The Lion, The Witch & The Secret-Wars

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Apologies for my assumptions then but rumad's post contains no reference to any "late-round strategy", rather he seemed to be talking about the whole round.

Np, he probably forgot to mention that part. Tried to find him on IRC to make him correct it, but he wasn't there so I corrected him instead

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Apologies for my assumptions then but rumad's post contains no reference to any "late-round strategy", rather he seemed to be talking about the whole round.

.

I was only in nos for a third of the round and tbh its obvious I thought it would have been a given I was talking about late round - why would I comment on parts of a round I was not there?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Np, he probably forgot to mention that part. Tried to find him on IRC to make him correct it, but he wasn't there so I corrected him instead

not on irc - haven't been for 2 weeks - I wonder what my score would have been if i actively played the last 2 weeks

[Gate]

Also when you are attacked its nt profitable to sit and defend rocks. Are you seriously suggesting that is what your alliance did? Hardly the best policy this round,

As for defensive frailties I knw to not 1 alliance which has NOT struggled defensively this round. Get over your egoiste reply and realise no one is any better.

I'd like to point out how eXilition played a value based round and defended where possible, and in the end, it truly paid off. Why? Because as I'm quoted in another thread as saying, it means their enemies have to hit far larger targets, often using multiple fleets to do so, then a single exilition fleet was enough to stop them. Meaning you can no longer cap roids as efficiently. However, I guess this only applied to alliances hitting enemies who had a consistently high value such as eXilition, ToT, LCH.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah who would have thought that a forum called alliance discussions would contain discussion about alliances.

Lol, discussions and witch-hunts differ a bit in my opinion

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I was only in nos for a third of the round and tbh its obvious I thought it would have been a given I was talking about late round - why would I comment on parts of a round I was not there?

Why would I know what parts of the round you spent in an alliance?

[Alki]

irish you are a god to us mere peasants, you are to guide us in times of darkness and are all-knowing, for did thou not know?

[Dingo]

I am sure I have seen this same thread in previous rounds. Pretty much ANY round NoS does well.

It is amazing to see how many experts there are in the PA community regarding the inner workings of NoS ,the way we attack and defend, and how our politics work. Likewise, the number of people that have the ability to know how much incoming another alliance did or did not have without any real information except obviously a crystal ball.

IF you have an opinion, then state it as such, NOT as fact that you have NO clue on what so ever.

The number on contradictions in this thread is laughable. On some posts NoS are put down for wanting to pursue it's own goals of attacking certain alliances, and then we see fools posting that they will be doing the same next round to ensure NoS has a bad round.

One of the only things I agree with in the scores of negative posts here is that NoS is selfish. Bloody oath we are. Why the hell would we give a sh1t about HR or ND or any other alliance's goals. We are NoS, we are NOT HR or ND etc. IF your goals are common to ours, then certainly we will be interested and assist, but as soon as they no longer coincide with our goals, we wish you well in your endeavours and go on with our own.

We at NoS refuse to make any apologies for the shortcomings of other alliances such as HR. You have our pity Sethy, but that's about the extent of it. Whilst the members of HR are very likely good people and were just let down by your poor leadership, you personally Sethy, are no longer worthy of our time and as such this is the last time I will bother to reply to your whine thread. When you have matured and want to have an intelligent conversation, feel free to PM me on irc. I won't hold my breath.

[lokken]

I agree with Dingo's post in general.

I'm sure there will be alliances who will digest it with interest and take interpretations as they please. Although for those who were more directly involved in the block wars, NoS really is the tip of the iceberg.

[furball]

This thread seems to be drawing to an end, so I'll keep this as brief as I can, about half a Wakey. A lot of the posts above me have either ripped Rumad's post apart or answered any questions that remained.


This round has been won by an alliance that was high on value, and this meant that as they pulled away, it got harder and harder to hit them. This was because you needed 5-6 fleets to simply land on them, and then just one eX defender could force a recall. Gate and I have talked about this several times before, and our overall point remains the same - eXiliton played an excellent round, superior to all of the other alliances. They fully deserve their victory.

There are a couple of alliances which collectively XP-whored, and you do that by stealing roids. Therefore if you are fighting against an alliance which XP whores, it's best not to give them a chance to land, since that will only enhance their score. This means that you need to defend against their attacks. As JonnyBGood summarised:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Actually this round, as all are, was about correct fleet usage. This particular round leaned more towards the offensive than defensive aspect of fleet usage however I'd dare say that exilition defended each other. If you want to try and play as an individual go for it and do whatever you want (I did it!) but if you're playing with and for an alliance three-fleeting is not the way to go as you add very little to your alliance. Eighty odd three-fleeters would never win a round.

I hope the Irish genius has made clear for you what everyone's been trying to say.

And Rumad: it's not who attacks most wins. It's who lands most wins. If you can't land, you can't take roids, and you can't get XP. No XP, no super-duper score for you.

How is an alliance's ability to land basically measured? Shucks, I guess that must be by value.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Dingo

On some posts NoS are put down for wanting to pursue it's own goals of attacking certain alliances, and then we see fools posting that they will be doing the same next round to ensure NoS has a bad round.

What goes around comes around?

We at NoS refuse to make any apologies for the shortcomings of other alliances such as HR. You have our pity Sethy, but that's about the extent of it. Whilst the members of HR are very likely good people and were just let down by your poor leadership, you personally Sethy, are no longer worthy of our time and as such this is the last time I will bother to reply to your whine thread.

Ive not asked you to apologise, just to explain why you were willing to walk over your closest allies at the expense of their round, for a 3rd ranking. Especially as the political fallout into next round may very well cause your alliance problems. The reason this thread has gone over 4 pages, is Nos's like you replying in the belief you have done nothing wrong. Ofc being "wrong" is the subjective crux of this discussion but imo its fair to say from most pov's external to Nos, that Nos politics lacked a certain ethical value.

Some people detest nos for their old ways, something that PA evolved away from a long time ago simply because the "revenge" factor was too big an issue to ignore. Politics are more sensitive then they were in Nos's glory days and the general community is always looking to lynch the badguys in whatever way they can.

Did this thought ever cross Nos HC minds? You slag off my leadership in defence of your own shortcomings, who will nos go into R14 with? Like ND of r13, you've backed yourself into a corner and the whole world (unlike this round), knows your attitude to the game & the political avenues you have left to persue.

You can aim your "no worthy" remark to me but you must understand im not the minority here.

When you have matured and want to have an intelligent conversation, feel free to PM me on irc. I won't hold my breath.

There isnt anything wrong with the heart of this thread, you always get people dragging it down and going off-track but hey, thats what makes AD that extra bit special I've said most of what ive wanted to say already, there's no reason for me to pm you so you may carry on as you were

[[i2k]Xy]

Heh sethy, you can slander us all you want, and I'm sure you can get a hold of a couple of alliances you can team up with next round to "teach us a lesson". NoS achieved some pre-set goals this round, and that is good enough for us. Please refrain from making such a thread again, it seriously saddens me to see you write alot of this.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by furball

More rubbish

eXilition did defend very well later in the round and not so bad earlier in the round, but these alliances bread and butter was on TAKING ROIDS CLEANLY. You can bear to lose a few roids if you gain more than you lose.

No one has ripped my post apart and tbh I haven't had the inclination to explain to you if you don't understand. Aggressive playing has made players rounds this round. Its obvious unless someone knows you are going to be atatcking 24/7 and you only receive incommings 3 out of 7 nights a week then you will grow bigger than if you sit around defending.

What exilition did was defend 60% of there attacks early on. Some lost roids, but they also knew those attacking would gain mre than they lose. At the end of the day defence play will not win the round, only attacking can do that.

I wont go into why I think I am more correct than you becuase You seem to have a high opinion of yourself, but suffice to say attacking and aggressive play won exilition the round. They attacked the most, they never gave up and they had some good defences, but its the members attitude and never say never approach that won them the round. If you were right that defensive play is the best way then angels would never have come back.

[lokken]

I really want to close this thread as it hurts my brain

Haven't you all got flags to capture or something

[SteInMetz]

Originally Posted by lokken

I really want to close this thread as it hurts my brain

Haven't you all got flags to capture or something

pfft, everyone is trying to steal the flags :/ i gotta defend em!

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Rumad

No one has ripped my post apart and tbh I haven't had the inclination to explain to you if you don't understand. Aggressive playing has made players rounds this round. Its obvious unless someone knows you are going to be atatcking 24/7 and you only receive incommings 3 out of 7 nights a week then you will grow bigger than if you sit around defending.
.

I was receiving incs (heavy, coordinated, waved incs) about 6 out of every 7 nights, but I also attacked regularly and slowly I fell behind despite landing various attacks and being top 40 in amount of roids capped. The same happened to a very large number of ND-ers. ND's policy turned to a far more attack based playstyle quite quickly, so we had comparitively few deffleets, and the only reason I maintained T20 for so long was because my gal saved me from what ND couldn't, and I was able to recouperate my losses every night (in defence and attack).

I was being stonewalled in roids, capping about as many as I was losing, but eXilition were outgrowing us.

Eventually I wasn't able to cap as many rocks as I was losing (I think the fact I was a T10 launcher, and I was second in ND on attack points, proves that I attacked plenty) because my attacks were just so damn easy to stop, even with cutlass. It took just one zik or xan to make the rocks too expensive, as I dind't have enough ships to land on 50k cutlass, or 130k cutlass or whatever.

And that is why I slowly slipped from T20, and the same happened across ND. So basically, it's not that we were not playing aggressively, but that we were getting consistently incs which prevented us from growing at the same rate as our enemies.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Gate

I was receiving incs (heavy, coordinated, waved incs) about 6 out of every 7 nights, but I also attacked regularly and slowly I fell behind despite landing various attacks and being top 40 in amount of roids capped. The same happened to a very large number of ND-ers. ND's policy turned to a far more attack based playstyle quite quickly, so we had comparitively few deffleets, and the only reason I maintained T20 for so long was because my gal saved me from what ND couldn't, and I was able to recouperate my losses every night (in defence and attack).

I was being stonewalled in roids, capping about as many as I was losing, but eXilition were outgrowing us.

Eventually I wasn't able to cap as many rocks as I was losing (I think the fact I was a T10 launcher, and I was second in ND on attack points, proves that I attacked plenty) because my attacks were just so damn easy to stop, even with cutlass. It took just one zik or xan to make the rocks too expensive, as I dind't have enough ships to land on 50k cutlass, or 130k cutlass or whatever.

And that is why I slowly slipped from T20, and the same happened across ND. So basically, it's not that we were not playing aggressively, but that we were getting consistently incs which prevented us from growing at the same rate as our enemies.

As i sa you have to retain with at least 60% of defence, but the way that vgn hc was taking defence wins the round which isn't true.

So what your actualy sayng was not that you were stonewalled because f 2 reasons 1) you were hitting an enemy which you couldn't get through which is unfrtunate, but doesn't mean that what i have said is incorrect. A risk of a war with a major ally like exilition is one side will lose out on growth eventually. One side in a war always loses out its the nature of the beast.

However you don't need to defend100% or 90% or even 80% which appears to be the incinuation. As an alliance if you can get members gaining roids and those members can gain more roids than you are losing then as an alliance you will continue to grow.

Your story sounds more unfortunate than actually disproving anything.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Rumad

As i sa you have to retain with at least 60% of defence, but the way that vgn hc was taking defence wins the round which isn't true.

And I was saying that good attacks will not win the round on their own.

So what your actualy sayng was not that you were stonewalled because f 2 reasons 1) you were hitting an enemy which you couldn't get through which is unfrtunate, but doesn't mean that what i have said is incorrect. A risk of a war with a major ally like exilition is one side will lose out on growth eventually. One side in a war always loses out its the nature of the beast.

Initially I was getting through quite regularly, landing 14 attacks in about 12 days on LCH/eXi/ToT (out of about 20-25 attacks), it's just that as time wore on the DCs must have considered my calls far easier to cover (Eg. sometimes before I'd had def appear, then recall because it got cnutted), and that's why I didn't get through. I'm sure you appreciate the situation.

However you don't need to defend100% or 90% or even 80% which appears to be the incinuation. As an alliance if you can get members gaining roids and those members can gain more roids than you are losing then as an alliance you will continue to grow.

And I was just leaping to the defence of ND and other allies (including VGN's) policy. VGN got ****ed quite badly with so many caths (and ND had too many as well ;/ ) meaning that even comparitively small incs could often get through, which is frustrating, humiliating and demoralising. Small incs which really should have been defended, even from the PoV of only using, say, 40% of available fleets in defence.

And so our defeat was due to XP whoring, lack of organisation, and the fact that we gave up defence too early and by teh time defence had actually become useful, we were too far behind in value, or in the mindset that that it wasn't particularly useful. It wasn't due to lack of attacking; and I'm pretty sure I can vouch for this from VGN, atleast during the nights I worked with them.

I apologize for the comments made on behalf of GoCi by steve_, I don't think it is appropriate for him to have made these comments when in fact he was busy with rl and did not play this round fully.

Speaking on behalf of the other GoCi members in Nos with whom I spoke, Nos had plenty of attacks available, was quite active, and I expected nothing differently politically, in fact, I thought that the whole point of Pa is that with the alliance size limits and the eta advantage, blocking and politicking are supposed to play a back seat in this game, and individual/alliance skill and cooperation is supposed to determine the outcome more than politics. At least, that's the theory.

Nos did well to rise to #3 this round with so many other good alliances in competition, and I thank them for giving our GoCi members a home for the round.

GenChaos, founder/HC of GoCi (GoldenCircle)

[furball]

Originally Posted by Rumad

As i sa you have to retain with at least 60% of defence, but the way that vgn hc was taking defence wins the round which isn't true.

Rumad, at no point did I try to suggest that VGN was trying to sacrifice attacks in favour of defence. Members will vouch for the sheer number of times that I told them not to recall their attacks in order to send fleets out on defence.

Originally Posted by Gate

And I was just leaping to the defence of ND and other allies (including VGN's) policy. VGN got ****ed quite badly with so many caths (and ND had too many as well ;/ ) meaning that even comparitively small incs could often get through, which is frustrating, humiliating and demoralising. Small incs which really should have been defended, even from the PoV of only using, say, 40% of available fleets in defence.

Trust me on this. It's really not good to see fleets of 100 BS slip through simply because we are out of ships or fleet slots from our most active defenders. It happened, and every time it does it's a kick in the gut for morale. You've been a HC, Rumad - surely you know this?

VGN was the alliance that suffered the most this round from the weakness of Cathaar, because we had so many of them. The inability of EMP to force a recall meant that we needed to use more fleets, etc etc. Gate knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Gate

And so our defeat was due to XP whoring, lack of organisation, and the fact that we gave up defence too early and by teh time defence had actually become useful, we were too far behind in value, or in the mindset that that it wasn't particularly useful. It wasn't due to lack of attacking; and I'm pretty sure I can vouch for this from VGN, atleast during the nights I worked with them.

The alliances who we worked with this round can all testify that VGN were no slouches on attacks.

[PureviL]

When HK mentioned that EXilition Block had fence sit alliance called Angels. That isn't true. Angels also was in 1up's block. Hold NAP etc. and was even planning an attack against eXilition in one point of the round alongside with 1up. So I could even say they were almost allied.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by PureviL

When HK mentioned that EXilition Block had fence sit alliance called Angels. That isn't true. Angels also was in 1up's block. Hold NAP etc. and was even planning an attack against eXilition in one point of the round alongside with 1up. So I could even say they were almost allied.

Strange that I never once saw an Angels officer in a joint attack room then. Considering that I would assume they would turn up in such a place if they wanted the block to be working efficiently.

Also somewhat strange that they were NAPd with eXilition throughout the round (And by default, that meant that the majority of their firepower was aimed at alliances not on friendly terms with eXi), that as a member of the 1up block, I also received incs from Angels throughout the round (HI 16K CATH CRU*, HI CREATURE ), and that Angels HC immediately dismissed the possibility of any form of hostile action towards eXilition when it was broached to them; or atleast that's the 'feeling' I got from them**.

I would suggest that you're misinformed; and I would be very shocked if it turned out that I am completely wrong.


*not entirely angels. This was a joint BG including the likes of LCH, going by what I gathered from members of both LCH and Angels.

**'them' being one member who I was present at a discussion with.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by PureviL

When HK mentioned that EXilition Block had fence sit alliance called Angels. That isn't true. Angels also was in 1up's block. Hold NAP etc. and was even planning an attack against eXilition in one point of the round alongside with 1up. So I could even say they were almost allied.

and you are?

[furball]

Originally Posted by PureviL

When HK mentioned that EXilition Block had fence sit alliance called Angels. That isn't true. Angels also was in 1up's block. Hold NAP etc. and was even planning an attack against eXilition in one point of the round alongside with 1up. So I could even say they were almost allied.

Pure bullshit in a glass.

And this is why the mspaint of this exists


I can't see any facts in your posts. Nothing at all.

Angels were not in the 1up block. 1up were not NAPed to Angels as far as I know. Any co-operation between Angels and 1up that could have existed between the two did not happen in the block's main shared channel. Angels would not have worked with 1up, since the two were fairly hostile in Round 13. Moreover, Angels attempted to play solo, although their success at this has been repeatedly demeaned by various elements on this forum.


100% bullshit in a glass.

[Digiscent]

This round sounded interesting maybe ill play r14
if some one buys my account

[Heru]

Can we close this thread already? I think everyone's opinion has been stated, and it's all been beat into the ground.

[Rikard]

Originally Posted by Alki

and you are?

actually that was mactanzu ^_^

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Heru

Can we close this thread already? I think everyone's opinion has been stated, and it's all been beat into the ground.

Congratulations, you came right in at mod gripe #1. I do read my PM box, do reply occaisonally, and often make a call without a reply when i don't have the time to warrant one.

Originally Posted by Jester

1) Posts directed at one or several mods calling for action. This is in reference to posts within threads calling for action on other posts in that thread. Rather than inflame what you believe to be a bad situation by furthering discussion on it, report the offending posts and let a moderator judge.

However, as this thread is going off topic and drifiting into cyclic fashion I'll consider the discussion over and stick a padlock on it.

For the record this thread was full of decent discussion and valid AD posts - for a thread so long it required minimal moderating, which I am quite pleased with. However, some posts were insufferably long, and if you are going to write a long post (which i have no objection to whatsoever, an essay on PA can be quite interesting to read), try to compact your post into 4 or 5 main points and please, try and have regular paragraphs to ensure readability for other forum users.

Regards,

Lok