Only when I'm winning

[ParraCida]

In the past few weeks we have had many speculations about 'blocking' between various alliances. Just about every alliance was supposedly in bed with one alliance or the other.
Now, I'm not going to make this another OMG LOL ITS CONFRIMAD ELCLIPSES IS WITH ELLLY OMG~!@~ thread, we have enough people making those. This is not about condemning blocking as such, but about alliance attitudes towards blocking and subsequently the morality of planetarion.

First, unless anyone wishes to disagree I think we can establish that everybody has finally 'blocked' in the past few days. Nobody disagree? Good. Now, the next step is to acknowledge that blocking is considered 'bad', it stagnates the game and makes it impossible to play alone as an alliance witthout sacrificing ranks and is often used as an accusation against a hostile alliance, so it's bad.

So, people have blocked and blocking is bad, what happened?
Many alliances promised not to block this round, yet again we are stuck in a blocked universe. So what does any statement from any alliance still mean? Apparantly, when someone says 'We won't block this round', they mean "We wont block unless we cant win'. How many of you would apply the attribute 'honour' or even 'righteousness' to your alliance? Quite a few I'd say, but where is this honour or righteousness now?
What is the word of an alliance worth? You'll kick cheaters, but only if they get caught right? How many BC's get their target scanned by someone and not ask questions? How many BC's actually have scan planets because they need scans?

So really, any of the morals you attribute yourself or your alliance to have are merely luxuries, as soon as you cannot afford them anymore they go overboard. And to top it off, nobody has the balls to own it up. Planetarion right now is a game of hypocrits, a race to the finish where the last one to break their word wins with the first and only price being a carte blanche to do whatever you want because they did it first, a show of makebelieve and pretenses about morality and concepts of the like. Curious to see how a person's mind works isn't it? In the past few days we have seen numerous threads accusing LDK of cheating en masse, but what they are actually saying is:
You broke morality first, so now we are in our right to do so as well. And so they did.

No Senate will change the fact that 'morals' in planetarion are a luxury, thrown out as soon as the situation demands it. This by the way shows that the Planetarion Senate is the most ridiculous and hypocritic thing ever invented, alliances talking about the good of the game whereas the good of the game is second to none but the good of themselves.

For the time being, blocking is a cowards act, proof that you would intentionally seek out an indesirable game state for the benefit of your own at the cost of breaking your word and throwing out your morals.

[SilverSmoke]

and the beautiful thing is that when they are **** enough to not win even when being blocked they could always say 'we didnt take this round too serious and they only won because they are cheaters and hackers etc!!!'

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by ParraCida
In the past few weeks we have had many speculations about 'blocking' between various alliances. Just about every alliance was supposedly in bed with one alliance or the other.
Now, I'm not going to make this another OMG LOL ITS CONFRIMAD ELCLIPSES IS WITH ELLLY OMG~!@~ thread, we have enough people making those. This is not about condemning blocking as such, but about alliance attitudes towards blocking and subsequently the morality of planetarion.

First, unless anyone wishes to disagree I think we can establish that everybody has finally 'blocked' in the past few days. Nobody disagree? Good. Now, the next step is to acknowledge that blocking is considered 'bad', it stagnates the game and makes it impossible to play alone as an alliance witthout sacrificing ranks and is often used as an accusation against a hostile alliance, so it's bad.

So, people have blocked and blocking is bad, what happened?
Many alliances promised not to block this round, yet again we are stuck in a blocked universe. So what does any statement from any alliance still mean? Apparantly, when someone says 'We won't block this round', they mean "We wont block unless we cant win'. How many of you would apply the attribute 'honour' or even 'righteousness' to your alliance? Quite a few I'd say, but where is this honour or righteousness now?
What is the word of an alliance worth? You'll kick cheaters, but only if they get caught right? How many BC's get their target scanned by someone and not ask questions? How many BC's actually have scan planets because they need scans?

So really, any of the morals you attribute yourself or your alliance to have are merely luxuries, as soon as you cannot afford them anymore they go overboard. And to top it off, nobody has the balls to own it up. Planetarion right now is a game of hypocrits, a race to the finish where the last one to break their word wins with the first and only price being a carte blanche to do whatever you want because they did it first, a show of makebelieve and pretenses about morality and concepts of the like. Curious to see how a person's mind works isn't it? In the past few days we have seen numerous threads accusing LDK of cheating en masse, but what they are actually saying is:
You broke morality first, so now we are in our right to do so as well. And so they did.

No Senate will change the fact that 'morals' in planetarion are a luxury, thrown out as soon as the situation demands it. This by the way shows that the Planetarion Senate is the most ridiculous and hypocritic thing ever invented, alliances talking about the good of the game whereas the good of the game is second to none but the good of themselves.

For the time being, blocking is a cowards act, proof that you would intentionally seek out an indesirable game state for the benefit of your own at the cost of breaking your word and throwing out your morals.

I have to disagree.

I havent broken my word or morals as of yet and have no intention of doing so. I also wonder what you exactly define as blocking - this round is hardly shown to be a typical PA round as of yet.

Additionally, Eclipse kicked cheaters without them being "caught" by PA crew. I kicked and reported some myself last round.

The good of the game is hardly to let one alliance win unopposed. This round without politics has proven to be absolutely mind numbingly boring in my opinion - but then that could be I was never really interested with ingame operations.

I do agree that if we see massive superpower blocks forming then that would be a pathetic sign, but nothing of the sort has happened as of yet. I would comment more specifically, but I'm not really inclined to do so.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by SilverSmoke
and the beautiful thing is that when they are **** enough to not win even when being blocked they could always say 'we didnt take this round too serious and they only won because they are cheaters and hackers etc!!!'

How I missed your delusional fantasies.

[Lupin]

have to agree with parracida.
i think that is normal cause this is an internet game, and noone is directly responsible for anyone

[JonnyBGood]

I disagree on one fundamental premise. I never found blocking to be bad (blocking in the sense of alliances allying each other). Over-blocking in a private-gal universe can kill a round yes. Set-in-stone blocks created before a round even begins can kill a round yes. Blocks which win and then remain together for no reason can kill a round as well.

This community somehow managed to create the impression that blocking is some sort of super-evil which is killing PA. Planetarion was killed because of the misguided idea that wanting to win through using political means is bad. People were afraid of a dynamic and fluid political universe. What about a PA where fury fought legion once RB was out of the picture, or a PA where xanadu had picked a side in the final war of r4, or where the consortium had actually happened in r7. Sounds more interesting doesn't it? People got afraid and concerned about their score and their roids. Suddenly you didn't play PA for fun anymore, you played it out of habit and loyalty to your friends.

As for cheaters and hypocrisy of that sort it should have no role in the game at all. Unfortunately it does. Alliances who keep cheaters until they get caught are only cheating themselves. What's the point in winning if you had to cheat to get there. There is no monetary prize for winning here. The only person whose impression matters is yours and if you're just trying to fool yourself there is no point in what you do.

Planetarion is about morality in the sense that we all agreed to the rules on the front page when we signed up. Planetarion is not about trying to let the other guy win. If you can beat him without breaking the rules go ahead and do it. Removing the political dimension cripples this game. Suddenly who wins is just a question of memberbase x activity. That's not the sort of game people want to play. If we create a fluid political universe next round people will come back and play because it will be fun again. If we don't it'll end slowly and we'll sit here wondering what happened. Yet again it's just a matter of choice.

[xtothez]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Planetarion is not about trying to let the other guy win

Just quoting for emphasis. I'm particularly interested to see if any LDK disagree there.

[Leshy]

Right, I'm going to move this over to Alliance Discussions, as the main focus of this thread seems to be about alliances blocking. In addition, I think it'd fare better there.

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by ParraCida
First, unless anyone wishes to disagree I think we can establish that everybody has finally 'blocked' in the past few days. Nobody disagree? Good. Now, the next step is to acknowledge that blocking is considered 'bad', it stagnates the game and makes it impossible to play alone as an alliance witthout sacrificing ranks and is often used as an accusation against a hostile alliance, so it's bad.

I'm not 'in the know', so can someone please tell me the sides?

If it's only 2 alliances working together, that's hardly a block, is it?

[xtothez]

Originally posted by Supernova9
I'm not 'in the know', so can someone please tell me the sides?

If it's only 2 alliances working together, that's hardly a block, is it?

Eclipse and Olympians attacked Mulkiz, a LDK gal mate of Sliekas.

Originally posted by xtothez
Eclipse and Olympians attacked Mulkiz, a LDK gal mate of Sliekas.

coincidence, he is just a roid fat bastard

[General1]

Originally posted by Dreadnought
coincidence, he is just a roid fat bastard

AGREED

[Torjus]

can i remind u guys that BLOCKING is LAME

[bagg]

Originally posted by ParraCida
First, unless anyone wishes to disagree I think we can establish that everybody has finally 'blocked' in the past few days. Nobody disagree? Good.

everyone in the universe blocked?

who the hell can i attack now?

[cypher]

Originally posted by xtothez
Eclipse and Olympians attacked Mulkiz, a LDK gal mate of Sliekas.

nice info:P

Originally posted by Dreadnought
coincidence, he is just a roid fat bastard

atleast some people in eclipse and oly are more honest.


most aint tho i agree heh

[lrytas]

Originally posted by xtothez
Eclipse and Olympians attacked Mulkiz, a LDK gal mate of Sliekas.

so did fang, so did ely on our planets in the morning.
________
Macintosh Games

[K-W]

The explanation is bloody simple parra. Blocking isnt bad. Blocking has been done in bad ways. There is nothing wrong with alliances working together, and as of yet no powerblocks have formed that I know of.

So pls take your radical solist point of view and get out of the way of a good progression in the game. Radical solism is just as bad as radical blocking.

[ComradeRob]

To me, 'blocking' means exchange of coords lists, joint target booking, official multilateral NAPs, permanent round-long agreements and so on. None of these things are currently happening. I agree that, if they were, it would be a bad thing, but they are not happening.

This is a random round, with much more fluid politics than previous rounds. There are certainly no permanent agreements between alliances, any agreements that do occur are temporary ones which are designed to make sure that competition continues, whereas 'blocking' is designed to stifle competition.

LDK are currently in a position of controlling the majority of the top planets. They've gone with a strategy of trying to get control of the top 20-30 planets, and are currently trying to remove the planets of other alliances from the top 30 (attacks on lepauli, Maverick, loki^ etc. are evidence of this).

So, what are the other alliances supposed to do? Sit back and let LDK win? That might be fun for LDK, but it's not fun for anyone else. Since LDK are the current top alliance, it is incumbent on the other alliances to try to stop them from winning.

[Lupin]

Originally posted by ComradeRob

So, what are the other alliances supposed to do? Sit back and let LDK win? That might be fun for LDK, but it's not fun for anyone else. Since LDK are the current top alliance, it is incumbent on the other alliances to try to stop them from winning.

indication of possibly building a block, in my eyes, tho i have no clue about the 'real' political situation.

posted by K-W

The explanation is bloody simple parra. Blocking isnt bad. Blocking has been done in bad ways

thats absolutley true, and i think that is why blocks are soo bad, especially when the bigger alliances come into play

[lokken]

Blocking is sometimes necessary in Planetarion. Big alliance wars is a part of the game which makes it exciting and it's probably quite necessary to have some kind of 'wars' in the game. Randomly hitting galaxies of 25 because they are nice targets is hardly a way of waging war and bringing entertainment into the game. I quite like having a bit of hate/rivalry in the game it adds extra elements to the game.

Blocking is by no means a bad thing. Anyone who believes so is quite frankly hysterical. Infact some of the more entertaining rounds have had blocks in them, round 4 and round 6 are cases in point. Someone might now hurl r5 and r7 and r9 into the equation (although r7 had the potential for a Fury win in totality, which would have been utterly impressive) - the difference between these two sets of rounds is that though blocks have been present, in r5 and r7 the blocking went way beyond what was necessary to eliminate the opposition or those in the initial winning block were too shortsighted to realise that they were actually under threat in the future by their own allies. Fact in this game: loyalty don't really exist if they are bigger than you. One might say that NoCeX's lack of willingness and apolitical view to the game to come back into the round after Elysium/Wolfpack/Ni! got dropped by Fury and Legion just let stagnation set in that much quicker.

However, it may not only be these reasons why rounds have turned out the way they have. After a hugely exhausting round like 4, 6 or 8, people want stability. They just want to rip the opposition to pieces and get an easy win. I think that's a quite selfish attitude to take personally - every round should be entertaining, and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The real danger of blocking is not blocking itself, but the use of it beyond what is necessary. No one wants stagnation, that is clear so after you win a war in your block, form a new political plan and go for the win. I'm of the view that a true winner should be the last man standing through a combination of political and military power.

By preventing blocking, you are denying the fundamental right of planets and alliances to defend themselves. Your argument seems to be based on the notion that alliances should just take each other on a military basis and that if they aren't as good as other alliances they should just shut up and get on with it. Why should they lay down and die? They shouldn't - they have the fundamental right to defend themselves and block to attempt to eliminate the enemy.

No one in an alliance plays to lose, they play to win and they are within their right to employ any legal tactic necessary to get there. I don't care if the opposition has the best military in the game and deserves to win, I want to win too so how can I do it? If Blocking is the only answer, so be it. That's the way I see things: -

FoS didn't care if Fury and Xanadu were better than them in round 6, they just wanted to kill them cos it was the only way they were going to survive, so a block they made and killed them they did to quite a reasonable degree by being politically dynamic. FLVT could have won as the military superior force, but got edged out at the death.

What alliances in general needs to think about is not to prevent political agreements but actually encourage blocks of convenience to eliminate a particular threat, and once that threat has receeded sufficiently, for that agreement to be ended and new agreements to be made and actually try to win the game outright. They should seek to prevent stagnation rather than blocking. It's when stagnation sets in that blocking is cowardly, not when a block is formed to promote your own survival. People need to recognise there is a limit to blocking and realise when there is an opportunity to take the round by the horns and try to win the game. When they have won, game over, reset. The winner will be the one that had the best combination of military power and political vision. Simple.

In my opinion political action/blocking is potentially a great equaliser in Planetarion. It allows the less active to stick a huge middle finger at those who are better at the game and more active and actually have a chance of winning the game. Small alliances in counterpoint should prevent the big alliances from exploiting them, thinking in advance and try to foster good political relations universe-wide so that they can politically outmanoever their superiors. Remember that bigger alliances are far easier to demonise than smaller ones, this is an advantage smaller alliances have.

Morality in this game? It doesn't exist and no one should presume it to exist. At the end of the day everyone wants to win and everyone wants to be entertained and they will persue it in the way they believe best possible. I've outlined my views here in this post, about how I think the game could probably be quite entertaining for everyone. I certainly disagree with a lot that's put in this initial post.

[Razorback]

Parra keep away from the drugs

The fact LDK is hit might be coming from the fact LDK is hitting everyone.
What should an alliance do like i.e. Elysium whos Topplayer gets hit by LDK, prolly hit LDK back ?
Same goes for Oly who you harrass for 2 days now with permanent incomings. Not to speak of Eclipse which targets you for a week already.

You might claim "thats blocking" i would say "thats incomings".
If we would have a blocking situation, how likely would it be that Oly hits an eclipse galm8 in a gal with LDK in it ? I would call it 0.
Still it happens. Coincidence ? hardly.

Now about your big planets. It doesnt take much to hit them when you know about another one beeing hit by XY. Just do a newsie and pm a bg or 2 and you get a launch.

Should i remember about your Kamikaze bg ?
LDK + Oly mixed BG yourself beeing member of it.

Does them attacking an eclipse galaxy make you now "blockers" ?
hardly.

if EVERYBODY would block to hit you, how long would even LDK with their superactive always online members survive that ?
150 members ? vs 700 ? i would say after the first 1-2 waves all LDK would be damaged or dead. A situation i have seen not happening within the last 3-4 days.
Seeing how good all the various ppl are accused of blocking were WEET last round or are OLY, then i suppose with 1 round exp to work together they would kick the sh1t outa you.

Conclusion: blocking ? hardly

attacking who attacks us ? deffinately

[The_Fish]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
(attacks on lepauli, Maverick, loki^ etc. are evidence of this).

btw, did you know loki^ is a Dragon? makes the LDK/Dragons alliance rumours kinda disappear I hope :/ LePauli is a Dragon too I think, but not sure.

[Jackal2112]

Interesting discussion and I have been thinking of this as well but I can come to only one conclusion;

As long as people are owning and others being owned, there will always be people complaining and argumenting that the other side is cheating, blocking or <insert random act>.

Action is Reaction in this game and when LDK is winning, others have to 'block' or work together to stop them. That's just the nature of the game. People don't join this game hardheadedly staring themself blind at things like 'honor' and 'loyalty' but they are flexible and will try to do things to win themself.

You can't expect people to bend over and give away their roids to LDK, or to any other alliance in any other game or in any other round etc.

I do agree the Senate is a big joke tho

[skipper]

Good posts Parracida and Lokken! Eventhough the posts aren't near each other i agree with both, most of the parts anyway..Shame I dont have time to reply to the thread, this is by far the best thread about blocking.

[ParraCida]

I see the eclipse squad is already here, I was going to make some P.S's and PPS's to cover your very much anticipated replies but then I thought it would be a waste of my post so I'll do it here instead.

First of all Zhil, what kind of a reputation do you think you have built up? Round 3,5,7,9 are all clear examples of fury/eclipse backstabbing close allies for their personal gain. In each of those cases btw you have always claimed to be on the righteous side. I don't quite think you can claim you have never broken your word, and I'm quite sure that you never actually 'said' Eclipse were not going to ally with anyone in this round, but if you will see this thread you will see that you are in the confirmed list of 'going solo'. Now let me guess you will have either never officially confirmed this or you obviously meant 'going' solo not 'staying' solo or something along those lines.

Also, I define blocking as a state were a certain amount of players have allied themselves that is far greater then their opposition. Or when the universe is polarized in such a way that all reasonable players belong to a faction and the amount of factions is between 2-4. I say 'blocking' when you have to use mvamwpt in order to refer to a faction.

Germania: Never have I once said that I wanted a solo only universe, never have I once stated that this would be the best option. But somehow you came to the conclusion that this was my point. Fair enough I shouldn't have expected anyting else from you, but let me assure you that I think the best possible game will come from a dynamic universe were alliances band together in groups of 2-3. A solo universe would be a very uninteresting place in terms of political play. But I'm sure that was the point you were trying to make, I hope you enjoyed your little rant though, maybe when you are done feeling accused by my post we can have a sensible discussion.

Dreadnought: I think we can all say now that when planets from multiple alliances join in on the same ETA on big planets belonging to one other alliance over the course of the entire day that this is no longer a funny coincidence in a quest for roids. Please don't drag down the discussion by insulting everyone's intelligence like that.

Focht, I find it ever so pleasant that you cannot start your arguement without questioning my state of mind, it really builds up credibility for the rest of your post. Anyway, I'm well aware that LDK has been hitting everyone, but I wasn't aware that eclipse had been avoiding certain targets, why should you if you are unallied? And I reiterate my previous point, please let's not make this an arguement if there are 'blocks' or not, but if you want to maintain that everybody just woke up and managed to launch with the same ETA, fine by me.

Now seriously, eclipse people. Don't act so defensive, four of you reply, two personal attacks, two denials of blocking, you're really not helping your case. I especially did not mention any alliance names because it wasn't about who is hitting who or which is attacking what. It's about planetarion in general, don't be so self-centred
Also, would any of you dare state that fury/eclipse would always stand by their word instead of putting the alliance first?

Anyway, people are saying blocking is not necessarily bad, that it makes for exciting play and adds a political dimension to the game. I agree, in essence that is correct, however these same things can be accomplished by simply allying, not blocking.
Blocks are rigid structures, they fuel bitterness and create stagnation. Once a war is over the round might as well be over, if there is any action it will be in the form of backstabbing and confined to the 500 players in the 'winning' block. With blocks everybody is always trying to get back at someone else for what they did to them last round. Blocks are to alliances what alliances are to single players. Now, factionizing the universe is entirely different ofcourse, I see nothing bad in alliances and battlegroups competing for the win, loyalties change, the universe is dynamic. This is what we all want, and blocks do not realize this.

And lokken, ofcourse you are right. But as I stated, alliances will always go for personal gain, and once you are in the winning block it is more profitable to stay in the winning block. Time and time again we have seen that blocks have effectivly ruined a round, people simply cannot be trusted with them. In round 7 blocks were overused as well, and even after the 'unblocking' it never came close to a nice and fluid war. Round 6 had a delicate balance, but I'll tell you that Round 6 was stagnating as hell in the last few weeks as well, there simply was not a single XeTa galaxy left with a ratio over 0.5 at the end.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Round 9 are examples of eclipse backstabbing close allies for their personal gain.

What universe were you playing in?

Now let me guess you will have either never officially confirmed this or you obviously meant 'going' solo not 'staying' solo or something along those lines.

Out of a choice between a dull round that LDK wins because noone attacks them, and going against what people said on AD, I'd go with the latter every time.

Also, I define blocking as a state were a certain amount of players have allied themselves that is far greater then their opposition. Or when the universe is polarized in such a way that all reasonable players belong to a faction and the amount of factions is between 2-4. I say 'blocking' when you have to use mvamwpt in order to refer to a faction.

But we haven't allied... We're just hitting LDK.

A solo universe would be a very uninteresting place in terms of political play.

Sod political play, it's just DULL overall.

but I wasn't aware that eclipse had been avoiding certain targets, why should you if you are unallied?

I believe he was saying that we didn't choose not to hit Oly or whoever. We just hit LDK for preference and whoever was there with them; there's a difference between going out of your way to not attack an alliance, and just not hitting them actively.

Now seriously, eclipse people. Don't act so defensive, four of you reply, two personal attacks, two denials of blocking, you're really not helping your case.

Well, as we're not blocking, what do you expect us to say?

Bear in mind that the only two personal insults I've seen were Zhil's one of Silversmoke's post (Silversmoke is of course the most unbiased and respected of all AD posters) and at the start of Focht's, which was delivered in a light hearted manner, and the post then went onto contain an actual argument.

You then go onto say that a fluid system of alliances would be good for the game.

Isn't this what's going on? LDK is only being hit because they're top dog, and the people hitting them aren't NAPped, let alone allied.

Please make up your mind what you want.

[Jonas]

PA is like playing risk with 3 people. The smallest always team up on the one whos winning...until hes smashed and theres another one on top, trying to take the world alone...

-Jonas

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
What universe were you playing in?

[edit] This reply will be added to as I continue through the post

Actually I was quite inactive during that round, I thought I read some stuff about eclipse backstabbings though. If I'm incorrect so be it, I was bringing across a point and I'm sure it does well without Round 9 in it. So what'll be your next arguement, I misspelled something therfore it isn't true, let's keep on the subject here mkay. I'd expect better from a mod

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Actually I was quite inactive during that round, I thought I read some stuff about eclipse backstabbings though. If I'm incorrect so be it, I was bringing across a point and I'm sure it does well without Round 9 in it. So what'll be your next arguement, I misspelled something therfore it isn't true, let's keep on the subject here mkay. I'd expect better from a mod

Dragons repeatedly attacked a Eclipse/Elysium galaxy (a command galaxy as it happens).

Eclipse declares war on WP.

At least we declare war before we attack someone.

ps.

I don't use strawman.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ParraCida
First of all Zhil, what kind of a reputation do you think you have built up? Round 3,5,7,9 are all clear examples of fury/eclipse backstabbing close allies for their personal gain. In each of those cases btw you have always claimed to be on the righteous side.

Here you seem to castigate fury/eclipse for getting rid of allies from their block.

Now, factionizing the universe is entirely different ofcourse, I see nothing bad in alliances and battlegroups competing for the win, loyalties change, the universe is dynamic. This is what we all want, and blocks do not realize this.

And then here you praise alliances and BGs for having a politically fluid universe.



What exactly do you want? A politically fluid universe where fury don't win?




PS If I had been an alliance HC for r9.5 I would have said that I'd do anything and everything within the rules to ensure victory (and we all define victory slightly differently don't we?) for my alliance and I'd expect everyone else to do the same. When ldk took the lead this round you hardly expected everyone else to simply bend over did you? From ldk's point of view I'm sure they'd get fairly bored if everyone didn't try everything in their power to take them down.

[ParraCida]

Oh come on Jonny, if you are half as smart as you pretend to be you shouldn't need me to explain the difference between a dynamic universe and backstabbing allies at the end of the round.

And for christ sake, can you people please try and look beyond your somewhat skewed horizon and please recognize that I'm not trying to single out or imply any alliance in particular, if the discussion went on about fury it is because I was attempting to disprove zhils point. Just because half of eclipse feels the need to point out that atm there is no blocking or whatever it doesnt mean that automatically I was saying 'bad you'.

This is not about one alliance, this is hardly even about blocking although it's been turned into that. It's about what I feel is a fundamental problem in planetarion, namely that everything people want never gets to happen because people are afraid that they might loose a roid and a half.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I agree, in essence that is correct, however these same things can be accomplished by simply allying, not blocking.
Blocks are rigid structures, they fuel bitterness and create stagnation. Once a war is over the round might as well be over, if there is any action it will be in the form of backstabbing and confined to the 500 players in the 'winning' block.

Quite correct. Under this definition, your initial post claiming that a block has been formed is incorrect.

[ParraCida]

MrL, I don't give a flying fk about people hitting LDK, I was commenting about the fact that alliances make certain statements and then as soon as they are inconvenienced break that statement.

So you're not an official block? You're just coordinating attacks and not hitting eachother, well then it's okay, as long as nothing is official.

And the 2 personal attacks were Focht questioning my state of mind and Germ with the radical comment, unless they both meant this in a happy fuzzy way in which case I retract that statement I'd say that is a personal attack.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Quite correct. Under this definition, your initial post claiming that a block has been formed is incorrect.

So you're not an official block? You're just coordinating attacks and not hitting eachother, well then it's okay, as long as nothing is official.


It's still an overly large amount of players against a minority atm. So how is that incorrect.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by ParraCida

If we're not hitting eachother, it's because we're hitting LDK; it's a coincidental thing, not an active decision.

[Razorback]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Actually I was quite inactive during that round, I thought I read some stuff about eclipse backstabbings though. If I'm incorrect so be it, I was bringing across a point and I'm sure it does well without Round 9 in it. So what'll be your next arguement, I misspelled something therfore it isn't true, let's keep on the subject here mkay. I'd expect better from a mod

hmm if you admit that Eclipse yet didnt backstab someone. and as Eclipse /= Fury. What was your point again ?

Furthermore you talked about a block, or better you jumped on the bandwagon your loyal poster Silversmoke started a week ago. Followed by lrytas followed by fish. Seems kinda odd that out of your camp those accusations arrive. Btw i would really love to see the attacks launching in the same tick, I for one saw 3 eclipse attacks going off not even timed in the same tick. And as you avoided genuinely my example of YOUR OWN battlegroup or ex battlegroup Kamikaze. The hit on another LDK planet was done by a bg, with mixed playerloyalties. so your point again ?

you state LDK is free to hit everyone else. so is everyone else free to hit ldk. The mainmistake you make is quiet simply to assume noone is allowed to focus on you because that would be blocking. Tbh i could not be blocking but leak my entire attackplanning everyday to 3 alliances knowingly and im pretty sure if it was atm LDK or whoever else has some open bills with them, they would not hesitate to take advantage of it.

Another very interesting assumption is that eclipse would avoid someone else. i would love to see the post where i or someone else wrote that, we stated we focussed on LDK, hitting normally the full gals (which contain mixed allies). I would hardly call that spareing someone or selective fire.

Furthermore and that might even be the most important part your definition of blocking comes as it fits your aims i guess. Seeing Cypher attacking with Fang bgs, yourself beeing in an oly/LDK bg etc- All those examples would be after your own evaluation be indicators of those alliances blocking with you / LDK even if we both know thats rather silly and not true.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Oh come on Jonny, if you are half as smart as you pretend to be you shouldn't need me to explain the difference between a dynamic universe and backstabbing allies at the end of the round.

I agree, there's a huge difference. However just because nobody did it before them when they should have doesn't mean it's suddenly morally wrong to do it. A dynamic alliance situation means each alliance attempts to pick the best times for it to chnage it's political situation. If some people do it well then keep a very close eye on them and eliminate them as soon as it's feasible. If you don't think you can do it and survive find other allies.

This is not about one alliance, this is hardly even about blocking although it's been turned into that. It's about what I feel is a fundamental problem in planetarion, namely that everything people want never gets to happen because people are afraid that they might loose a roid and a half.

If everyone wants it surely they outnumber the people who just sit there on their roids. Sad truth is score means close to nothing anymore in PA. It's all about who you know and the alliance which you're in. To tell you the truth if an alliance came out today and said we want to really play I'd applaud. People who play the game to win the war and not the round. Who really cares if somebody else gets the top spot if you know you've done everything you could to win and had a damn good time playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Yes PA is a microcosm of real life in some aspects but nothing is set in stone. If people choose to sit on their roids and wreck your game annihilate them the next round and ignore any pathetic whining attempts they make accusing you of everything short of murdering the Pope. It's supposed to be our game to play the way we want to play it.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by ParraCida
So you're not an official block? You're just coordinating attacks and not hitting eachother, well then it's okay, as long as nothing is official.


It's still an overly large amount of players against a minority atm. So how is that incorrect.

Now you're changing your definition though. Now you're saying it's a block if it has more people in it than the alliance/block it is targetting - this is profoundly incorrect.

The only 'attack coordination' that occurs is an agreement to target LDK, based on this premise: if LDK are not targetted heavily, they will win the round for sure. I ask again, what should we do? Sit around pretending it's not happening and just let LDK win easily?

Furthermore, no 'rigid structures' have been established, the war with LDK is by no means a 'final conflict' (a feature of blocks as you described earlier). The intention is not to form a block which kills everything outside of it. The intention is to prolong the competition for victory by hauling back the currently leading alliance. It's actually rather like a speed game - LDK are the #1 after a day, but everyone knows that whoever ends the first day as #1 will have serious efforts to bring them down from #1 once the second day starts. This happens without any 'block' - there is no shared interest between any of the alliances hitting LDK except a desire to make sure that the round remains open and that LDK are not allowed to win unopposed (it's not an anti-LDK thing, the same would be happening if Eclipse or Olympians or whoever were winning atm).

I fail to see how this is a bad thing, especially considering that the only alternative is to roll over and die, and let LDK win - beginning weeks of stagnation, which could be avoided by a concerted fightback.

[K-W]

Parra its nice to see in your replies that you throw in moronic statements about fury and eclipse so that I dont have to be bothered with any doubt of your point of view.

Luckily it seems that most people are coming around to realize that stagnation is the enemy, not blocking, and that stagnation has many causes. Sitting around while LDK cleans out the top 20 is stagnation.

It is annoying to anyone with a clear thinking brain that the blocking discussion continues to go on with no clear definition of blocking. This giant hole in discussion allows for alot of stupididty and allows for blocking accusations to go on as they have.

Bad Blocking refers to the practice of setting up tightly knit, very powerful groups of alliances that cannot even begin to be challenged by solo allainces and that trancend situation (in both defeat and victory they stick together and refuse to make moves).

Now if you want to attach a stigma to an allainces moves through the term blocking, you have to show that this is whats being done.

3/4 of the univerese could work together without it being blocking. If all they do is attack together for 3 days for thier common interests, it is not blocking.

So if someone would care to show how any allainces in PA right now are creating such interconnceted bonds that it looks like bad blocking, please do. But if not stop using that word to falsy accuse allainces who are making very constructive and legitimate political moves.

[ParraCida]

Focht, I was replying to zhil, not to eclipse/fury. And would you please stop blabbering about 'my' battlegroup, I joined kami because they were the only ones with a 0755 CEST launch, and all considered I maybe launched on 3 of their attacks. So personally I am not politically motivated at all.

Jonny: We can go over every situation one by one, but the point of the post was not blocking but broken promise. Look at round 3, a week before the round ends Fury teams up with WP and attacks legion, picking a fight is obviously not wrong. But I'd say it is morally wrong because they did it a heartbeat before ticks ended. They betrayed their closest ally, there is a difference in 'ending an alliance' and betraying them. In round 5 the exact same happened, in fact that was one of the main reasons for the forming of Titans remember? Round 7 same old story although the jury is still out on that one right boys?
Anyway, there won't ever be a clear line between what's morally right and wrong, people will say that they ended relations, others will say that those same people backstabbed. The point however is that there are many people here accusing others of being morally inept, farming/cheating/blocking etc, everybody is pretending to have moral highground. Zhil's valiant report and kick from eclipse as he so stated, so what happened with morden? There are very very very very very few examples in planetarion were an alliance chose for anything but their own interests, yet everyone is claiming to have moral highground.

And about that reflection with real life, it's actually bothering me quite a lot, which is why I am so upset about this. I have always felt that on the internet people were more like themselves then irl because of the freedom and anonimity, so to see how pa has developped is quite a sad state of affairs. Though I take comfort in the fact that planetarion's demographic is limited.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Now you're changing your definition though. Now you're saying it's a block if it has more people in it than the alliance/block it is targetting - this is profoundly incorrect.

No, this is what I said from the beginning.

Number of players being far greater then their opposition etc.

[ParraCida]

Dear germania, nice to see you find the time to yet again insult me directly. But that is allright with me, as I said I shouldn't expect differently.

I have given you 'my' defintion of blocking, what I feel is blocking, you don't have to agree with it, but I have given a definition on which I base my arguements. And yes, 'bad blocking', but I think that was my point all along wasn't it. I based my point on the many rounds of experience we have had with blocks, they don't work for the reasons I stated. Blocks have proven to be rigid, and therefore undesirable. Why are they so? Because people don't know when to quit, because they choose their personal safety over the good of the game (basis of my point). What you call 'bad blocking'.

So it looks like we agree for once, even if you didn't realize it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Jonny: We can go over every situation one by one, but the point of the post was not blocking but broken promise. Look at round 3, a week before the round ends Fury teams up with WP and attacks legion, picking a fight is obviously not wrong. But I'd say it is morally wrong because they did it a heartbeat before ticks ended. They betrayed their closest ally, there is a difference in 'ending an alliance' and betraying them. In round 5 the exact same happened, in fact that was one of the main reasons for the forming of Titans remember? Round 7 same old story although the jury is still out on that one right boys?
Anyway, there won't ever be a clear line between what's morally right and wrong, people will say that they ended relations, others will say that those same people backstabbed. The point however is that there are many people here accusing others of being morally inept, farming/cheating/blocking etc, everybody is pretending to have moral highground. Zhil's valiant report and kick from eclipse as he so stated, so what happened with morden? There are very very very very very few examples in planetarion were an alliance chose for anything but their own interests, yet everyone is claiming to have moral highground.

Well not being privy to the inner workings of the legion and fury HC at the start of r3 I must admit I'm unsure whether or not they broke their promises. If they said we will be allied for this entire round they broke their promise and they're idiots. If they said we'll maintain this alliance as long as it's profitable for us and we will give a period of grace when we decide it no longer is then they didn't really break any promises. For me there is a very clear line. Breaking the rules is wrong. Breaking social taboos is not. There's a reason they aren't rules. I'm a firm believer in giving people enough rope to hang themselves. Everyone can pretend to hold the moral highground until their hair falls out. I get to choose right and wrong for me. I don't think I should get to choose for anyone else to be honest.




PS I think the numbers thing should be defined a little clearer. A substantially larger block teaming up on a smaller one from day one will lead to an unproductive game (at that point) due to the fact that relative difference in fleet sizes etc is so small. At this stage however if people are clearly in the lead and their lead looks to be impossible to remove without accepting allies temporarily then I'm all for having allies.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Well not being privy to the inner workings of the legion and fury HC at the start of r3 I must admit I'm unsure whether or not they broke their promises. If they said we will be allied for this entire round they broke their promise and they're idiots. If they said we'll maintain this alliance as long as it's profitable for us and we will give a period of grace when we decide it no longer is then they didn't really break any promises. For me there is a very clear line. Breaking the rules is wrong. Breaking social taboos is not. There's a reason they aren't rules. I'm a firm believer in giving people enough rope to hang themselves. Everyone can pretend to hold the moral highground until their hair falls out. I get to choose right and wrong for me. I don't think I should get to choose for anyone else to be honest.

I think Legion's reaction during Round 4 says enough of the way they experienced the break between them at least wouldn't you agree?

[Scouse]

[quote]Originally posted by ComradeRob
[b]There are certainly no permanent agreements between

So, what are the other alliances supposed to do? Sit back and let LDK win? That might be fun for LDK, but it's not fun for anyone else. Since LDK are the current top alliance, it is incumbent on the other alliances to try to stop them from winning.

I agree with this. Alliances can't tell their members "Listen guys, LDK have outplayed everyone so far, so looks like we're not going to win this round". I just hope the speed round politics continue, and there's no actual blocking. That way everyone is kept in the game.

The problem is that if Alliance A is winning, then Alliance B will want to stick with it, to give it more chance of winning. That's the cowardly thing to do. Alliance B should want to ally Alliance C and Alliance D, to take out Alliance A. Speed round politics. PA every round like this would be great.

It would be nice to hear from some of these alliances involved "LDK are the better alliance, we need to block to take them out". That doesn't make you cowards, and it keeps the round interesting. This round noone will admit that, LDK are beating everyone else because they're all cheating scumbags. Or so most of the posters of these block threads would have you believe.

The problem with past rounds is that people want to go into a round knowing they have a good chance of winning so they block from the start. If every round people went into tick start unallied, and just played politics from there it would be much better. Every alliance wants to do well. It's not the fault of the top alliance if it gets on top and stagnation occurs. It's the fault of every other alliance for doing nothing about it.

Mostly what I said is agreement with what Lokken said. However, this 'discussion' is somewhat off topic from the original post.

[Razorback]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Focht, I was replying to zhil, not to eclipse/fury. And would you please stop blabbering about 'my' battlegroup, I joined kami because they were the only ones with a 0755 CEST launch, and all considered I maybe launched on 3 of their attacks. So personally I am not politically motivated at all.

If you cant understand a valid example of mixed loyalties and how it may look and can be missunderstood as blocking i cant help you then.

Jonny: We can go over every situation one by one, but the point of the post was not blocking but broken promise. Look at round 3, a week before the round ends Fury teams up with WP and attacks legion, picking a fight is obviously not wrong. But I'd say it is morally wrong because they did it a heartbeat before ticks ended. They betrayed their closest ally, there is a difference in 'ending an alliance' and betraying them.

Please dont tell ppl about parts of history you have no clue about.
The fury - Legion - war was a setup both sides agreed upon to get rid of stagnation. There was a 72h period if i recall correctly where no shot fell. This was due to boredom and lack of targets and the decision not to ally in r4 forced. A war welcomed as much by legion as by fury members. No "backstabbing" like you try to imply and certainly no hard feelings.

In round 5 the exact same happened, in fact that was one of the main reasons for the forming of Titans remember?

Round 5 was pretty dull the opposition lay down and died. So the blocks broke up (Antistagnation) and some new wars erupted. You complain about what exactly ?

Round 7 same old story although the jury is still out on that one right boys?

R7 pretty different round, Newx had resistnace and fought a hard war, changingpoints were the closure of cimmeria and the coordinated wave attacks on LDK which finally broke the last resistance. Then the backstabbing started, something a couple of alliances were at first involved in. After it was uncovered ppl sorted their acts. Last but not least titans got dropped out in the dirt because they acted like irresponsible selfish arrogant twats (atleast the winners will say so)
While fang fouhgt its own war vs legion.
Dont confuse stagnation wars, backstabbing, chanceling an alliance and breaking up with partners over hard feelings with each other.

Anyway, there won't ever be a clear line between what's morally right and wrong, people will say that they ended relations, others will say that those same people backstabbed. The point however is that there are many people here accusing others of being morally inept, farming/cheating/blocking etc, everybody is pretending to have moral highground. Zhil's valiant report and kick from eclipse as he so stated, so what happened with morden? There are very very very very very few examples in planetarion were an alliance chose for anything but their own interests, yet everyone is claiming to have moral highground.

Name a cheater which was not removed in eclipse ?
Morden ? enlighten us what happend ?
R7 morden was found guilty of cheating on the last day.
R8 Morden didnt play and was in any way associated with Fury.
R9 Morden was half a round Eclipse.

And about that reflection with real life, it's actually bothering me quite a lot, which is why I am so upset about this. I have always felt that on the internet people were more like themselves then irl because of the freedom and anonimity, so to see how pa has developped is quite a sad state of affairs. Though I take comfort in the fact that planetarion's demographic is limited.

Well Para this is your own problem and tbh i think it wont have a valid part how you exactly feel about the ppl apart from you. You like everyone else has the right to judge and think of ppl what you want and seeing from your latest replys i sense a good tad of bitterness in you. This might need counseling or maybe need just time but im sure abit more optimism and maybe not such a bitter agressive approach to every topic would really help you

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I think Legion's reaction during Round 4 says enough of the way they experienced the break between them at least wouldn't you agree?

I think people can believe whatever they wish to believe. If I had been fury I would have done exactly the same thing in their position (probably a bit earlier actually), and poor form legion for not doing the same. In the end of the day this game is not a matter of life and death and it should be played like a game. If it gets boring change your situation.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by ParraCida
No, this is what I said from the beginning.

Number of players being far greater then their opposition etc.

I don't see any problem with a larger force being used against a smaller one. As another point - LDK didn't seem to have any problem getting defence from a very large number of planets last night - does LDK really have that many members? If they're not LDK members, then who exactly are all of these defending people? If you want to bring the numbers argument up then I could very well question the large number of planets with an LDK 'assocation' on our intel arbiter (meaning they've attacked with or defended LDK on multiple occasions). I am not trying to make an 'omg LDK multi bot planets!!' point, I'm just saying that LDK don't seem to be all that outnumbered judging by the number of planets actively fighting on their side.

Hell, maybe LDK are so great that the only way they can be beaten if several alliances target them. I don't mind admitting that is a possibility. I could certainly question whether LDK really have so few members as they are generally believed to have, or if they are really as solo as is claimed, but I really just don't care about that. They are the people hitting our planets, the people who will win the round if they are not stopped, and so it is our job to stop them.

All this means is that LDK might not win. Well, here's news for you: LDK don't have a god-given right to win. We don't just have to sit back and allow it to happen, and we are not doing so. No amount of whining on the forums is going to change that. LDK won the race to get the most top planets in the early phase of the round, but now the game changes. It really is just like a speed game. Being the first to get on top often isn't the best way to win.

The choice is simple, either crown LDK as victors now for winning the early roiding race, or start fighting back to give others a chance of winning. I fail to see why you think anyone should take the first option, as it leads only to stagnation and boredom (for LDK members as much as anyone else).

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Razorback
Last but not least titans got dropped out in the dirt because they acted like irresponsible selfish arrogant twats

Do us all a favour and change your wording here please, you stupid selfish Fury twat. And then I'll change mine.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Scouse
Mostly what I said is agreement with what Lokken said. However, this 'discussion' is somewhat off topic from the original post.

Well everybody just sortof assumed I was telling them off for blocking

Though I believe my original post covered the situations both lokken and germania explained, 'misuse of blocking', difference being I stated reason and they stated result.