Planetarion Forums

Lupin · 13 Jun 2003, 23:09

i heard of it..
can anyone confirm it, that it is true? if it is i am quite curious about who is leader etc...

or

am i just a n00b with p-l-i (pseude-leet-intel)?

BDB · 13 Jun 2003, 23:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Lupin
i heard of it..
can anyone confirm it, that it is true? if it is i am quite curious about who is leader etc...

or

am i just a n00b with p-l-i (pseude-leet-intel)?

please let it not be true let the ****ing allince stay gone

Zh|l · 13 Jun 2003, 23:32

I doubt this is true, I think you are confusing this for a battlegroup consisting of alot of ex-Legion.

Gayle29uk · 13 Jun 2003, 23:36

There is no Legion in PA! It's a lie! They were burned in the fires of Allah befo...

/me slinks away.

mcnally · 14 Jun 2003, 00:00

whats the difference between an alliance of 80+ ppl and a bg of 80+ ppl

Lupin · 14 Jun 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Zh|l
I doubt this is true, I think you are confusing this for a battlegroup consisting of alot of ex-Legion.

is it possible that you go a bit more in detail?

HobbieRogue4 · 14 Jun 2003, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lupin
is it possible that you go a bit more in detail?

It would be the most rediculous thing in the world for Legion to return in full force.

Suffice it to say, members of the Legion "group" ('clan' isn't accurate) still play Planetarion. But Legion has no official affiliation with Planetarion anymore.

JonnyBGood · 14 Jun 2003, 00:49

I believe grendel, rampage and biggdogg have all said at various times that legion will never return. However I am interested as to what precisely sparked these rumours.....

N0VA · 14 Jun 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by mcnally
whats the difference between an alliance of 80+ ppl and a bg of 80+ ppl

Everyone in the bg has an outside alliance :P

Maddix · 14 Jun 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by mcnally
whats the difference between an alliance of 80+ ppl and a bg of 80+ ppl

Pretty much the same as what makes Plush or Dragons a Battle Group and not an Alliance.

Carpeia · 14 Jun 2003, 01:42

We get roids at least.

Axis_WLF · 14 Jun 2003, 02:32

blah

Unf_Slasher · 14 Jun 2003, 04:05

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I believe grendel, rampage and biggdogg have all said at various times that legion will never return. However I am interested as to what precisely sparked these rumours.....

probably the rather big bg called Legion and friends

Teddy_Bear · 14 Jun 2003, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by mcnally
whats the difference between an alliance of 80+ ppl and a bg of 80+ ppl

bg dont have as strick rules as alliances, which every one likes, and ppl just attack and get def else where

ComradeRob · 14 Jun 2003, 07:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Teddy_Bear
bg dont have as strick rules as alliances, which every one likes, and ppl just attack and get def else where

I think the question was more from the perspective of the rest of the universe than from the perspective of a BG member. To the rest of the universe, a large BG behaves very much like an alliance.

Obfuscator · 14 Jun 2003, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ComradeRob
I think the question was more from the perspective of the rest of the universe than from the perspective of a BG member. To the rest of the universe, a large BG behaves very much like an alliance.

I'm not exactly a BG expert, since I was only ever in 2, and didn't really use either of them much...but in my experience, the difference to the outside observer should be pretty obvious. If you swamp an alliance of 80 people with attacks, you can expect to get through on a lot of them. If you swamp a BG of 80 people with attacks, they will have a much easier time defending, since they will have diverse alliances from which to leech defense.

mcnally · 14 Jun 2003, 09:50

well hope the alliances those ppl are in, do appreciate it then because if they are attacking with the bg dont they defend there first also? so what good are they for their alliance (not the bg, even thoe its the same in my eyes)

gzambo · 14 Jun 2003, 10:53

every rd somoene says that legion are returning but i cant see it happenning

Scouse · 14 Jun 2003, 11:32

Kjeldoran · 14 Jun 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by ComradeRob
I think the question was more from the perspective of the rest of the universe than from the perspective of a BG member. To the rest of the universe, a large BG behaves very much like an alliance.

int he early rounds the meaning of BG was closer to what it actually does then now. Back then a BG simply was an attackgroup, doin coordinated raids, attacks and fleetcatching etc.
Nowadays you see most BG's supplying defence to their members aswell (some more others less).

I believe the difference with the alliance here is that alliances are defence based organisations and BG's are offensive based.

rgds Kj

HK · 14 Jun 2003, 12:05

As an alliance Legion will never come back to PA. (Grendel said ' no ' remember

) Those people, legionaires, who are playing planetarion do it in a group with certain close friends and that group can not be defined as an alliance.

Klendau II · 14 Jun 2003, 14:07

What everyone else said.

Legion and Friends [LaF] is the only real reminder of the Legion, other than ofc the community. A few LaF galaxies have been using old Legion gal pics/names of late, so that may have sparked the rumour mill into motion.

But to the best of my knowledge, Legion will never play the role of an alliance in PA again.

Vaio · 14 Jun 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kjeldoran
int he early rounds the meaning of BG was closer to what it actually does then now. Back then a BG simply was an attackgroup, doin coordinated raids, attacks and fleetcatching etc.
Nowadays you see most BG's supplying defence to their members aswell (some more others less).

I believe the difference with the alliance here is that alliances are defence based organisations and BG's are offensive based.

rgds Kj

Pluis battlegroups can get round those pesky problems about not being able to hit planets in your own alliance, all you have to do is swap targets with a battlegroup member

Vaio

Rinoa · 14 Jun 2003, 15:22

Im sacred to attack these gals with Legion banners just incase Legion has reformed secretly.

Just like the old days ah ....

Rampage · 14 Jun 2003, 15:25

Yes, there is a battlegroup on our network (jedi.legionhq.org) wich contains (ex) legion members and their friends. However many of the battlegroup participants are in an alliance of their own aswell, be it rah, eclipse, fang, sh, etcetera.

Legion as an alliance will never come back to PA, infact isn't even able to as I said before, most of the legionairs playing planetarion are in an alliance of their own.

The days of VtS/Fury/Xanadu are over.

-Rampage

Teddy_Bear · 14 Jun 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Kjeldoran
Nowadays you see most BG's supplying defence to their members aswell (some more others less).

this has started to happen because battlegroups are a more likly to be m8s and friends...

Kjeldoran · 14 Jun 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaio
Pluis battlegroups can get round those pesky problems about not being able to hit planets in your own alliance, all you have to do is swap targets with a battlegroup member

Vaio

exactly

rgds Kj

Salomo · 14 Jun 2003, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Maddix
Pretty much the same as what makes Plush or Dragons a Battle Group and not an Alliance.

the fact that they call themselves BG and alliances tolerate their members being in them?

Fist · 14 Jun 2003, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Salomo
the fact that they call themselves BG and alliances tolerate their members being in them?

Some HCs allow it and some dont as Ive experienced.
Sakera didnt like it I know, he wouldnt acknowledge me being in entity and a bg at once in round 8.

I was very open towards entity about me having a bg, and I had a great time both places.

Morden · 15 Jun 2003, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Salomo
the fact that they call themselves BG and alliances tolerate their members being in them?

not many HC's have the balls to stop there members, as tbh these days 1 alliance is as good as another, so there arent many truely loyal members who would stand for having there primary attack routines made forbidden.

Salomo · 15 Jun 2003, 03:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Morden
not many HC's have the balls to stop there members, as tbh these days 1 alliance is as good as another, so there arent many truely loyal members who would stand for having there primary attack routines made forbidden.

if they had the balls they might change one alliance being as good as the other.

I don't intend to say that any old (or new) alliance would be great just cause they don't allow BG's, but some of the better alliances could lift themselves off from the masses of alliances by taking their firepower into their own hands again and showing their members how nice it can be to truly fight together as an alliance and bring back some of the loyalty from the old days that way.

By allowing split loyalties they aren't going to be better than the next alliance.

Zh|l · 15 Jun 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Salomo
if they had the balls they might change one alliance being as good as the other.

I don't intend to say that any old (or new) alliance would be great just cause they don't allow BG's, but some of the better alliances could lift themselves off from the masses of alliances by taking their firepower into their own hands again and showing their members how nice it can be to truly fight together as an alliance and bring back some of the loyalty from the old days that way.

By allowing split loyalties they aren't going to be better than the next alliance.

Lets wait for Sid to create a new alliance for r10.

sigrid · 15 Jun 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Zh|l
Lets wait for Sid to create a new alliance for r10.

lets not

G.K Zhukov · 15 Jun 2003, 19:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Zh|l
Lets wait for Sid to create a new alliance for r10.

I know you can come up with something abit more original than that Zhil.

After all, your love story with sid is already known.

Dworschi · 15 Jun 2003, 21:23

MAdnRisKy · 15 Jun 2003, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Salomo
if they had the balls they might change one alliance being as good as the other.

I don't intend to say that any old (or new) alliance would be great just cause they don't allow BG's, but some of the better alliances could lift themselves off from the masses of alliances by taking their firepower into their own hands again and showing their members how nice it can be to truly fight together as an alliance and bring back some of the loyalty from the old days that way.

By allowing split loyalties they aren't going to be better than the next alliance.

95% of Oly members attack from Oly BGs run by Oly command.

just fyi

Zh|l · 16 Jun 2003, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
I know you can come up with something abit more original than that Zhil.

After all, your love story with sid is already known.

Original to what? I wanted to make some joke for humour, it was humourous to me (which is all that mattered).

Please do tell me the love story since it's not known to me. It could possibly be why you liked to impersonate him, trying to get some quick cyber eh? A powerful person in a powerful position eh?

HobbieRogue4 · 16 Jun 2003, 04:37

I used to impersonate Sid.

I haev teh logs adn pr00f!@#$

N0VA · 16 Jun 2003, 06:28

It seems like yet another thread has degenerated into a debate over the merits of battlegroups ... but if ya can't beat 'em:

I really do not see how battlegroups pose a threat to alliances. For example, I am in a battlegroup, but I have a personal rule where at at least one of my fleets per day gets put wherever an alliance bc/dc tells me it needs to be. Apart from that, I run all targets through each alliance arbiter - and unless the target has been hostile, if I hear of even one alliance member in the gal I'll go to the next one. So I'll start out with a list of maybe 10 potential targets, and end up with only 2 or 3 that are safe to attack - then it puts no added burden on any member alliance - plus it strengthens them by essentially hitting everyone who is not us.

The problem is not with battle groups, but instead with selfish players. They are the ones who will find out which planets are in their alliance and just make sure that they personally don't launch on it. They also prioritize defense to their battle group, and only treat their alliance as a backup source for targets and a primary source for defense.

What you all forget to realize though is that these problems existed before there were battle groups. These players would commonly launch on 2-3 attacks per day, always make sure their galaxy first was covered with defense, and then alliance after that, etc.

The way to curb the "problem that is the battle group" is not to ban them, but to instead give DC's and BC's more authority in the decision to keep/boot members. Any time a DC or BC orders a fleet movement for a member in a given day, make a note of it. Any day that a member does not get such a note counts as a strike against them etc. You'll rapidly find out which people actively support your alliance, and which are only leaches. Also, if it turns out that top members or even highly active ones are the leaches, then cut them loose. Even if they are flying your alliance's tag, they aren't actually helping you out, but in fact are holding you back.

mcnally · 16 Jun 2003, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Zh|l
Lets wait for Sid to create a new alliance for r10.

attempt to be funny?

HobbieRogue4 · 16 Jun 2003, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by mcnally
attempt to be funny?

I smirked. I'm getting a bigger kick out of how you're unable to smile too.

Zh|l · 16 Jun 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by mcnally
attempt to be funny?

If anyone could create an alliance heralding back to the old days, it would be Sid. Sid was able to be ruthless, yet fair. Not to mention he could inspire and harbour loyalties. Many people were loyal to Sid, not Fury itself. (Luckily, this actually turned out to be loyalty to Fury)

Supernova9 · 16 Jun 2003, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by N0VA
The problem is not with battle groups, but instead with selfish players. They are the ones who will find out which planets are in their alliance and just make sure that they personally don't launch on it. They also prioritize defense to their battle group, and only treat their alliance as a backup source for targets and a primary source for defense.

The major problems occur when selfish players run battlegroups. Prime example being Dragons. Jurgen uses them for his own political motives, whilst having them leach defence from major alliances, e.g. for the most part Wolfpack.

Tietäjä · 17 Jun 2003, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Supernova9
The major problems occur when selfish players run battlegroups. Prime example being Dragons. Jurgen uses them for his own political motives, whilst having them leach defence from major alliances, e.g. for the most part Wolfpack.

Wolfpack's problem. Thih.

God · 18 Jun 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by mcnally
whats the difference between an alliance of 80+ ppl and a bg of 80+ ppl

the name...

Knight Theamion · 18 Jun 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Supernova9
The major problems occur when selfish players run battlegroups. Prime example being Dragons. Jurgen uses them for his own political motives, whilst having them leach defence from major alliances, e.g. for the most part Wolfpack.

or you get your members to lead bg's to use them for your motives, while you let other alliances flak the retals

CamelToe · 19 Jun 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Maddix
Pretty much the same as what makes Plush or Dragons a Battle Group and not an Alliance.

Plz don't compare Plush to Dragons. I find it offensive.

Sn0w · 19 Jun 2003, 00:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy
95% of Oly members attack from Oly BGs run by Oly command.

just fyi

not all are command

Sn0w · 19 Jun 2003, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by CamelToe
Plz don't compare Plush to Dragons. I find it offensive.

wb cameltoe

Prophey · 19 Jun 2003, 01:46

*drool* CamelToe...