BattleGroups vs Alliances

[RexDrax]

Well I think this round its quite obvious that battlegroups are having a much bigger impact than alliances, or at least are influencing alliances much more than past round. I guess one factor that contributes to BattleGroups success is that they are made up of friends primarily and people you generally like and want to play with. This in turn makes the BattleGroup dynamics span several alliances which is an added benefit since a BattleGroup is made up of some prominent members who are able to get protection to the BattleGroup members from their alliance, as long as they stay friendly.

What I am wondering is what kind of impact you guys think BG's are having on the PA universe. I am a member of a BG and I have no alliance and not doing badly in the game. There are others who just have BG support who are doing great, and some BG's are much more powerful than Alliances. But since BG's span several alliances they are also contributing to the semi-stagnation that several people have indicate.

Since a BG is made up of several Alliances and members of a BG want to help their BG members it stands to reason that there will be situations where a Alliance cant attack a planet due to it being in a BG that is semi-allied to their Alliance. So are BG's a good thing to the PA universe, or are they just 'fence-sitters' from previous rounds under a diffrent name.

Some BG's, imo, should alrdy declare themselfs as Alliances since they are more powerful and literally operate like an Alliance. But since they dont, they are able to call upon multiple Alliances for defence and attack purposes, sort of like fence-sitters from previous rounds.

PS: This post is meant as a serious discussion and I hope the flamers and one liners will instead of trolling do what they do best, wank off :-D

-RexDrax
[Plush] Extrodinare

[General1]

Impact ask the GALS we attacked

[JC]

Originally posted by General1
Impact ask the GALS we attacked

You in another BG apart from the one you are in with me, because tbh we havent made any impact on anyone ?!

OuZo BG's > *


one of em brought down Hellfish ^^

[ComradeRob]

Battlegroups allow people to feel '1337' and get good roids for a while, but it's the alliances that will allow them to keep the roids. The best battlegroups in the universe are nothing without alliances to back them up.

In a fair fight (though such things tend not to happen in PA), it is the quality of the alliance that matters more than the battlegroup.

[Seth Mace]

But since BG's span several alliances they are also contributing to the semi-stagnation that several people have indicated

And what ComradeRob said

I think Alliances will start to get them in check by bringing them closer or gettin rid of members and doing them over.

[Velta]

Battle groups get roids.

Alliances help you keep them + help you get them.


Regards,

Velta

[General1]

Originally posted by Wilky


You in another BG apart from the one you are in with me, because tbh we havent made any impact on anyone ?!

20-25% roid losses for that gal SUX indeed, damm we SUX

[Seth Mace]

Oh and another thing;

<Misty> people forget the origins of the alliances
<Misty> from the gals in clusters helping each other then from those c alliances turning into BG's and then alliances
<Misty> tho not with those names
<Misty> but the same thing
<Misty> the r3 and onwards guys dont realise where alliances came from..they think they just appeared
<Misty> and if u wanna quote me on yer thread ..go ahead :-)

Which is a good point i think, i mean i started HR as a BG whey back at the end of r2.

I think as BGs get more professional and organised, they begin to grow alliance traits and before they know it, an alliance they are.

[mikay]

BGs are the rebirth of private gals, probably were private gals from the last couple of rounds.

Bottom line is there's no real difference between a BG and an alliance cept the number of members. No matter how good a 20/30 member alliance is it can get covered easier than a 100-150 member allliance. Also their coords are much easier to identify.

[xtothez]

Battlegroups are both the curse and salvation of many alliances. For every BG that helps the alliance its most close to, there's a BG that presents a problem to another alliance.
Speaking for my point of view in the capacity of Ely military, the several BGs whose command are also Ely members gave us a great opportunity to expand our firepower and hunt larger prey. Although not all of the people launching are loyal to us, the targets they are hitting are selected by us, ensuring a focused attack on our hostiles, from people who would otherwise be free to hit allies.
On the other hand, the looser BGs can cause major headaches for alliance commanders. From members accidently defending against their alliance mates, or even defending known hostiles, HC have extra work in tracking down and getting to the bottom of these cases.

As a BG moves towards being an alliance in itself, it loses some of its original freedom and gains the burdens of a full blown alliance, and so the cycle continues. Except not for much longer ofc... : )

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Rythms
OuZo BG's > *


one of em brought down Hellfish ^^

[Lord_Thunderball]

BG already owned in R6, only nobody realised it that well! Now i like it myself as well. It's a wing, but not a wing, it's an alliance but not an alliance.

[General1]

WE ARE BULL AND WE OWN

[Dingo]

We all know these BGs are really no different to alliances. All they do is weaken the various alliances they are part of as well.

Their alliance becomes another source of defence and allows them to grow faster and stronger.

Has it now become time to make these BGs fend for themselves? Does anyone have the guts to remove these sponges from their alliance? Most alliances have a rule regarding dual membership. NOT ALLOWED. How can you expect any loyalty from someone that is going to have a conflict of interests every time one of his BG mates happens to be in a galaxy that is today's target. How can you expect any sort of security of your co-ords if there is a group of multi alliance people all doing checks to 'try' not to hit their own main alliance.

Yet again, NoS will step forward and start to show the rest how the final round should be played. As of today we will be seeking out any members part of these BGs and asking them to make a choice. A real NoSer is exactly that. NOT a part timer.

[ComradeRob]

I agree with Dingo *shudder*

I'm not sure that BGs are always bad for an alliance, but they are bad if they are not controlled by the alliance.

For example, if alliance A's members are in a BG which takes its targets from alliance B, alliance A's members are essentially helping another alliance more than their own. These kinds of BGs are a big problem for alliances, because they remove the alliance's control over their own members.

However, BGs which are made up mostly of alliance A's members, led by alliance A, and merely contain a few neutrals (galaxy members most likely) are positive. They provide extra firepower without any loss of central control.

[Dingo]

The majority of this round's BGs that I have come across have certainly been MULTI-ALLIANCE. These are the ones that bother me and I assume a lot of other people. Whilst their members have "tried" to stay loyal to their original alliance, it can never really work.

[Torz]

I am actually beggining to like Dingo again :/

[Dingo]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO it can't be true.

[Lerxst]

What is the difference between a "battlegroup", a battlegroup and an alliance? An alliance is a bunch of ppl, more or less organised, doing attacks and defenses together. A battlegroup is a bunch of ppl, more or less organised, doing attacks and defenses together. Sometimes BG origin from friends, same do alliances. Hmm... Sounds like being in an alliance AND a BG looks like trying to milk two alliances (or similar organisations).

Some BGs I know, are pure ego-services. Created to feel more "l33t" and going for the top by attacking together and get defended by others. Some other BGs I know are just friends who do things together in an onlinegame. A bit hard to decide which BG is doing exactly what. But since PA is driven mainly by greed and ego-pump-ups...

[-=Zyth=-]

The real downside of having members who are also in a BG is that when the time comes for a BC in their alliance to ask for defence, they stay quiet. Why? cos they are attacking with their battlegroup, and dont want to let them down. But who do they turn to when they get incoming? OK would be no problem if they were supporting their alliances attacks, but they arent.

I think the term is defence leech.

[Chaos]

=) Proud of ya Dingo =)

trust me.. it's the right thing todo =)

[BOB_LOST]

Originally posted by Lerxst
What is the difference between a "battlegroup", a battlegroup and an alliance? An alliance is a bunch of ppl, more or less organised, doing attacks and defenses together. A battlegroup is a bunch of ppl, more or less organised, doing attacks and defenses together. Sometimes BG origin from friends, same do alliances. Hmm... Sounds like being in an alliance AND a BG looks like trying to milk two alliances (or similar organisations).

Some BGs I know, are pure ego-services. Created to feel more "l33t" and going for the top by attacking together and get defended by others. Some other BGs I know are just friends who do things together in an onlinegame. A bit hard to decide which BG is doing exactly what. But since PA is driven mainly by greed and ego-pump-ups...

u have had some run ins with a leet BG

[Domin]

Originally posted by -=Zyth=-
The real downside of having members who are also in a BG is that when the time comes for a BC in their alliance to ask for defence, they stay quiet. Why? cos they are attacking with their battlegroup, and dont want to let them down. But who do they turn to when they get incoming? OK would be no problem if they were supporting their alliances attacks, but they arent.

I think the term is defence leech.

Friends?

At 07:55 most alliances are dry after a bad night... Even if your in a bg or not you won't get def.

Then the BG actually maybe defends!

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally posted by Domin


Friends?

At 07:55 most alliances are dry after a bad night... Even if your in a bg or not you won't get def.

Then the BG actually maybe defends!

I find this unlikely, a BG is in it for the roids, they will be the ones attacking.

[Dingo]

If we all take a moment to reflect. Look at the origins of most alliances. Take NoS as an example. It started as c18 cluster alliance, then a few outsiders, then more outsiders. (most in other alliances). It grew and started attacking together and defending each other. (see a pattern here)

Come on people, we all know BGs are really sub alliances waiting to blossum. I ask all other HCs of alliances to take the same stand and make these people fend for themselves rather than sponge off the rest of us.

Anyone else have the guts to do it?

[Seth Mace]

I doubt many alliances can act alone now dingo, (psst, they apart of powerblocks now, they dont hold as much self-control;P)

Im being sarcastic btw:P

[connie]

/Me fluffles teh HR/NoS Crew;PPP

[RexDrax]

WOW, some very good arguments/points being made. I am impressed, I half expected this thread to go the way of other threads.

Anyways back on topic, yeah BG's can be considered semi-alliance and therefore being a member of a BG and an alliance can be seen as being a member of two alliances. However several folks have mentioned that BGs can negativly affect the main alliance because they drain ships that are not under the direct control of the main alliance. This in turn can cause problems when the BG member is attacking or defending against his main alliance. Those are very valid concerns for the alliance, but if I am not mistaken madcows managed to do quite well as a BG. Yeah they werent a real BG in that sense, but they spanned several alliances and they managed to defend and attack together without any major conflicts of intrests. At least that I am aware of.

I belive madcows operated for something like 3 rounds. So if they were able to take care of themselfs, their members and still grow, wouldent it stand to reason that the current BGs would be able to do similar things?

In the past BGs where primarily made up of a main alliance or a main powerblock, ie Bull galaxies of round 6/7. They where run by Xanadu primarily with the other members coming from the powerblock that Xanadu was part of or neutrals that had good connections to Bull HC's, the same thing can be stated about Thieves&Pirates. However with no firm big powerblocks existing in round 8 the above mentioned BGs have adapted, and since they where highly successful a lot more BGs are active in this round than in past.


Dingo does have a valid point, by forcing members to choose between the Alliance and their BG it forces them to evaluate their loyalties, and I am sure that any alliance rather find out now than later whether the member will be loyal. Having said that, if BGs are treated/seen as alliances and lets go under the presumption that every alliance cuts whatever BG their members are part of lose, the potential exists for about 20 or more, not exactly sure the exact number, new alliances being formed. This initally is not a bad thing. More alliances means more conflict.

The conflict will not start immediately. More alliances means a greater chance of more alliances being present in a galaxy. Since most alliances are operating with galaxy naps until a galaxy/planet has showen to be hostile, it would mean that there is a greater chance of more galaxies being able to fence-sit their way to the top. Having said that, with more alliances present in the galaxy, there is more chance of a galaxy losing their galaxy protection and reverting to a planet nap, which will/can lead to more conflict via retals from one alliance to another. This in turn can lead to a more broader conflict and hopefully a general war which would be nice.

With respect to ComradeRob's reply, and others that agreed with him, I would have to disagree with you there. You stated that BGs might/will get you more roids but that Alliances will keep them save. That depends on the quality of the BG and the alliance. A top notch alliance like Fury has a greater chance of protecting your roids, but if Fury is under heavy concentrated attacks then not even they can protect your roids. A BG such as Bull or LDK is much better at getting and protecting your roids than any alliance, but even they cant stand up to a concentrated attack for a long time. So your statement is relative. Yes under normail conditions a Alliance has a greater chance of protecting your roids than a BG, but under normal conditions you wouldent really need BG. Your alliance should be able to supply at least some attacks that are at a reasonable time for you, but if your alliance is not very big that would be very hard to accomplish. Attacks this round appear to happen whenever, but still primarily in the 23:00-9:00 CET attack window.

I look forward to some more intresting posts :-)

[chemical]

2 Alliances joining together to take down 1 BG.

eh?

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by chemical
2 Alliances joining together to take down 1 BG.

eh?

You never know, depends on what alliance and which BG they are targeting. Some BGs are quite powerful, and are literally an alliance within an alliance.

[Legator]

Originally posted by Dingo
The majority of this round's BGs that I have come across have certainly been MULTI-ALLIANCE. These are the ones that bother me and I assume a lot of other people. Whilst their members have "tried" to stay loyal to their original alliance, it can never really work.

dont liek it but yer right...definately

[N0VA]

Battlegroups serve as a mixed blessing for alliances. The dual loyalties can definitely be problematic, but the decreased burden in providing for players of respective sizes can be a real benefit.

Consider this, when players join a battle group, it is usually with people of the same skill, activity, and size as they are. Without battlegroups, bc's need to balance attacks for the larger players and smaller ones alike, as well as coordinating defense for large and small ones with whatever resources they have access to at that moment.

With a battlegroup though, when a large player gets hit, he can have similarly sized members in his bg help him to defend, drawing fewer resources from his alliance. And when a smaller one gets hit, they can draw defense from their bg as well, so as not to tie up fleets of large ones unnecessarily.

Also, as bg's can provide a lot of the firepower for an alliance, they are frequently prime targets. The benefit of this is that it divides hostiles across multiple alliances, instead of allowing the aggressor to devote multiple waves to the one alliance alone. This is analagous to the private galaxies of r4-7, where it was virtually suicide for alliances to fill up galaxies with their own members exclusively.

So if alliances such as NoS would like to prohibit their members from joining mixed battle groups, I applaud them for their extreme loyalty and confidence in each other. As long as your alliance steers clear of outright war, it should work nicely for you. Should you end up in a war though, you might find it a bit difficult to cover your members each night.

Originally posted by RexDrax
I guess one factor that contributes to BattleGroups success is that they are made up of friends primarily and people you generally like and want to play with.

Its quite impossible for me to not be blunt here. This was the definition of alliances several rounds ago. Why this has changed is a completely other topic for discussion, yet I shall entertain bits and pieces of it here for clarity's sake. Everyone is aware of how the change slowly creeped up on us between the r3/r4 era. The game has had a much different feeling since then. Private galaxies and soon after, p2p. We have argued these issues to no end on this board. And it has been for so long that we've argued, most of you are already aware of the traditional argument grounds. Forgive me if it reitterate a bit. Private galaxies gave you the opportunity to play with your friends, thus taking the importance off of how much association with the members of your alliance, much less how well you get along with them. In turn, p2p gave private galaxies all the more reason to be popular at the time, because you could pick specificly who you wanted to work with. There was no more, "We're a family, and that there is stinky old Uncle George. He is just kind of there most of the time and not many in the family pay attention to him." Naturally we all flocked to the choices that left the most options open to us.

Alliances used to be focused STRONGLY on the community. It became very apparent very quickly to us "second generation alliance leaders" (if I may coin the phrase - Tuba and Conc as well as TE, RE and TPE being considerable candidates for first gen) that oversized alliances just didnt cut it.

Too many players = Bad

Why? First of all, overloading your alliance takes away the community feel. Being tightly knit with everyone in your alliance is something that just happens if you're lucky enough to land with a group of great players. Its something that you cant demand, but that you can certainly ruin. The more players there are in your alliance, the larger a proportion of them are going to be opportunists that just want the protection, the name, the power. Lovely day, Dingo.

The more players in your alliance, the less of an opportunity your members have to get to know each other on a personal level and bond. Some of you may laugh at this, some of you know the importance of what I speak of. If you know your allies. If you know, "Oh thats George. He lives in Southern California, west coast timezone, and he's Cathaar. He does scans for us if we need them, and has a few mates from work with lots of xan fighters and corvettes we can use for defense," how can you not be a step ahead of someone else who hasnt even spoken to half the members in his own alliance? Putting a face to the name, so to speak, makes it alot easier to be willing to defend someone. Suddenly its not just "Another guy needs my def ships. Sigh." The Legion which I fondly remember, was happy, motivated, and closely knit. We weren't perfect by any means. But we had that community spirit.

Being close to members reduces the chance of leaks in your network. Let's be honest, spies are almost impossible to avoid after all this time, but being on close terms with everyone in your alliance is definately going to reduce the chances of having several, if any double agents in your ranks.

Why am I mentioning all this again? Well, close knit alliances went out the window with private galaxies and pay to play. There was no need when you could choose who you wanted to play with instead, so alliances took a backseat role to provide as the imposing masses used for defense fleets. The whole alliance vs galaxy debate reared its ugly head about this time. Many alliances (not naming any names here) slowly decayed into shams of their former selves. In fact, I cant really think of one that hasnt lost that original shine, but that's neither hirr nor there..

Suddenly soon after, battlegroups start forming. What are these mysterious enigmas? I'd liken them to Concordium wings, frankly. They do so well on their own, that they only cling to the massive alliance(s) for the protection of the name. They're a community within a community. And some of them are the size of certain r2-r3 alliances.. *cough cough*
Why dont wings generally work well? This goes back to the original concept of knowing everyone in your community. Giving seperate identities to different members within a whole is bad buisness, whether it be an attack wing, defense coalition, or what-have-you. The only seperation that I've ever found work in my time as a leader is timezone shifts. Knowing that x amount of people are going to be watching out for you while you're asleep is a very comforting feeling, and it makes you feel darn thankful that you have team players willing to go out of their way for you.

What are battlegroups then? In this poster's humble opinion, they're small alliances. Dismantle private galaxies and what do you get? A tendancy toward smaller, closer knit, more efficient groups of people attacking and defending. The problem right now is that noone wants to let go of the big names that have been around for so long. Noone wants to take the step and just be a battlegroup (read: alliance) with no affiliations to an "alliance." It's my opinon that the alliances we've known for the past several rounds are out the door. They're just not working as well in this system of gameplay as many are expecting them to. But many are still too afraid of taking that next step in redefining the standard of qualtiy alliance play that we once knew.

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally posted by Dragoon
*snip

All of what you have said is true, now is the time for them to stand up and be counted. On their own, not having divided loyalties. And not confusing me.

If the end of the round comes along and suddenly, Plush or Insomnia make a long winded tedious post saying their member are standing alone and proud etc, that they have won the round on their own, how exactly does this look to the people who have been defending them all round?

[HOPupNdown]

Originally posted by -=Zyth=-


All of what you have said is true, now is the time for them to stand up and be counted. On their own, not having divided loyalties. And not confusing me.

If the end of the round comes along and suddenly, Plush or Insomnia make a long winded tedious post saying their member are standing alone and proud etc, that they have won the round on their own, how exactly does this look to the people who have been defending them all round?

qoute to me where a plush member was saying he "won" the round alone please .

[HOPupNdown]

Originally posted by Dingo
If we all take a moment to reflect. Look at the origins of most alliances. Take NoS as an example. It started as c18 cluster alliance, then a few outsiders, then more outsiders. (most in other alliances). It grew and started attacking together and defending each other. (see a pattern here)

Come on people, we all know BGs are really sub alliances waiting to blossum. I ask all other HCs of alliances to take the same stand and make these people fend for themselves rather than sponge off the rest of us.

Anyone else have the guts to do it?

how many members have you lost to BGs so far dingo ?

there are a few big differences between BG's and alliances ,
the ego-filled HCs , the "command structure" and "politics" that BG lack , or have in a much lighter version . alienating people
from battlegroups will only pull them towards one of the BG's alliances that had the TACT and the right political mind to seize
the chance for a refined attack force .

P.S
if your members prefer attacking with other people , you should take a good look at your BCs .

[Damon]

Originally posted by -=Zyth=-


All of what you have said is true, now is the time for them to stand up and be counted. On their own, not having divided loyalties. And not confusing me.

If the end of the round comes along and suddenly, Plush or Insomnia make a long winded tedious post saying their member are standing alone and proud etc, that they have won the round on their own, how exactly does this look to the people who have been defending them all round?

I am in a Bg wich is noted above
I defend also the alliance i am in
It's not like we dont defend them!

[Luckeh!!!!]

Go ZaRa \o/

[HOPupNdown]

Originally posted by Luckeh!!!!
Go ZaRa \o/

are you stalking me ? :eek:

[RexDrax]

I think Dragoon summed it up pretty well as to where BGs are now and what sort of history is behind the creation of BGs. However one of the main questions hasnt really been answered, have BGs had a posetive impact on PA and/or an Alliance? Thats just me being curious.

Also we only hear about the more prominent BGs these days and in past rounds, or maybe its just me. If I am not mistaken, and I am sure I am, BGs tend to be more associated with the bigger alliances. Smaller alliances dont seem to require BGs as extensivly as bigger alliances due to the fact that they are generally a more closly knit community of players. They have a greater chance of knowing each other personally than a big alliance such as Fury, Xanadu, Legion and so on. So if there are any members of smaller alliances that are also part of a BG, do you find that the two are very similar and are an advantage to you or your alliance/BG? Since smaller alliances are more limited in terms of when they can attack it would stand to reason that not all of their members can join the alliance attack at the appointed time, so a way around that would be joining a BG which can fill the gap for them.

[Lord Cheese]

Its very nice that dingo makes (yet another stand) on an issue that he feels strongly about but you have to wonder if he is using NoS to ride his personal campaign to get himself elevated into 'an alliance leader who cares about the community' number 1 position thinking little about his own alliance. He very quickly took the NoS will have no allies this round line at beginning of round - this is NoS's only realistic chance of getting a decent position they dont have the firepower to do it themselves. Now he gives some of his members the option of leaving their BG (only real source of reliable roids as NoS attacks are just a little inconsistant/at difficult times for most members to use) or leaving NoS, i can see this as a really good way of losing their best (best as in high score) members. I know NoS members in BG's defended them anyway (actually i've been shown evidence that most of their top 20 defenders are in BG's), so you just have to wonder is Dingo trying to act the 'good guy' at the expense fo his alliance?

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally posted by Lord Cheese
Its very nice that dingo makes (yet another stand) on an issue that he feels strongly about but you have to wonder if he is using NoS to ride his personal campaign to get himself elevated into 'an alliance leader who cares about the community' number 1 position thinking little about his own alliance. He very quickly took the NoS will have no allies this round line at beginning of round - this is NoS's only realistic chance of getting a decent position they dont have the firepower to do it themselves. Now he gives some of his members the option of leaving their BG (only real source of reliable roids as NoS attacks are just a little inconsistant/at difficult times for most members to use) or leaving NoS, i can see this as a really good way of losing their best (best as in high score) members. I know NoS members in BG's defended them anyway (actually i've been shown evidence that most of their top 20 defenders are in BG's), so you just have to wonder is Dingo trying to act the 'good guy' at the expense fo his alliance?

Burn baby burn

[WipeOut]

Originally posted by Lord Cheese
Its very nice that dingo makes (yet another stand) on an issue that he feels strongly about but you have to wonder if he is using NoS to ride his personal campaign to get himself elevated into 'an alliance leader who cares about the community' number 1 position thinking little about his own alliance. He very quickly took the NoS will have no allies this round line at beginning of round - this is NoS's only realistic chance of getting a decent position they dont have the firepower to do it themselves. Now he gives some of his members the option of leaving their BG (only real source of reliable roids as NoS attacks are just a little inconsistant/at difficult times for most members to use) or leaving NoS, i can see this as a really good way of losing their best (best as in high score) members. I know NoS members in BG's defended them anyway (actually i've been shown evidence that most of their top 20 defenders are in BG's), so you just have to wonder is Dingo trying to act the 'good guy' at the expense fo his alliance?

I think I know Dingo better than most people, I've worked for and lateron alongside Dingo for over a year. Dingo would never use NoS to elevate the general opinion about him. He cares too much about NoS to do that, and he sure as hell doesn't give a sh|t about his popularity, nor the public opinion on his person.

All Dingo cares about in pa is NoS, NoS, NoS and .... women.
________
volcano vaporizer

[Dingo]

Originally posted by HOPupNdown
[b]how many members have you lost to BGs so far dingo ?

We have only just started asking people to make a choice and those that decide to leave, so couldn't say.

Originally posted by HOPupNdown
[b]there are a few big differences between BG's and alliances ,
the ego-filled HCs , the "command structure" and "politics" that BG lack , or have in a much lighter version . alienating people
from battlegroups will only pull them towards one of the BG's alliances that had the TACT and the right political mind to seize
the chance for a refined attack force .

You live in a dream world if you honestly believe this. Read this thread again and you will see what the future holds for your BG. If PA was to continue, your nice little chummy BG WILL become a full alliance and there will be NO distiction between it and any other current alliance. I would rather have a small group of people that want to be with each other, than this "refined attack force" you talk of that in reality is only interested in themselves. (That comes from talks with several people regarding their reasons for being in the BG)

[Felagund]

Well i´m NoS and i disagree with Dingo at least in a few things , for me BGs are good for a player and for an alliance , but the problem is that u havent explained what kinds of bgs are good or bads for an alliance . I think there are 3 kinds of bgs :

- Defence-attack Bg : U dont defend ur alliance and u never attack with ur alliance

- Attack Bg : U attack usually with ur bg but sometimes attack with ur alliance , u never defend the guys in ur bg , and u have ur defence fleet for ur alliance

Friends Bg : U attack usually with ur friends coz is more easy and u defend ur m8s when they got incoming , i think we all defend our m8s when they got incoming and tons of times the defence we sent to our friends allow the alliance to cover other .

For me attack bg and friends bg are good for an alliance

[Dingo]

Originally posted by RexDrax
I think Dragoon summed it up pretty well as to where BGs are now and what sort of history is behind the creation of BGs. However one of the main questions hasnt really been answered, have BGs had a posetive impact on PA and/or an Alliance? Thats just me being curious.

BGs that are solely made up of a single alliance can certainly be a great benefit, but they ARE still part of the main alliance. It is the "multi-alliance-spanning" BGs that to me are a blight on the game. I'd like to make that clear distinction.

Originally posted by RexDrax
Also we only hear about the more prominent BGs these days and in past rounds, or maybe its just me. If I am not mistaken, and I am sure I am, BGs tend to be more associated with the bigger alliances. Smaller alliances dont seem to require BGs as extensivly as bigger alliances due to the fact that they are generally a more closly knit community of players. They have a greater chance of knowing each other personally than a big alliance such as Fury, Xanadu, Legion and so on.

Please refer to above statement.

[Veil05]

Originally posted by WipeOut


I think I know Dingo better than most people, I've worked for and lateron alongside Dingo for over a year. Dingo would never use NoS to elevate the general opinion about him. He cares too much about NoS to do that, and he sure as hell doesn't give a sh|t about his popularity, nor the public opinion on his person.

All Dingo cares about in pa is NoS, NoS, NoS and .... women.

indeed, Dingo loves nos

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Lord Cheese
Its very nice that dingo makes (yet another stand) on an issue that he feels strongly about but you have to wonder if he is using NoS to ride his personal campaign to get himself elevated into 'an alliance leader who cares about the community' number 1 position thinking little about his own alliance. He very quickly took the NoS will have no allies this round line at beginning of round - this is NoS's only realistic chance of getting a decent position they dont have the firepower to do it themselves. Now he gives some of his members the option of leaving their BG (only real source of reliable roids as NoS attacks are just a little inconsistant/at difficult times for most members to use) or leaving NoS, i can see this as a really good way of losing their best (best as in high score) members. I know NoS members in BG's defended them anyway (actually i've been shown evidence that most of their top 20 defenders are in BG's), so you just have to wonder is Dingo trying to act the 'good guy' at the expense fo his alliance?

Please refrain from flaming. The subject being discussed is an important one. Where you are privy to the internal workings of NoS, you would know very well that this is NOT just my own personal oppinion. As for our only chance... get a life please. Baggin NoS and even me for that matter is so 'OLD' it's now boring for everyone.

Lastly.. do NOT ever suggest I would do anything at the expense of NoS for myself. Even those that hate me with a passion know well enough that everything I do, I do for NoS. Always have, always will.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Dingo


....I would rather have a small group of people that want to be with each other, than this "refined attack force" you talk of that in reality is only interested in themselves. (That comes from talks with several people regarding their reasons for being in the BG)

Hmm...

A BG is basically a small group of people that to be with each other. This later evolves into an alliance if they are willing to and haev the courage to stand up as a group. And yes it is true that like an alliance BG's are primarily intrested in their own 'thing'. As long as those intrests coincide with the alliance they are part of they will have a good working relationship. But when they dont coincide, thats when problems will occur, which is quite evident from the rumours and reports I have received so far.

Care to explain or elaborate your last comment further since I am part of the same BG as ZaRa.