And so it begins ...

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

mazzelaar i still havent seen any logs of KJ .... ive seen KJ posting something entirely different to what sid said so .......

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

mazzelaar i still havent seen any logs of KJ .... ive seen KJ posting something entirely different to what sid said so .......

I haven't seen you make an even vaguely coherent post. Does that mean such a thing doesn't exist?

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

only thing I'm certain of after all this is that spacecookie is a complete idiot...same drivel every post he makes

"why dont you get a life bla bla bla more incoherent jabber yadda yadda yadda flame someone and think im funny yadda yadda yadda bla bla bla"

angryduck i dont care what you think, if you think im trying to be funny thats your problem not mine, im fed up with those so called accusations to bring me and my alliance in discredit. if you read this whole thread you would see i bring valid points. and imo if there was any truth in this all so called proof i wouldnt troll.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Yes I pm'd Sid, I'm somewhat surprised he used my pm as reference but only posted half the story (the things that would suit him and 1up the most).

Sid, next time, write everything and not the facts that suit YOU the most, that is if you wanna make this look like an honnest thread.

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

We have logs confirmed by someone who can only be described as "hostile" to 1up.

If you are able to read what he actually said, you'll notice that he didn't deny the conversation happened, but that he also stated there is more to the logs that make what he said appear differently - thats not a confirmation.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Shev

If you are able to read what he actually said, you'll notice that he didn't deny the conversation happened, but that he also stated there is more to the logs that make what he said appear differently - thats not a confirmation.

Of course it's a confirmation of what Sid quoted. Kjeldoran is simply saying not the whole conversation was there. Whether Sid missed bit's out or not is not part of the discussion, we are discussing whether Kjeldoran said those words or not.

Even a simpleton can see that Kjeldoran was in fact reinforcing the allegation that those exact words were typed by him.

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Of course it's a confirmation of what Sid quoted. Kjeldoran is simply saying not the whole conversation was there. Whether Sid missed bit's out or not is not part of the discussion, we are discussing whether Kjeldoran said those words or not.

Even a simpleton can see that Kjeldoran was in fact reinforcing the allegation that those exact words were typed by him.

thats the problem apparently you cant get, it wasnt an confirmation to what sid said, since 1 kj is back since a few days as hc so cant know what was going on before round 2nd he didnt confirm anything of the accusations made nor denied doesnt make sid telling the truth.

[Razorback]

On a sidenote maybe KJ and Sid both can putup the log on a seperate page so we dont need to guesstimate any further and can compare their "versions" just for a laugh

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

thats the problem apparently you cant get, it wasnt an confirmation to what sid said, since 1 kj is back since a few days as hc so cant know what was going on before round 2nd he didnt confirm anything of the accusations made nor denied doesnt make sid telling the truth.

If I could understand it, I'd argue with it.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Of course it's a confirmation of what Sid quoted. Kjeldoran is simply saying not the whole conversation was there. Whether Sid missed bit's out or not is not part of the discussion, we are discussing whether Kjeldoran said those words or not.

Even a simpleton can see that Kjeldoran was in fact reinforcing the allegation that those exact words were typed by him.

Shall I just copy/paste my last post? I'm not denying he said them - but things were left out that makes the conversation different. KJ doesn't elaborate, but for all we know the next line was "LOL :P".

Anyway, to get back on topic, personally I don't see the fuss - if MISTU coordinate attacks with others, then so what? Find a way to beat it. At the moment you probably don't need to do much differently heh.

[Aviendha]

I must have read too much Roald Dahl


I am still waiting for the punchline where Kjeldoran does a Deus ex Machina and explains his chat with Sid was just a sly ploy to start controversy.

And let me add, between lokken and Vaio, i think BlueTuba is gonna win this round

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

well i think ive been requesting that the so called 'proof' would be given to us but untill now you still have failed that only things i have to beleive what comes from you guys, and just like the other post of preround agreement then the bg thingie etc etc when are we gonna see the rock solid proof. im still waiting

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Shev

Shall I just copy/paste my last post? I'm not denying he said them - but things were left out that makes the conversation different. KJ doesn't elaborate, but for all we know the next line was "LOL :P".

Anyway, to get back on topic, personally I don't see the fuss - if MISTU coordinate attacks with others, then so what? Find a way to beat it. At the moment you probably don't need to do much differently heh.

You sure you didn't sneakily edit that post ;/

my bad - sorry

[Shev]

Originally Posted by Aviendha

I must have read too much Roald Dahl


I am still waiting for the punchline where Kjeldoran does a Deus ex Machina and explains his chat with Sid was just a sly ploy to start controversy.

And let me add, between lokken and Vaio, i think BlueTuba is gonna win this round

Without a doubt

(Hi Avie )

[Aviendha]

Heya Shev :o)

(nice quote in your sig lol, DA^ still around?)

[Shev]

Aye, he's on RaHweb with the rest of us.

[Methedrine]

Originally Posted by Razorback

You were claiming its just a cooperation, my point C proves that an extended attack cooperation infact is an alliance if you set enough rules and preparations in it both start to mean the same.

So, leads me to a question: Where does someone draw a line between a block and a cooperation?

Originally Posted by Razorback

The 3rd alliance (Rock) hasnt denied the accusations yet and we all still hold our breath for the proof (including myself). Undisputable fact (if you remove your tainted sunglasses) 1up so far has kept their ground even against "the odds" and against a possible cooperation. 1up was picked on for going solo and for proposing that, i havent yet seen one of the loudmouths. i.e. rumad and others apologizing for their missinterpretation considering half the round is nearly over.

Reading up these boards a bit, 1Up hasn't been the only alliance going solo. I have seen statements from FAnG and LCH and other people that they will also go solo. To me it looks like there is something different than the "going solo" which makes 1Up look bad, maybe you should go and read the boards a bit to get a clue.
And sorry Watson, but it's PT 474 as we speak - that is far from a half-through round I think?

Originally Posted by Razorback

No shit sherlock. 1up wants to win the round, they said so from day 1. However you missinterpret the universe abit. Every alliance or cooperation of alliances can be a threat for the #1 alliance, no matter if the #2 or #3 are allies, friends, neutrals or enemies. If you get most of the beating someone else can overtake you surfing in the silent waters.

I agree that every block or cooperation not just can be a threat for the #1 alliance, but even is one - it is, however, a matter of how you adapt yourself to such a situation. If you keep your hardest competitors on distance the worst thing that could happen is that the playing field gets levelled again; which would actually lead to a situation where almost every cooperation/block would have to stop (so far I agree with the stuff Sid stated). The key is to drag competitors out of those silent waters.

Originally Posted by Razorback

Thats not entirely correct and show you have not spend must time controlling or planning for a successfull alliance (no personal dig). Attacking the strongest enemy is not the easiest or best way to win, there are many more and many easier options to deal with such a problem. Alot also depends on what your enemies and the rest of the universe do. Wasting your breath and strength on an equally strong enemy while you are primarily hit by 5 other alliances would certainly not bring much gain for you. Especially not if the #2 doesnt reply and just defends and attacks someone weaker in return. Just to name 1 example.

I think you don't need to have run or run an alliance to think about possible solutions. It's a matter of gaming philosophy and I do not disagree that there are easier ways than the one I pointed at. I was more pointing out that 1Up has chosen to go a very hard way but now they seem to whine about their very own decision and try to get some sympathy so that people won't call them blockers or anything.
Anyways, what would be wrong with 1Up losing the top spot again and being levelled back to 90% of the top alliances niveau just to level the new #1 down again in the end?

Originally Posted by Razorback

On a sidenote maybe KJ and Sid both can putup the log on a seperate page so we dont need to guesstimate any further and can compare their "versions" just for a laugh

It would definately be interesting.

[Methedrine]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Are you playing this round?

If so, you should be aware that the ship stats make it pretty easy for a smaller planet to hit a larger one, assuming no external defence. This is where the numbers game comes into play - the side with more members has more available fleets, whereas the smaller side has fewer fleets. The problem for top alliances isn't the actual existance of fleets capable of defending, it's the fact that each member has only 3 fleet slots with which to defend against a potential 5 classes of incoming (assuming nobody attacks). Add fakes and waved attacks into the picture and it should start to become clearer.

This contrasts with past rounds where it was almost impossible for smaller planets to hit larger ones, so I can understand why you posted what you did. However this round it's just simply not true. 200 planets with 500k value will be able to out-manoeuvre 100 planets with 1mil value each quite easily, as the 100-member alliance will quickly run out of fleet slots.

Since your entire post was based on the formula of requiring equal amounts of value for attacking and defending, your entire post is, unforunately, fatally flawed. It's decent effort at bringing some objective statistical analysis to bear on the situation, but unfortunately far too simplistic

I could go in-depth on the mathematics behind this, with huge examples illustrating my point, but I'm going to hope that you get it and therefore I don't need to spend 30 minutes writing a huge post

Thanks for pointing this out again, I do, however, know where my theory fails (and it's not just that point). But what you are leaving out of sight is the activity of the alliances, where I do ultimately doubt that alliances like FAnG or ROCK can compete with 1Up activity.

In the end ... time will tell.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Are you playing this round?

If so, you should be aware that the ship stats make it pretty easy for a smaller planet to hit a larger one, assuming no external defence. This is where the numbers game comes into play - the side with more members has more available fleets, whereas the smaller side has fewer fleets. The problem for top alliances isn't the actual existance of fleets capable of defending, it's the fact that each member has only 3 fleet slots with which to defend against a potential 5 classes of incoming (assuming nobody attacks). Add fakes and waved attacks into the picture and it should start to become clearer.

This contrasts with past rounds where it was almost impossible for smaller planets to hit larger ones, so I can understand why you posted what you did. However this round it's just simply not true. 200 planets with 500k value will be able to out-manoeuvre 100 planets with 1mil value each quite easily, as the 100-member alliance will quickly run out of fleet slots.

Since your entire post was based on the formula of requiring equal amounts of value for attacking and defending, your entire post is, unforunately, fatally flawed. It's decent effort at bringing some objective statistical analysis to bear on the situation, but unfortunately far too simplistic

I could go in-depth on the mathematics behind this, with huge examples illustrating my point, but I'm going to hope that you get it and therefore I don't need to spend 30 minutes writing a huge post

tbh ComradeRob i'm not sure its quite as simple as "200 planets with 500k value will be able to out-manoeuvre 100 planets with 1mil value" seeing as your forgetting the fact that theres an 'overhead' to having more numbers. More numbers is an advantage but with these increased numbers you bring about the "too many cooks" syndrome which makes the larger force on the whole alot less efficient because simply organising 200 planets (or 600 fleets) is alot harder than organising 100 planets (or 300 fleets) and when you throw into the mix that you then have probally DOUBLE the people organising the attack than the defence (as you have alliances co-operating) each with slightly differnt views of whats should be done and differnt work ethics it makes it even less efficent

Its simply not as clear cut as saying more numbers, means greater success because theres simply just so many more factors in play which would lead to a much closer battle than you seem to think

[Methedrine]

Originally Posted by Razorback

You are wrong there, KJ is back in fang hc for pa.
Furthermore your investigation of stats bears one major flaw, attacking takes lesser fleets then defending. While attacks on 3 alliances + randoms might do the same damage it would spread the damage over multiple alliances = lesser impact on the whole. A focussed efford damages only 1 alliance and kills off single planets and reduces significantly the overall strenght of one alliance. (partly the cause why most blockwars are decided once 1 or 2 alliances of a block crumble opening the strenght gap even wider). You forgot aswell the amount of Fleets, 1up has 300 fleets max while any block has up to 900 fleets. This gives you far more flexibility especially with different targetclasses and no ships firing "all" anymore.

As in reply to ComradeRob already stated, there are flaws.

I do disagree on the damage done, though. It is purely depending upon every single alliance's performance and the situation. Also I assumed that with hitting one galaxy you hit multiple alliances anyways, just a logical consequence. Once galaxies start falling apart because a few members of a galaxy cannot be defended by their alliance anymore you might be able to hit specific people in these galaxies soon and so on.
Planetarion isn't as simple as we both and comraderob pretended it would be. Would be interesting to see a mathematical formula for it somewhere.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Methedrine

....

Hi there, why do you create a false account to argue these arguments? As it is now you lose all credibility before you even post. You are obviously trying to hide your bias, and not very successfully I might add.

[Lupin]

could someone from 1up exlpain me the purpose of this thread?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Spirit

Kjeldoran, person who 2,3 days ago Stated him self as NOT HC of Fang!?

You should keep up with the times.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

confirmed yes, but confirmed that it wasnt the whole thing that was said and only in the interest of your alliance and to make beleive so go figure your so right

Let me get this straight. You accept that a current HC of one of the 3 alliances I named as involved in the "block" confirms that indeed attack cooperation is occirring and a shared channel exists. But because I didn't post an entire log of our conversation that makes the bits that I did post about untrue? My conversation with Kjeldoran had 3 different sections to it - and yes, I only posted about the middle section of it.

The first section related to entirely unrelated issues (Kjel PMed me) - specifically the quantity of inbound on Kjel's own planet (7 waves of vision attackers on a 200 roid planet or something). Then i raised the issue of the joint channel, shared target picking etc - which he confirmed plus added that it was in place before he rejoined PA HC in Fang.

We then had a brief discussion about the reasons why Fang chose to block (having started the round solo), the alternatives they would have had open to them, the options open to 1up, what each of us might do in the other's shoes etc. I didn't refer to this section in my initial post - as it was an exchange of opinions, not facts: and I have no desire to (mis)represent someone else's views on a issue when they possess a board account and are perfectly capable of posting themselves.

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Not if they know the proof exists - but just hasn't been presented yet. Of course if it were untrue they could easily just state that it was a pack of lies - but I think those involved will likely want to avoid lieing in quite such a bare-faced fashion.

It's also easy to try to make this a moral issue - which it isn't. It's not against the rules of PA for 3 alliances to team up - or for them to then try to enlarge their block.

so is not against rules for u to gang with LCH.
u do deny it ofc, and without any proof,
but some allainces already have proof: from intel, from members and many other proofs of this beeing truth...
tho u do this only for self protection, so u can freely go in public with your block...

and as Viao said who gives a **** what u think or say...ppl play (or should) play for fun...

We can say in this way (ofc nothing confirmed )
some allainces confirmed u r working with X allaince, they started cooperation between Y Z C allainces and trying to kick your ass...because of that u go in public with your X allaince or maybe new one...looking @ for example VSN and again attack same allainces

and all is same just in public rofl..and so what?

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Let me get this straight. You accept that a current HC of one of the 3 alliances I named as involved in the "block" confirms that indeed attack cooperation is occirring and a shared channel exists. But because I didn't post an entire log of our conversation that makes the bits that I did post about untrue? My conversation with Kjeldoran had 3 different sections to it - and yes, I only posted about the middle section of it.

The first section related to entirely unrelated issues (Kjel PMed me) - specifically the quantity of inbound on Kjel's own planet (7 waves of vision attackers on a 200 roid planet or something). Then i raised the issue of the joint channel, shared target picking etc - which he confirmed plus added that it was in place before he rejoined PA HC in Fang.

We then had a brief discussion about the reasons why Fang chose to block (having started the round solo), the alternatives they would have had open to them, the options open to 1up, what each of us might do in the other's shoes etc. I didn't refer to this section in my initial post - as it was an exchange of opinions, not facts: and I have no desire to (mis)represent someone else's views on a issue when they possess a board account and are perfectly capable of posting themselves.

no i dont accept that, as i asked a FanG HC to be honest with me and tell me if there was any cooperation from start of round between mistu and fang his answer clearly a NO, so now you come and tell KJ told you this and that but KJ comes on this thread posting that you left out important things and it is not the way you said it. plus my own alliance hc tell me there hasnt been any agreement or anything. so who do you think i should beleive more you ? known for your political movements and your so called proof.
so now you gave the name of the HC now then post the conversation then somewhere then we all can have an insight. and i find it amazingly that some1 who has been on vacation and now returned say all that to you, knowing well how you might be able to respond to that so sorry i just im very very wairy to what you post and your motives, as from start you try to point out theres a block, but theres none we are allowed to attack any1 in the universe unless its denied ingame.

[JonnyBGood]

If anyone want to have some form of "who can post the worst insult" competition please do it somewhere else. Let's try to keep this vaguely sensible and on topic?

[Jonas]

Can someone update me??

I know that Syn_Sid is right...I just want to know what the others said, and i cba to read it all now

-Jonas-

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Spirit

so is not against rules for u to gang with LCH.
u do deny it ofc, and without any proof,
but some allainces already have proof: from intel, from members and many other proofs of this beeing truth...
tho u do this only for self protection, so u can freely go in public with your block...

and as Viao said who gives a **** what u think or say...ppl play (or should) play for fun...

We can say in this way (ofc nothing confirmed )
some allainces confirmed u r working with X allaince, they started cooperation between Y Z C allainces and trying to kick your ass...because of that u go in public with your X allaince or maybe new one...looking @ for example VSN and again attack same allainces

and all is same just in public rofl..and so what?

What on earth are you talking about?

Sid has given credence to his evidence. Might I suggest you consider sharing your intel with the rest of us uninformed peons preferably in sentance form without any tiresome "txt spk".

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

This is exactly the reason I left MISTU.

I was disgusted with the opinion that "you have to block to win" in this game, and I still am.

Well done on messing up a round that potentially could have been a lot of fun with each alliance going solo, ROCK, MISTU and FAnG. Pathetic really, that you couldn't win on skill so had to gang up on 1 alliance. If I was a member in your alliance I'd be ashamed of those cowardly tactics.

No wonder people are jumping ship from you. I don't blame them.

I sincerely hope you get what's coming to you in the game.

You are pathetic too, allaince hooper as i may say ... u r one big rofl!
1up did collected most better players from all allainces and thats crap too...
btw 1up is 1st in blocking/nap/avoiding/helping with 2nd allaince u can deny it, but there is ppl who can confirm it and know it is true, even from 1up too ...so u can just go back in your little hole

[TheACE]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If anyone want to have some form of "who can post the worst insult" competition please do it somewhere else. Let's try to keep this vaguely sensible and on topic?

Sorry JonnyBGood i shouldnt have said those things.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

stuff...

And what is your significance in the alliance heirarchy that deems you suitable for sensitive information such as pre round agreements?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Methedrine

So, leads me to a question: Where does someone draw a line between a block and a cooperation?

we have seen last round a 3 alliance block can stagnate a round completely. Strangely its 2 of those again with a new partner^^ Which leaves me with some doubt if its just a cooperation.

Reading up these boards a bit, 1Up hasn't been the only alliance going solo. I have seen statements from FAnG and LCH and other people that they will also go solo. To me it looks like there is something different than the "going solo" which makes 1Up look bad, maybe you should go and read the boards a bit to get a clue.
And sorry Watson, but it's PT 474 as we speak - that is far from a half-through round I think?

Famg stated they went solo, however if they did break their promise they outright lied, right ?
I did not include any comparison in my first reply why 1up is better or worse, i just stated that certain ppl like rumad and others who ran their mouth are apparently proven wrong.

In your next sentence i need to disagree with you, i dont read these boards to get a clue, if you do i can only feel pity for you and mark everything you say as "based on gossip". These boards contain little unbiased information so basing your whole argument on this kind of info usually leads to yourself looking like a complete moron.
The last line is quiet funny, tick 474 is close to the halftime, give or take a week doesnt matter since most rounds are not decided in the last week before ticks are over but long before that. So for the decisive time of a round infact its halftime. (Also why would 1up want to ally someone in the last week if they were winning anyways, you dont make a block if you are the winner)

I agree that every block or cooperation not just can be a threat for the #1 alliance, but even is one - it is, however, a matter of how you adapt yourself to such a situation. If you keep your hardest competitors on distance the worst thing that could happen is that the playing field gets levelled again; which would actually lead to a situation where almost every cooperation/block would have to stop (so far I agree with the stuff Sid stated). The key is to drag competitors out of those silent waters.

For various reasons this doesnt apply to the current situation and never will apply to pa politics. A solo alliance cant drag somone out of silent waters while targetted by others massivly. So its moot to debate what might be possible and not as it wont happen.

I think you don't need to have run or run an alliance to think about possible solutions. It's a matter of gaming philosophy and I do not disagree that there are easier ways than the one I pointed at. I was more pointing out that 1Up has chosen to go a very hard way but now they seem to whine about their very own decision and try to get some sympathy so that people won't call them blockers or anything.
Anyways, what would be wrong with 1Up losing the top spot again and being levelled back to 90% of the top alliances niveau just to level the new #1 down again in the end?

It would definately be interesting.

I disagree there, first of all you dont know the ppl that well "up there" and its unlikely you have as much informations as they have. On a second though many decisions are based on the liking - disliking of the leading hcs before logic. This often leads to exploitable and predictable decisions,
Your solutions might sound fine on paper but they are far from reality and would only work in r2 maybe where noone knows anybody and everyone still is new and excited about the game and no hatred and longtime friend- or hatres are part of the game and community.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Spirit

You are pathetic too, allaince hooper as i may say ... u r one big rofl!
1up did collected most better players from all allainces and thats crap too...
btw 1up is 1st in blocking/nap/avoiding/helping with 2nd allaince u can deny it, but there is ppl who can confirm it and know it is true, even from 1up too ...so u can just go back in your little hole

To quote every other person who posted on this thread - may we see the evidence please?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Can someone update me??

I know that Syn_Sid is right...I just want to know what the others said, and i cba to read it all now

-Jonas-

Summation of thread

1) Sid posts claiming that kjeldoran, who has recently returned as fang hc, confirmed the existence of a shared fang/mistu/rock attack channel which was there before he returned as FAnG HC.

2) This is then denied by various pro-fang/mistu (haven't seen anyone from rock here yet) posters and condemned by various pro-1up posters. An assortment of "neutral" posters state a number of different points of view ranging from "what did you expect them to do, bend over?" to "I assume 1up will be gaining allies soon".

3) Kjeldoran responds that sid's post is selective of various facts mentioned in their conversation but does not deny anything specifically.

4) Arguments over the definition of a block, the pluses and negatives of this so-called "block", the existence of the block (denied by mistu HC anyways) and the reasons for the posting of this thread.

5) The universe ends with AD still arguing.

None of them make it to heaven.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

no i dont accept that, as i asked a FanG HC to be honest with me and tell me if there was any cooperation from start of round between mistu and fang his answer clearly a NO, so now you come and tell KJ told you this and that but KJ comes on this thread posting that you left out important things and it is not the way you said it. plus my own alliance hc tell me there hasnt been any agreement or anything. so who do you think i should beleive more you ? known for your political movements and your so called proof.
so now you gave the name of the HC now then post the conversation then somewhere then we all can have an insight. and i find it amazingly that some1 who has been on vacation and now returned say all that to you, knowing well how you might be able to respond to that so sorry i just im very very wairy to what you post and your motives, as from start you try to point out theres a block, but theres none we are allowed to attack any1 in the universe unless its denied ingame.

Which HC did you ask? And if you read what I posted, I only stated that the shared channel and target picking was in place before Kjel returned as HC (a few days ago) - not that it existed from the start of the round. Technically they could deny it what you asked and possibly be telling the truth (I don't know when the shared channel began being used).

Kjel didn't post that what i said was untrue - quite the opposite. What he said was that I'd only referred to those sections of our conversation which suited me - which is undeniably true given that I didn't post a log.

On one issue you are correct - Fang doesn't have a full nap with any alliance to the best of my knowledge. It is also fair to say that nowhere near all of fang's attacks are arranged through the shared channel.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Summation of thread

1) Sid posts claiming that kjeldoran, who has recently returned as fang hc, informed him of the existence of a shared fang/mistu/rock attack channel.

2) This is then denied by various pro-fang/mistu (haven't seen anyone from rock here yet) posters and condemned by various pro-1up posters. An assortment of "neutral" posters state a number of different points of view ranging from "what did you expect them to do, bend over?" to "I assume 1up will be gaining allies soon".

3) Kjeldoran responds that sid's post is selective of various facts mentioned in their conversation but does not deny anything specifically.

4) Arguments over the definition of a block, the pluses and negatives of this so-called "block", the existence of the block (denied by mistu HC anyways) and the reasons for the posting of this thread.

5) The universe ends with AD still arguing.

None of them make it to heaven.

Remove every post between Sids original and this one \o/

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Summation of thread

1) Sid posts claiming that kjeldoran, who has recently returned as fang hc, informed him of the existence of a shared fang/mistu/rock attack channel.

No. Kjeldoran didn't inform me of the existence of the channel. He confirmed its existence when I informed him that I knew about it - and clarified that it was in existence prior to him returning to FanG HC, rather than being an initiative of his (I already knew this).

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

sigh well im gonna leave it this is a boring tug rope war with either sides denying and accusating.
there hasnt been any 'proof' to anything that has been said and i mean ANYTHING except accusations.
let KJ come here and confirm that he in your convo sid said that mistu/fang was together since beginning of the round, and let him state clearly that fang/mistu/rock are working together i.e in your words are blocking together.

to TK you know we had that discussion on mistu boards and you well know what all thought of blocking, as a reaction to what sid's proposal. so you know the opinion of most ppl within mistu about blocking.


edit : ok after reading your last post ill take out and my bad. about the preround

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Remove every post between Sids original and this one \o/

or just answer this question:

could someone from 1up exlpain me the purpose of this thread?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

No. Kjeldoran didn't inform me of the existence of the channel. He confirmed its existence when I informed him that I knew about it - and clarified that it was in existence prior to him returning to FanG HC, rather than being an initiative of his (I already knew this).

Apologies and corrected.

And I think the purpose of this thread was to tell us all that "it" (blocking one presumes) has begun lupin.

Except that sid has already posted that this has been going on for a while so it hasn't just begun, leading me to conclude that the only thing which is "beginning" is 1up's co-operation with other alliances (or possibly the title is unrelated to the content of the thread and is merely a witty eye-catcher).

[Methedrine]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Let me get this straight. You accept that a current HC of one of the 3 alliances I named as involved in the "block" confirms that indeed attack cooperation is occirring and a shared channel exists. But because I didn't post an entire log of our conversation that makes the bits that I did post about untrue? My conversation with Kjeldoran had 3 different sections to it - and yes, I only posted about the middle section of it.

The first section related to entirely unrelated issues (Kjel PMed me) - specifically the quantity of inbound on Kjel's own planet (7 waves of vision attackers on a 200 roid planet or something). Then i raised the issue of the joint channel, shared target picking etc - which he confirmed plus added that it was in place before he rejoined PA HC in Fang.

We then had a brief discussion about the reasons why Fang chose to block (having started the round solo), the alternatives they would have had open to them, the options open to 1up, what each of us might do in the other's shoes etc. I didn't refer to this section in my initial post - as it was an exchange of opinions, not facts: and I have no desire to (mis)represent someone else's views on a issue when they possess a board account and are perfectly capable of posting themselves.

Then why not simply upload the log to somewhere?

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Aviendha

And let me add, between lokken and Vaio, i think BlueTuba is gonna win this round

Ed and I had a chat about the state of play in PA last week and we pretty much figured out this would happen.

Sid is so predictable

~Vaio~

[Ace]

Originally Posted by lokken

Sorry, i was being flamed for claiming you weren't allied to anyone i.e. you weren't involved in this whatsoever and avoiding confrontation, and probably wouldn't do so unless your position was threatened.

I apologise for being totally correct on the matter and promise not to write such scandalous posts again.

Its not your post that made me post m8.

It's all the posts I read here that say that this alliance is allying that alliance and such.

The reply I made shouldn't have quoted you I think.
Soz for that.
But you might know how p*ssed off one can get reading the forums at work

[Methedrine]

Originally Posted by Razorback

we have seen last round a 3 alliance block can stagnate a round completely. Strangely its 2 of those again with a new partner^^ Which leaves me with some doubt if its just a cooperation.

I do agree you can doubt, but the same doubts people have/had about 1Up (read the forums to "get a clue why" ), so basically stop claiming stuff you cannot prove? You can prove an attack cooperation, but there's no prove for avoiding each other so far.

Originally Posted by Razorback

Famg stated they went solo, however if they did break their promise they outright lied, right ?
I did not include any comparison in my first reply why 1up is better or worse, i just stated that certain ppl like rumad and others who ran their mouth are apparently proven wrong.

Is there prove for a block/cooperation from before ticks started? If there is, then FAnG did lie. If there is not, then FAnG did not lie.

Originally Posted by Razorback

In your next sentence i need to disagree with you, i dont read these boards to get a clue, if you do i can only feel pity for you and mark everything you say as "based on gossip". These boards contain little unbiased information so basing your whole argument on this kind of info usually leads to yourself looking like a complete moron.
The last line is quiet funny, tick 474 is close to the halftime, give or take a week doesnt matter since most rounds are not decided in the last week before ticks are over but long before that. So for the decisive time of a round infact its halftime. (Also why would 1up want to ally someone in the last week if they were winning anyways, you dont make a block if you are the winner)

Without any offence, but you seem to be not a very smart person (either that or your got a very bad sense for sarcasm ), Razorback. "Maybe you should go and read the boards a bit to get a clue" was referring to reasons why people could dislike 1Up, and the reasons for this can be found a lot on those boards. I am neither basing my argument purely on the stuff said on this board, as you in your not so open-minded view missed to see; I love to refer to more concrete stuff. However, since I don't get more than toolkit pages and stuff on this forum (joys of not playing this game but just observing it from outside) I conclude what everyone "outside the loop", if you want to call it that way, would most likely conclude - if he's intellectually as gifted as the average human being, that is.
I also find it very amusing that you say the round is almost half through, hehe. PT 474 + 1 week = 474 Ticks + 7*24 Ticks = 474 + 182 = 656 Ticks. Assuming this round lasts the usual 90 days we come to a total of 2160 Ticks per round which is more than three times the amount of ticks you mentioned. Simple maths, I am sure you can follow those (so much for making yourself looking like a complete moron )

Originally Posted by Razorback

For various reasons this doesnt apply to the current situation and never will apply to pa politics. A solo alliance cant drag somone out of silent waters while targetted by others massivly. So its moot to debate what might be possible and not as it wont happen.

Enlighten me about the reasons
I love to evaluate stuff as you might have noticed. Also, you cannot expect any human being to simply accept what someone says as true, thus make information available and people will start judging the same way (assuming it is the correct way one concluded things).

I disagree there, first of all you dont know the ppl that well "up there" and its unlikely you have as much informations as they have. On a second though many decisions are based on the liking - disliking of the leading hcs before logic. This often leads to exploitable and predictable decisions,
Your solutions might sound fine on paper but they are far from reality and would only work in r2 maybe where noone knows anybody and everyone still is new and excited about the game and no hatred and longtime friend- or hatres are part of the game and community.

I do agree with you that I may lack vital information (it's very likely that I do, for given reasons) to judge things absolutely correctly, however, if people base their decisions on liking amd disliking then they are - no offense to anyone personally - simply stupid.
Also I am amazed how people can hate someone because of a game, but then again the paths of human stupidity are endless.

[EDIT] spelling...

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by wakey

Its simply not as clear cut as saying more numbers, means greater success because theres simply just so many more factors in play which would lead to a much closer battle than you seem to think

I should have known you might post something like this

I stand by the general point I made earlier, though I concede that there is no absolute rule which states that the side with the most members always wins - they often don't.

However, my statement is also particular to this round, and I can give examples to back my point up. The one which springs most readily to mind is the attack on myself earlier this morning - which came from an attacker who was 20% smaller than me in value, and would have got roids without defence.

It doesn't take very much organisation to coordinate ~200 people - the alliances of past rounds had up to 300 members and it didn't damage their organisation to any great extent. Also most of the alliances we are discussing are in the top 10 or even top 5 - they are all experienced players with competent and active command members. Obviously if we were talking about newbie alliances, then you would be correct - the 100 experienced players would beat the 200 newbies. My point is based more on the scenario of 100 experienced players versus ~200 slightly less active but no less experienced players, with both sides having active and experienced command.

Originally Posted by Methedrine

Planetarion isn't as simple as we both and comraderob pretended it would be. Would be interesting to see a mathematical formula for it somewhere.

I agree, I have often thought that some kind of formula for the effectiveness of fleets would be useful in designing ship stats. My basic belief is that, this round, attacking is very easy, and that as a result the number of fleets used, rather than the size, is important. Certainly there has been a shift in the balance... it's now possible for people with very weak fleets to hit people larger than themselves. This just wasn't the case in many past rounds, when a larger fleet always beat the smaller one regardless of anything else. The combination of r3-style pod armour with r7-style multiple pod classes is a major factor here

[Teh_Necro]

The fall floors beneath them and so they scream...

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

What on earth are you talking about?

Sid has given credence to his evidence. Might I suggest you consider sharing your intel with the rest of us uninformed peons preferably in sentance form without any tiresome "txt spk".

u nicely left out part of, u did 1st block....

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

To quote every other person who posted on this thread - may we see the evidence please?

rofl
where is you GOOD evidence to confirm i am not right...!
u didnt even give us proof of that MISTU/FANG BG,s of their cooperation...u didnt give u snothing except moaning and lame politics, and wanking

i know i am right, and proof i can give, but i will not do it, because will comprimse ppl in your allaince, LCH, MISTU, Fang, and rest who did intel inside. to sum it i know i am right and prolly u know i am right, but u will not confirm it...and it doesnt matter
pitty u spam lies to public, better to stay off it , it doesn suits your rankings toward PA history

but anw, all is amusing indeed..

[Guran]

Originally Posted by Methedrine

You have an interesting opinion, TomKat.

Let's go and assume what Sid claims is correct and play around with it (data taken from Sandman's in PT 472):

FAnG and ROCK hardly match 1Up, score-wise. Their combined score is roughly 98.5 million, whilest 1Up is there at 102.5 million. FAnG and ROCK together have a size of 72.5k roids, while 1Up is holding 84.7k. FAnG and ROCK together have a combined member count of 173 people facing a 98 people strong 1Up. On average size it's FAnG/ROCK ~419 to 1Up 865, on average score it's 569.5k to 1.05m. This would mean it takes 2 members from FAnG/Rock to hit 1 member of 1Up, effectively reducing the amount of hitable planets by 50% to 173/2 ~= 86.
etc..

It's nice calcs and all but score doesn't say much about fleet strength as experience has a big impact on it. Value would have been a better measurement. Atleast it would have given a better overall picture.

[Methedrine]

Originally Posted by Guran

It's nice calcs and all but score doesn't say much about fleet strength as experience has a big impact on it. Value would have been a better measurement. Atleast it would have given a better overall picture.

Seconded.

[Cocteau]

MISTU HC already replied on the rumour (Fork). What's the point of this debate?

He's lying?