Planetarion Forums - Newdawn, Press '1' for your 2 week notice...

Alki · 8 Dec 2005, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

No, I'm saying that ND don't have the balls to try take on eXi, and will rather try to stay out of war while eXi tries to outgrow them by using xp. Its a smart move really, and I can't see it fail.

I see it failing quite fast. exi are provoking unwarrented wars, and hostiles that they do not need. ND dont need to have the balls, exi could as easily take the war to them, as we both know peoples views on the outcome would be similar. If its simply a roiding race to gain #1, well it's just not going to work.

Alki · 8 Dec 2005, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think you'll find they just wanted to punish the cooperation seen at the very top of the Alliance rankings on Tuesday.

If Angels perceive anything more than that, it's probably a case of thinking irrationally after losing a few roids.

care to explain incommings before that time then, with the co-op with exi? i find it amusing you only read half my post 'we only got incommings because we attacked them first etc' That is utter bs. But then again you may have all of our defcalls being relayed to your channel so you do seem to know better than me

Alki · 8 Dec 2005, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

My alliance didn't cooperate with the number one alliance, to bash the galaxies / planets of a much smaller alliance, while -using- (whether this is to your knowledge I don't know) other alliances to hit the "friendly" (to the aggressor) targets in the galaxies to ensure a proper job was done. 1up come to mind, as an alliance that got the slightly short straw there.

My point was, when have SubH ever attacked NewDawn (before they got bashed on Tuesday), what was their justification for getting involved?

Hitting SubH was ND's choice, i guess they wanted to go for easy roids, but when havent they? and what would of stopped them. There was no cooperation on our behalf with ND to hit subh, we just knew ND were going to hit subh.

No your alliance didnt cooperate to hit smaller alliances, you just went for them by yourselves inside and outside of the top10.

bwtmc · 8 Dec 2005, 12:37

I posted that as you were typing yours, I hadn't even seen it.

You say that like you weren't complimenting 1up's attacks at the time. Not that i'm talking about two of the top four alliances, (again).

bwtmc · 8 Dec 2005, 12:38

Alki if you want to talk to me on IRC, I can tell you for sure there was cooperation, it was investigated very thoroughly.

(And yes, it was Angels that jumped in to give them a good bashing, not NewDawn, you're correct)

lokken · 8 Dec 2005, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

My point was, when have SubH ever attacked NewDawn (before they got bashed on Tuesday), what was their justification for getting involved?

We had enough hostiles from them to warrant it.

Any other justification simply isn't necessary.

Alki · 8 Dec 2005, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Alki if you want to talk to me on IRC, I can tell you for sure there was cooperation, it was investigated very thoroughly.

(And yes, it was Angels that jumped in to give them a good bashing, not NewDawn, you're correct)

cooperation how so? I did the attacks that night, id know if there was cooperation, i am not one known to lie either.

Chika · 8 Dec 2005, 13:39

Exil lead on Angels widened. Newdawn Lead on Exil shortened. DO NOT LET THIS SHIT HAPPEN. WHO DO I HAVE TO SMACK AROUND FOR EVERYONE TO WAKE UP!?!?!?!?22

Kjeldoran · 8 Dec 2005, 13:42

Alki, don't waste your efforts on explaining something to someone who doesn't wanna believe facts. He knows better what we, HC and officers of Angels, do. He knows better why we do it and I'm sure he knows better what we will do next.

Infact ... EVERYONE knows it better, always ...

bwtmc · 8 Dec 2005, 13:44

I've been talking in pm, I think Alki would agree i'm pretty reasonable Kjel.

Zh|l · 8 Dec 2005, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

My alliance didn't cooperate with the number one alliance, to bash the galaxies / planets of a much smaller alliance, while -using- (whether this is to your knowledge I don't know) other alliances to hit the "friendly" (to the aggressor) targets in the galaxies to ensure a proper job was done. 1up come to mind, as an alliance that got the slightly short straw there.

My point was, when have SubH ever attacked NewDawn (before they got bashed on Tuesday), what was their justification for getting involved?

This post makes me laugh because it's so flawed and obvious.

To amuse me, what short straw did 1up apparently pull? I wasn't aware we even pulled a straw.

ReligFree · 8 Dec 2005, 13:54

Ditto Zhil.

NewDawn hit Subh as a retalliation to a large number of hostile fleets over a short period of time. That is all that is going to be said on the matter and that is exactly why it happened as Subh HC have been made aware. Fact.

Chika · 18 Dec 2005, 10:07

"If Exil gets a comfortable lead on Angels (growing daily) then they will shift attention to you. You guys are good, but you will not be able to fight Exil and the smallish alliances that will help them take you down."

****SIGH****

The_Fish · 18 Dec 2005, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

"If Exil gets a comfortable lead on Angels (growing daily) then they will shift attention to you. You guys are good, but you will not be able to fight Exil and the smallish alliances that will help them take you down."

****SIGH****

Chika, you clueless noob.

Question, who opened hostilities between ND and eXi?

Who has hit the other for more nights?

Like I said in a previous thread, the winner of this will be decided by the 'flak' alliances, both alliances lose a lot of rocks and gain a lot each night, if the flak for one side is better than the other, then there is the difference.

HK · 18 Dec 2005, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

*blablabla*
Like I said in a previous thread, the winner of this will be decided by the 'flak' alliances, both alliances lose a lot of rocks and gain a lot each night, if the flak for one side is better than the other, then there is the difference.

Well done, I actually couldn't stop laughing for the last 5 minutes when you called Angels flak!

The_Fish · 18 Dec 2005, 11:22

'flak' =/= flak

Chika · 18 Dec 2005, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Chika, you clueless noob.

Question, who opened hostilities between ND and eXi?

Who has hit the other for more nights?

Like I said in a previous thread, the winner of this will be decided by the 'flak' alliances, both alliances lose a lot of rocks and gain a lot each night, if the flak for one side is better than the other, then there is the difference.

I feel you bro'. I have to admit that I have been rooting for newdawn these past few weeks since I have seen them in action. I even have a clip of my son saying "newdawn ftw".

I am just fearful that exil may actually win again. And an admirable win at that.

Rust · 18 Dec 2005, 19:19

they are now top, it's looking bad for nd

Paisley · 18 Dec 2005, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Alki, don't waste your efforts on explaining something to someone who doesn't wanna believe facts. He knows better what we, HC and officers of Angels, do. He knows better why we do it and I'm sure he knows better what we will do next.

Infact ... EVERYONE knows it better, always ...

All I know about angels is that they "over def" and that can be exploited via fakes...And their counter attacks can be a bitch to DC

Bar that I leave angels to the angels.

Paisley · 18 Dec 2005, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

We had enough hostiles from them to warrant it.

Any other justification simply isn't necessary.

That action probily cost ND the round

Banned · 18 Dec 2005, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

That action probily cost ND the round

As if subh's actions are deciding this round

Paisley · 18 Dec 2005, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

As if subh's actions are deciding this round

seems to have been enough

mens · 18 Dec 2005, 22:19

where's the rule to prevent ally hopping the last week?
oh it's not there is it =\

ND recruiting tactic is as dirty as any other way to cheat imo.

Nadar · 18 Dec 2005, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens

where's the rule to prevent ally hopping the last week?
oh it's not there is it =\

ND recruiting tactic is as dirty as any other way to cheat imo.

Who said they will? And if they did, they would get as much credit for the win as Ely did, none.

TehVader · 18 Dec 2005, 22:29

You planning to jump ships mens? Just say the world and I'll make it happen

lokken · 18 Dec 2005, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

seems to have been enough

you're irrelevant chump, as you were attacking us previously. It wasn't for one isolated incident you got hit, it was for days of consecutive steady incoming from subh planets.

I'd look to an alliance like LCH that have been far more damaging.

Gate · 18 Dec 2005, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

seems to have been enough

No offence to Subh, but the 50-60 hostiles we received from you guys a night doesn't seem to have had such a huge effect, we felt you would have done what eXil told you to regardless. Not that you didn't cause a lot of damage to ND, I just think that our actions in hitting you, overall, were beneficial to us.

LCH breaking their NAP with ND in spectacular fashion, with no prior warning, and the extent to which VGN, HR and other smaller alliances supported eXilition took ND somewhat by surprise though... and that misjudgement has come at a high price.

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 01:10

Gate tbh if I were you.

I'd just approach all their top players about shipjumping. Oh no wait..

Mek · 19 Dec 2005, 01:23

imho Subh wanna attack ND with exil but cant take the punishment they get on the counter

something about playing with fire and getting burned??

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 01:32

Mek how many Insomnia planets actually made the switch?

On that note, SubH got "punished" by NewDawn before there was fleet exchange to any reasonable extent - What you said is completely wrong

Mek · 19 Dec 2005, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Mek how many Insomnia planets actually made the switch?

On that note, SubH got "punished" by NewDawn before there was fleet exchange to any reasonable extent - What you said is completely wrong

what u mean by "the switch"??

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

what u mean by "the switch"??

Refer to previous post.

Mek · 19 Dec 2005, 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Refer to previous post.

they scattered all over. some to exil, some to 1up, some to ND and a couple to angels afaik. but they dont count as shipjumpers if they come from a disbanded alliance

but tbh, i dont think any of our big players had a problem getting rehomed in the alliances they wanted to be in

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 01:41

Well none of it is shipjumping really. Poaching?

Mek · 19 Dec 2005, 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Well none of it is shipjumping really. Poaching?

i dont think im grasping the point of this bit of convo properly but meh :P

we did loose aprox 10 members prior to disbantion, i cannot accuratly vouch for their current whereabouts atm but i understand that they will have been in the top 5 somewhere as they were all big players

Banned · 19 Dec 2005, 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Well none of it is shipjumping really. Poaching?

I like to think of it as recruiting. Nothing wrong about persuading someone to directly, or indirectly, take your side, is there?

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 02:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

I like to think of it as recruiting. Nothing wrong about persuading someone to directly, or indirectly, take your side, is there?

Until it's employed to such an extent that the identity of the said alliance is lost - then something's gone horribly wrong.

Recruiting is about building an alliance and its memberbase. It's not about score jumps and this-round-only short-termism.

Paisley · 19 Dec 2005, 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

No offence to Subh, but the 50-60 hostiles we received from you guys a night doesn't seem to have had such a huge effect, we felt you would have done what eXil told you to regardless. Not that you didn't cause a lot of damage to ND, I just think that our actions in hitting you, overall, were beneficial to us.

LCH breaking their NAP with ND in spectacular fashion, with no prior warning, and the extent to which VGN, HR and other smaller alliances supported eXilition took ND somewhat by surprise though... and that misjudgement has come at a high price.

Subh was generally non hostile to other allys untill we get hit, We generally do gal raids untill we were hit apon...
Subh wasnt closed to the idea of NAPing with other allys that exil were hitting
and isnt our fault when other allys knock it back. or reject any similar offers.

Another detail that seems to be missed out that it is subh have benefited with napping with exil on the basis of bigger allys hitting us and then thinking they will get off scot free because of our member size and newness as being an ally (after it is subh's first round)... after all we had to get our roids and xp from someone.

Banned · 19 Dec 2005, 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Until it's employed to such an extent that the identity of the said alliance is lost - then something's gone horribly wrong.

Recruiting is about building an alliance and its memberbase. It's not about score jumps and this-round-only short-termism.

That's a value choice, though. It might not be right for your alliance, but why should we care if they (whoever they might be) swing that way?

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

That's a value choice, though. It might not be right for your alliance, but why should we care if they (whoever they might be) swing that way?

Because it undermines the game, the alliance system (which has become the game) and everyone in it.

- It is a morale issue and therefore has no place in alliance politics, objectivity objectivity objectivity. -

I'm not sure that really holds as an argument. It's a bit like what Tis said in another thread.. the proposition of alliances placing members in other alliances to defend them legitimately. We consider that to be wrong, but with this blind approach to consequence, we consider that anything that doesn't break the rules could and should be used (as a method to win) as long as long as it makes sense politically.

Banned · 19 Dec 2005, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Because it undermines the game, the alliance system (which has become the game) and everyone in it.

You've already made clear that there's a trade-off in doing this, so how does it undermine the alliance system?

Quote:

- It is a morale issue and therefore has no place in alliance politics, objectivity objectivity objectivity. -

It's not a moral issue at all. There's nothing wrong with it.

Quote:

I'm not sure that really holds as an argument. It's a bit like what Tis said in another thread.. the proposition of alliances placing members in other alliances to defend them legitimately. We consider that to be wrong, but with this blind approach to consequence, we consider that anything that doesn't break the rules could and should be used (as a method to win) as long as long as it makes sense politically.

That's not my argument though. Unlike placing members in other alliances to defend them out of tag legitimately, I don't see this as trying to find a loophole in any EULA rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Remy · 19 Dec 2005, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

LCH breaking their NAP with ND in spectacular fashion, with no prior warning

We had a ceasefire, not a NAP, i think

During our ceasefire, or nap, or whatever, we had numerous 'accidents', where ND attack us anyway. I personally told Religfree that the constant incomin on us during the agreemenet was bound to result in retalling.

In one case, numerous planets were under attack by several waves. I contacted ND, and was told most waves were recalled. Several hours later, members told me they landed anyways. Thats lying in a spectacular fashion......

tbh, you had it coming. You clearly had another idea of what a ceasefire, or whatever you call it, is.

bwtmc · 19 Dec 2005, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

You've already made clear that there's a trade-off in doing this, so how does it undermine the alliance system?

Consider a playerbase of a thousand or so active players puts time into a game. A game in which there are fifteen membership groups. The aim of each group is to be successful, successful meaning that they want to build to become stronger, or for the top five that they want to win. To become stronger an alliance has to recruit a memberbase and it has to develop internally. The playerbase is completely fluid in transition. Its only restriction is a general feeling that switching allegiance is bad because it makes the groups meaningless. <- The same groups half the people on this forum put so much time into in order that they can achieve their aims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

It's not a moral issue at all. There's nothing wrong with it.

Would it become a moral issue if this practice was used extensively?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

That's not my argument though. Unlike placing members in other alliances to defend them out of tag legitimately, I don't see this as trying to find a loophole in any EULA rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Isn't the whole point of that rule to limit the number of players that contribute to any one alliance at a given time, and isn't that the intent of taking in players that have benefited from the defence/attack support/political stability/scans (and so on) of other alliances at the very end?

Paisley · 19 Dec 2005, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

imho Subh wanna attack ND with exil but cant take the punishment they get on the counter

something about playing with fire and getting burned??

Subh worked within in its limitations there are certain allys we cant take on a 1v1 basis and so had to play the politics, And dont take this as a cheapshot...
Last thing Subh HC wanted was the ally to dissolved because they got overwelmed from a bigger ally.

HK · 19 Dec 2005, 11:14

I think that the forming of blocks in this game is natural. Just like single individuals seek alliance tags to protect themselves against other individuals so do the alliances by seeking other allies so it would be safer together. Power lies in unity. Which I also wanted to point out was that in this round blocks aren't really blocks even if compared to round13 blocks. They are rather loose and they share common enemies. I think it would have been impossible for 1up/Angels/ND to just have targetted eXi the whole round. They needed other targets also and thus the rest of top10 came in. eXi just attacked 1up/Angels/ND and didn't need to hit the latter part of top10. Thus those being hit by 1up/Angels/ND naturally wanted to retal, thats normal. 1up retalled when we tried to end their chances of winning r15 in the beginning of this round. eXi retalled when Angels sneakily launched their attack against eXi while we we're still sending our full military power against 1up. Other examples can be brought in also but I guess you get the point. So it IS normal and natural that other alliances in top10 would not hit eXi but instead 1up/Angels/ND to get their own roids back. It would be retarded to get roided and then roid top20 alliances or do galraids and leave top alliances untargetted in those them or hit top alliances which haven't been hostile at all (and risk getting another big enemy). Of course if one alliance really seeks to remain neutral and offers nap to both sides of the opposition and if one side refuses the nap it's normal that the alliance which napped one side of the oppositin would help that alliance or those alliances, instead of the other side which kindly told them to fk off when trying to nap them.

Kjeldoran · 19 Dec 2005, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCrab

I think that the forming of blocks in this game is natural. Just like single individuals seek alliance tags to protect themselves against other individuals so do the alliances by seeking other allies so it would be safer together. Power lies in unity. Which I also wanted to point out was that in this round blocks aren't really blocks even if compared to round13 blocks. They are rather loose and they share common enemies. I think it would have been impossible for 1up/Angels/ND to just have targetted eXi the whole round. They needed other targets also and thus the rest of top10 came in. eXi just attacked 1up/Angels/ND and didn't need to hit the latter part of top10. Thus those being hit by 1up/Angels/ND naturally wanted to retal, thats normal. 1up retalled when we tried to end their chances of winning r15 in the beginning of this round. eXi retalled when Angels sneakily launched their attack against eXi while we we're still sending our full military power against 1up. Other examples can be brought in also but I guess you get the point. So it IS normal and natural that other alliances in top10 would not hit eXi but instead 1up/Angels/ND to get their own roids back. It would be retarded to get roided and then roid top20 alliances or do galraids and leave top alliances untargetted in those them or hit top alliances which haven't been hostile at all (and risk getting another big enemy). Of course if one alliance really seeks to remain neutral and offers nap to both sides of the opposition and if one side refuses the nap it's normal that the alliance which napped one side of the oppositin would help that alliance or those alliances, instead of the other side which kindly told them to fk off when trying to nap them.

You base this on the assumption that Angels did hit other alliances. We hit Exi and ND. We then hit Subh, HR and ROCK simply because they hit us (with exi).

We started the war with Exi, so it'd be fair that they strike back. We however never targetting HR, ROCK or Subh until we were fed up with them joining Exi in hitting us.

Your facts are wrong m8, we did not hit any of the lower ranked alliances (lower then top3), not until they hit us.

Paisley · 19 Dec 2005, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You base this on the assumption that Angels did hit other alliances. We hit Exi and ND. We then hit Subh, HR and ROCK simply because they hit us (with exi).

We started the war with Exi, so it'd be fair that they strike back. We however never targetting HR, ROCK or Subh until we were fed up with them joining Exi in hitting us.

Your facts are wrong m8, we did not hit any of the lower ranked alliances (lower then top3), not until they hit us.

Aye right, Angels hit subh at the time because you knew we did have the capacity to hit yous straight away.

Edit Did= didn't

Chika · 19 Dec 2005, 11:32

From the looks of things, Exilition played off of Newdawns highly anticipated "we will watch" attitude. They also played off of Angels and 1ups obvious self given restraints on blocking together. And they played on 1up/angels/newdawns e-penises, and thier inability to form a block to fight exil. They then blocked with everyone else, leaving Newdawn/Angels/1up, alone, running around like chickens on a stick, with no allies and refusing to ally with each other Its so stupid its sad in a way. And I hope the respectable HC's see how shallow they are in a sense that some bonehead who uses English as a second language can read right thru them from 1000's of miles away.
Maybe this doesn't sound to nice, but sadly, this was the case this round.

Kjeldoran · 19 Dec 2005, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

From the looks of things, Exilition played off of Newdawns highly anticipated "we will watch" attitude. They also played off of Angels and 1ups obvious self given restraints on blocking together. And they played on 1up/angels/newdawns e-penises, and thier inability to form a block to fight exil. They then blocked with everyone else, leaving Newdawn/Angels/1up, alone, running around like chickens on a stick, with no allies and refusing to ally with each other Its so stupid its sad in a way. And I hope the respectable HC's see how shallow they are in a sense that some bonehead who uses English as a second language can read right thru them from 1000's of miles away.
Maybe this doesn't sound to nice, but sadly, this was the case this round.

Quite strong words for a person who has been in 4 different alliances in 3 rounds and who has never so far even experienced the responsabilities or anything involving being HC and actually have to make though calls etc.

HK · 19 Dec 2005, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You base this on the assumption that Angels did hit other alliances. We hit Exi and ND. We then hit Subh, HR and ROCK simply because they hit us (with exi).

We started the war with Exi, so it'd be fair that they strike back. We however never targetting HR, ROCK or Subh until we were fed up with them joining Exi in hitting us.

Your facts are wrong m8, we did not hit any of the lower ranked alliances (lower then top3), not until they hit us.

Then who the hell did u attack before u attacked eX? In random galraids u targetted them, I'm not talking about hitting them with full power, even galraids will get you retalled.