.

your confusing me now after you stated 2-99 alliances trying to stop number alliance getting to far ahead :/

Only reason I could understand any smaller alliance targetting a bigger one is by a group of alliances co ordinating there efforts. But the point is that what you say is highly unikely in my view.

[mjrTorspo]

Originally Posted by Rumad

your confusing me now after you stated 2-99 alliances trying to stop number alliance getting to far ahead :/

Only reason I could understand any smaller alliance targetting a bigger one is by a group of alliances co ordinating there efforts. But the point is that what you say is highly unikely in my view.

No, you are confusing me, i dont have any idea anymore what my original point was

[mjrTorspo]

Hmm.. i gues the general idea was that in a unallied universe where every alliance fights against every other alliance the #1 would be a natural target for many alliances most part of the round, and that it isnt a bad thing, because it makes the round interesting by keeping the top alliances about the same size untill the final tick.

That would ofcourse be ruined by any alliance in TOP10 having any kind of co-operation with other alliances, or some top alliance having pussies as hc not wanting to "risk their top10 spot" by attacking an alliance that gotten too powerfull.

With no co-operation at all most coords would be kept a secret too(no shared arby's), so attacking a specific alliance would be harder in the start.

[mjrTorspo]

(now im just spamming to get my post-count up)

Alliances not in top10 should be allowed to block as much as they want to get higher ranks, but when any of them would reach top10, they should stop all co-ordination once again.

But is such a gentlemen-agreement even possible in pa when most want to play it safe without actually having to play the game(i bet idling for 80% of the round with no targets is fun)

and now ill retire from pa-forums for atleast 4months

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mjrTorspo

Hmm.. i gues the general idea was that in a unallied universe where every alliance fights against every other alliance the #1 would be a natural target for many alliances most part of the round, and that it isnt a bad thing, because it makes the round interesting by keeping the top alliances about the same size untill the final tick.

That would ofcourse be ruined by any alliance in TOP10 having any kind of co-operation with other alliances, or some top alliance having pussies as hc not wanting to "risk their top10 spot" by attacking an alliance that gotten too powerfull.

With no co-operation at all most coords would be kept a secret too(no shared arby's), so attacking a specific alliance would be harder in the start.

Impossible but we can all dream

Nw lets pray

Our father, who art in heaven, hallow'd be thy name.....

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mjrTorspo

(now im just spamming to get my post-count up)

Alliances not in top10 should be allowed to block as much as they want to get higher ranks, but when any of them would reach top10, they should stop all co-ordination once again.

But is such a gentlemen-agreement even possible in pa when most want to play it safe without actually having to play the game(i bet idling for 80% of the round with no targets is fun)

and now ill retire from pa-forums for atleast 4months

now this is complex and again impossible. you assume outside of the 10 leading alliances players CAN climb the rankings. I would suggest that again your bing unrealistic. Blocking needs to occur at a lower level to make smaller alliances safer, but I still find it unrealistic that should alliances find they are beiing tagetted they will not co operate to stop that. Alliances will always do what is instinctive for survival. No one wants to die

S again unrealistic view of where pa is.

[mikay]

Why do alliances block: Simple, as Rumad says sometimes it's the only way they can survive 10 minutes in this game. Lots of the smaller, newer alliances (FAnG, rah, titans) jumped straight into blocks with bigger parties who they sometimes didn't really want to be allied with or weren't on the best of terms but it was the only way they could become established. Can't knock it.

Now how do you create a situation where alliances won't block? You make it so it's not in their best interests to block and that would be achieved by giving everyone the chance to be the winner right to the end.

Mono-ally galaxies might work, I dunno. 1 humungous galaxy for each alliance could be a possibility. Some kind of victory points or conditions outside of pure score could be a possibility. Basically the only way to stop blocks and stagnation is to alwayys have the carrot of victory dangled and make winning more defined. In some past rounds the #1 galaxy has had 5/6/7 different alliance tags, everyone can claim part of the victory. if that's just 1 tag then being a partner isn't much prestige is it.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mikay

Why do alliances block: Simple, as Rumad says sometimes it's the only way they can survive 10 minutes in this game. Lots of the smaller, newer alliances (FAnG, rah, titans) jumped straight into blocks with bigger parties who they sometimes didn't really want to be allied with or weren't on the best of terms but it was the only way they could become established. Can't knock it.

Now how do you create a situation where alliances won't block? You make it so it's not in their best interests to block and that would be achieved by giving everyone the chance to be the winner right to the end.

Mono-ally galaxies might work, I dunno. 1 humungous galaxy for each alliance could be a possibility. Some kind of victory points or conditions outside of pure score could be a possibility. Basically the only way to stop blocks and stagnation is to alwayys have the carrot of victory dangled and make winning more defined. In some past rounds the #1 galaxy has had 5/6/7 different alliance tags, everyone can claim part of the victory. if that's just 1 tag then being a partner isn't much prestige is it.

I agree with this in some respects and I thin we are of the same viewpoint (to some extent), however, perhaps yu can get that sort of thing at a lower level?

By having 2 ally galaxies ou limit the blocking potential, not because you can't but becauseit has little benefit. Eary on some groups might have naps or co operation, but thee are only ever going to be temporary since your gals have none of there members. The politics comes from knowing what you can do to other alliances and still calll upon their assistance and what you think is the right time to break those relations. Simply b creating a mechanism in game you are aleady creating a sort f underclass of allies. Though the fliside is they also know tha you are not to be trusted and you know you cannot trust them fully.

In my view it causes this undercurent that HAS to be dealt with. If alliances are sensible they will play the game in th new environment - taking there gals and using there skills to politically help there gals. I hn th game becmes much deper indeed from a few vry simple structural changes.

I would be opposed o anything that would encourage manipulation by alliances and victory points for me would do that. I tin limiting allies is a good start - they can always look at solo victories at a latr date if needed, but I woul suggest by limiting allies you effectivey create enough competition to bring the fun in the game back

Even on 100 member alliances you would get 5 blocks of 200 people. Te political intrigue continues!

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

In RISK, the 2 biggest remaining players battle it out in the end. Haven't seen that happen in PA yet (not just FAnG/mistu this round, but the last xxxxx rounds of planetarion). I wonder which round PA had a sole winning alliance, which wasn't part of any major block.

afaik FAnG won the round. not mistu. mistu ended on 2nd place.

if mistu wanted to win, then they would have had to attacked FAnG earlier in the round.
they didn't. so they didn't win.

claiming they won the round with FAnG is pointless, as they are on 2nd place. not shared 1st.