Seriously though

[Jester]

I think that if you'd had a planet, if you actually played the game, you would see things differently Zhukov.

Why is it we only see complaining about 1up's victory? Why don't we see the normal whining of overtargeted underlings? Why aren't people complaining about stagnation?

The problem isn't that no one but 1up had a chance to win, it's that none of the others seized that opportunity. Don't blame 1up for being good, blame the other alliance for being inept. Despite their attempts at blocking against 1up, despite their roid leads and despite their superior fleet numbers, they managed to piss it away. If they'd just copied 1up's tactics they would have won, but instead of letting innovation get in the way, they tried an old strategy and got hammered for it.

You have no excuses, your favorites lost because they suck. This isn't about 'redefining the battlefield', this is about pulling their collective heads out of their asses.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Jester

I think that if you'd had a planet, if you actually played the game, you would see things differently Zhukov.

Why is it we only see complaining about 1up's victory? Why don't we see the normal whining of overtargeted underlings? Why aren't people complaining about stagnation?

The problem isn't that no one but 1up had a chance to win, it's that none of the others seized that opportunity. Don't blame 1up for being good, blame the other alliance for being inept. Despite their attempts at blocking against 1up, despite their roid leads and despite their superior fleet numbers, they managed to piss it away. If they'd just copied 1up's tactics they would have won, but instead of letting innovation get in the way, they tried an old strategy and got hammered for it.

No, they got hammered for not embracing the old strategy early and complete.

You have no excuses, your favorites lost because they suck. This isn't about 'redefining the battlefield', this is about pulling their collective heads out of their asses.

[Goatsemaster]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

No, they got hammered for not embracing the old strategy early and completely.

We can't know that. People playing PA these days have fallen into a lull of thinking everything is superpredictable. Much of 1up's success is an exploitation of that. Everyone 'knew' that 1up was going to win, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. Nor would their loss be guaranteed if people had blocked up solidly and early. I, for one, don't think Sid would make that mistake again.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

No, they got hammered for not embracing the old strategy early and complete.

What "old strategy"? Is there a particular "old strategy" that you are thinking of, or is this a vague euphemism for something else?


As for Zhukov, I'm starting to think this argument will have to go unresolved. We will simply have to agree to disagree - I stand by my argument that having a round which starts without blocks is better than a round which starts with predefined blocks (and therefore a predefined victory).

I also believe that for the "neutral" player it's better to see a situation where one alliance wins, than having to live under the domination of a 3-alliance block (which inevitably becomes a 2-alliance block once they need the roids). So far, we have you and Rumad beating the anti-1up drum on AD, and I don't think we've seen so much as a single complaint from someone who is actually playing the game.

Imagine LCH, Vision and Mistu had formed a block before ticks started, and won. Right now we'd be hearing the traditional whining about stagnation, block politics and probably vociferous complaints from whichever of the three alliances has been kicked out of the block. The remaining two alliances would have a complete stranglehold on the top 100. I may be biased () but I think that's a boring kind of round (if only because it has been done so many times before).

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Jester

I think that if you'd had a planet, if you actually played the game, you would see things differently Zhukov.

Why is it we only see complaining about 1up's victory? Why don't we see the normal whining of overtargeted underlings? Why aren't people complaining about stagnation?

The problem isn't that no one but 1up had a chance to win, it's that none of the others seized that opportunity. Don't blame 1up for being good, blame the other alliance for being inept. Despite their attempts at blocking against 1up, despite their roid leads and despite their superior fleet numbers, they managed to piss it away. If they'd just copied 1up's tactics they would have won, but instead of letting innovation get in the way, they tried an old strategy and got hammered for it.

You have no excuses, your favorites lost because they suck. This isn't about 'redefining the battlefield', this is about pulling their collective heads out of their asses.

Bullsh** from begining to end her Jester.

1) Its a random round, dont even think about blaiming this round relative success on 1ups anti-blocking stance. Rob has already tried that retoricial trick once, and Im wondering if your able to read.
2) Gerbie's post is a winner. Hammering down 1up from the very first ticks would have made things completly different.
3) Its not about redifining the battlefield, its about playing on different battlefield. Its about thinking outside the box, so to speak. Vision, LCH and MISTU failed, becouse they played inside the box.
4) I had no favourites this round, I hardly know who plays in the three above mentioned alliances for exampel. Though I had one favourite to win the round, 1up, and I wasnt even worried that they wouldnt win, even when LCH overtook them for a while.

[Forest]

Everyone keeps mentioning the no-blocking is what caused 1up to win.

Do you not think that if we blocked 1up could still of won easily? Answer that question and arguments on random gals is null and void.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

What "old strategy"? Is there a particular "old strategy" that you are thinking of, or is this a vague euphemism for something else?


As for Zhukov, I'm starting to think this argument will have to go unresolved. We will simply have to agree to disagree - I stand by my argument that having a round which starts without blocks is better than a round which starts with predefined blocks (and therefore a predefined victory).

I also believe that for the "neutral" player it's better to see a situation where one alliance wins, than having to live under the domination of a 3-alliance block (which inevitably becomes a 2-alliance block once they need the roids). So far, we have you and Rumad beating the anti-1up drum on AD, and I don't think we've seen so much as a single complaint from someone who is actually playing the game.

Imagine LCH, Vision and Mistu had formed a block before ticks started, and won. Right now we'd be hearing the traditional whining about stagnation, block politics and probably vociferous complaints from whichever of the three alliances has been kicked out of the block. The remaining two alliances would have a complete stranglehold on the top 100. I may be biased () but I think that's a boring kind of round (if only because it has been done so many times before).

Your again comparing this round (a random round) to previous private rounds. If you shall compare it with anything, r8 is the most comparable I belive.

Anyways, people like myself, Lokken and Rumad, have the luxury to comment on this round without putting something in it reputationwise, as we are not command members (Lokken is as far as Ive picked up a peon in Newdawn these days). Nor do we have to be quiet about anything, nor do we need to fear the usual slandering you get from the Fury PR Squad, when you post something they dont like (hello Tis, your latest attempt was patethic).

Yes, I am imagining that. AND BET WHO'S NOT WINNING THEN? oh, thats you and 1up isnt it
There's the whole point.
Ofcourse, we shall agree to disagree on that.

[Helix]

1) Its a random round, dont even think about blaiming this round relative success on 1ups anti-blocking stance. Rob has already tried that retoricial trick once, and Im wondering if your able to read.
2) Gerbie's post is a winner. Hammering down 1up from the very first ticks would have made things completly different.
3) Its not about redifining the battlefield, its about playing on different battlefield. Its about thinking outside the box, so to speak. Vision, LCH and MISTU failed, becouse they played inside the box.
4) I had no favourites this round, I hardly know who plays in the three above mentioned alliances for exampel. Though I had one favourite to win the round, 1up, and I wasnt even worried that they wouldnt win, even when LCH overtook them for a while.

Ok, first off, it is rHetorical. Secondly, it isn't really a rhetorical trick what Rob said, he simply stated his opinion and his view on the round. There will always be people who complain about the winners having it too easy, but the fact is that 1up have not had this round easy at all. We have had a number of people put in a lot of time to hang on and win. 1up has also been far from impervious to attack, and still are not. We still have times when we cant cover incomings. If you had played the round, seen the amount of incomings on all sides then you would know that the round was actually well fought on all sides.

An unfortunate incident this round was the whole FAnG mishap. That was another competitor that sort of fell out of the running, some of them went in to strengthen MISTU, but it was still a blow to the anti-1up movement.

The real tragedy this round was not that 1up won, but it was the horrific balance of the races. There are more Xans in the top 100 than there are 1up, and less zik and cath than there are people from other alliances. Perhaps this race imbalance is also a reason for the success of 1up. Has anyone ever stopped to think that part of what gave 1up an edge was that they are made up mostly of terrans and xans. There are very few zik and cath in 1up, which not only makes 1up harder to attacker, but have more punch when it comes to defending.


Instead of worrying so much about the alliance situation for next round, lets get the game mechanics first. This round worked out well, and if we went into next round in much the same way as this round it would be a completely different outcome. Everyone will be gunning for 1up much harder from the start, and it wont be quite necessary for a big block to pound them down, or even NAPs. The other alliances have all learned their lessons from this round, and are hopefully getting their military strategies in order. They have proven that they know how to fight on their own. What they need to learn from this round, is when they need to block, and how to effectively make that happen. Dont block when it isn't needed, as that only adds to stagnation and the decline of PA.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Your again comparing this round (a random round) to previous private rounds. If you shall compare it with anything, r8 is the most comparable I belive.

Anyways, people like myself, Lokken and Rumad, have the luxury to comment on this round without putting something in it reputationwise, as we are not command members (Lokken is as far as Ive picked up a peon in Newdawn these days). Nor do we have to be quiet about anything, nor do we need to fear the usual slandering you get from the Fury PR Squad, when you post something they dont like (hello Tis, your latest attempt was patethic).

Yes, I am imagining that. AND BET WHO'S NOT WINNING THEN? oh, thats you and 1up isnt it
There's the whole point.
Ofcourse, we shall agree to disagree on that.

You definately have nothing to fear reputation-wise. Your reputation is of talking shit, and that doesnt seem to be changing.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Helix

The real tragedy this round was not that 1up won, but it was the horrific balance of the races. There are more Xans in the top 100 than there are 1up, and less zik and cath than there are people from other alliances. Perhaps this race imbalance is also a reason for the success of 1up. Has anyone ever stopped to think that part of what gave 1up an edge was that they are made up mostly of terrans and xans. There are very few zik and cath in 1up, which not only makes 1up harder to attacker, but have more punch when it comes to defending.

Speaking as an MO this round, having mainly xans in 1up is certainly not a good thing :/

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Helix

...
The real tragedy this round was not that 1up won, but it was the horrific balance of the races. There are more Xans in the top 100 than there are 1up, and less zik and cath than there are people from other alliances. Perhaps this race imbalance is also a reason for the success of 1up. Has anyone ever stopped to think that part of what gave 1up an edge was that they are made up mostly of terrans and xans. There are very few zik and cath in 1up, which not only makes 1up harder to attacker, but have more punch when it comes to defending.


Instead of worrying so much about the alliance situation for next round, lets get the game mechanics first. This round worked out well, and if we went into next round in much the same way as this round it would be a completely different outcome. Everyone will be gunning for 1up much harder from the start, and it wont be quite necessary for a big block to pound them down, or even NAPs. The other alliances have all learned their lessons from this round, and are hopefully getting their military strategies in order. They have proven that they know how to fight on their own. What they need to learn from this round, is when they need to block, and how to effectively make that happen. Dont block when it isn't needed, as that only adds to stagnation and the decline of PA.

I guess the inbalance in races will be corrected. The alliance I was in was Terran heavy. I don't think that was all bad. Terran is the strongest race, although it loses in a direct confrontation with Xan. It just needs cath and zik...

I disagree about the last bit. Alliances made a calculated risk that 1up would win. They prefered not to block asap as they knew what that might lead to. I'm not sure that policy will change. Yes, some of the larger alliances will target 1up from the start, but as long as 1up doesn't get too much of a lead they will not co-operate too much. Except from Mistu, VsN and LCH I don't see any other alliances that have the ambition to defeat 1up. Those alliances will try not to get involved and save themselfs the attacks by 1up.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

You definately have nothing to fear reputation-wise. Your reputation is of talking shit, and that doesnt seem to be changing.

nor do we need to fear the usual slandering you get from the Fury PR Squad

Ive taking you in lying and beeing a hypocratic, so who are you too speak anyways?

(hello Zhil, your attempt is patethic)

[Jester]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Ive taking you in lying and beeing a hypocratic

Zhil is a doctor?

[virogenesis]

got me in the mood for doctors & nurses now damn it