Command Excuses

[Scouse]

I've often seen command members of big and small alliances claim that their skills lie in organising their alliance, by being HC, BC, DC etc. Well if you ask me that's a pretty pathetic excuse for being a bad player.

Obviously you must be a decent HC, BC, DC or you'd not be in the positions that you are (note: some HC's and BC's in some alliances are actually completely useless) but to claim that you don't need to play a big planet because of that is a tad daft.

In my opinion those command members that do have big planets are even better for their alliance as they can use their big(ish) fleets to defend their alliance with and to attack the enemy with.

So, to all you command members who play crap planets every round and think it's 'ok', you should be a little ashamed for your performance, and by you having a small planet are actually causing more harm for your alliance than good.

The only alliance that I noted this round with even a few big planets was FAnG, when they had FeNiX, LEFF, Subo, Lockhead etc of a decent size, but they were shortly roided down or deleted.

[Kileman]

/me apologises to Scouse for his inability to MO

ill try and play with the big boys next time
________
Jaguar ss100 history

[Kjeldoran]

Originally posted by Scouse
I've often seen command members of big and small alliances claim that their skills lie in organising their alliance, by being HC, BC, DC etc. Well if you ask me that's a pretty pathetic excuse for being a bad player.

Obviously you must be a decent HC, BC, DC or you'd not be in the positions that you are (note: some HC's and BC's in some alliances are actually completely useless) but to claim that you don't need to play a big planet because of that is a tad daft.

In my opinion those command members that do have big planets are even better for their alliance as they can use their big(ish) fleets to defend their alliance with and to attack the enemy with.

So, to all you command members who play crap planets every round and think it's 'ok', you should be a little ashamed for your performance, and by you having a small planet are actually causing more harm for your alliance than good.

The only alliance that I noted this round with even a few big planets was FAnG, when they had FeNiX, LEFF, Subo, Lockhead etc of a decent size, but they were shortly roided down or deleted.

mmm, you got a point there, but It's not cause you are not able to have a big planet that you automaticly be a bad Hc or command member. I mean, druing R8 I never had a decent sized planet simply cause titans raided me early on the round, never giving me the ability to gain strength. Most of the time, being small isn't cause you WANNA be small, but cause they force you to be.

I know for myself that I'm not the best Pa player, not even close. But IF you're HC of a succesfull alliance and they don't wanna throw you out, how can you claim he/she wasn't a good BC/HC?

I mean most of the time, 99% of PA doesn't even know how other alliances are run internally, so judging pple's ability to perform a command position is only possible when you're in the alliance or group aswell.

rgds Kj

[Heartshunter]

Originally posted by Kileman
/me apologises to Scouse for his inability to MO

ill try and play with the big boys next time

(ado @ hearts place)

Its actually ironic you mean that sarcastically .....

[Hicks]

Ado doesn't know his password only a Titan is that stupid, hehe I guess I can stop all the anti Titans stuff now

Three Top 100 rounds for me I guess I'm a super mega hyper cool BC, I should have applied to Titans or something This round I discovered what I think is a similar trend for many people in high-level command spots. I just didn’t have the time or energy to devote to playing a large planet especially logging in at un Godly hours of the morning to launch fleets. Despite this I still think I was a fairly effective BC mainly because we got a large amount of daytime incoming, which I could help with. I think this round has taught me that in general HCing or BCing is less demanding that playing “hardcore� and that being good at one does not mean you have to be good at the other.

[TrinTara]

Grow up Scouse. You are back in the schoolyard where "mine is bigger than yours" arguments made kiddies feel important. If you can't see that there are many ways to contribute to the team that is known in PA as an alliance and that score is only ONE of those ways - then I know that leaving Titans was the definitely the right decision.

What you are really doing is exposing your own achilles heel. YOU would be embarassed to be HC and not have a big planet because that is your own criteria for success. This actually makes you quite vulnerable. Others have their own criteria and are not bound to conform to your prejudices.

Trin

[Kileman]

Originally posted by Heartshunter
(ado @ hearts place)

Its actually ironic you mean that sarcastically .....

Its actually ironic that you dont actually have a clue about my abilitys as A) a player and B) a MO
________
DAIHATSU CHARMANT SPECIFICATIONS

[Norseman]

Nicely written Trin

Lots of bull**** there Scouse, but can you point to a single position where an argument is provided? (in an argument i mean the main claim + reasons which supports the main claim)

just words, sentences and no actual meaning

----

errrrm?? why have my "<@Irvine> Fury, legion and tot & all are just as ****ed" part of my sig been removed and the search function disabled? *totally confused*

[Scouse]

I didn't say you had to be good at one to be good at the other, just said that it's better for your alliance if you have a big planet as opposed to a little one.

Trin, why so offended by it? It's a valid point and you've not made any valid counter arguments to it. You're a grown woman, not a child, so don't start with the insults.

I know there are lots of way to contribute to an alliance, my point simply was that "I'm in command and don't have time for my planet" just simply doesn't wash and by playing a good planet you are actually a greater asset to your alliance.

I didn't have a big planet in round 6 due to being in a hostile C and it never affected my ability as a HC at all. I was just as active that round as I've ever been when I've been in the top 25 rankings.

Arguments for my case:

1) Being big means you have more ships and can defend your alliance better.

2) Being big means you are harder to take down by enemies, than if you were small.

3) If you are command then you should be relatively active and thus should be online more often to send defence, than your average big alliance player.

First three off the top of my head, now tell me I'm wrong. The only disadvantage I can see if that you use more defence should you be attacked, but you will send more defence over the round than you will use, so that's easily countered.

[RooKie]

If you def as much as Trin does, then u dont have any more fleetslots for attacking.

[Norseman]

More you have, the better it is (crappy english)

that you wanna debate?

really hope not..

ofc you are fully right, but you cant judge a persons work as a hc by the amount of time he can be bothered to invest into a planet.

does it affect the hcs ability to be a leader for an alliance if he owns a crappy planet? that would question directly his leader abilities, yours doesnt - "it never affected my ability as a HC at all"

"just said that it's better for your alliance if you have a big planet as opposed to a little one." <-- taste this; its so obvious, its not even possible to discuss.. as, how can anyone not agree?

"by playing a good planet you are actually a greater asset to your alliance." <---- likewise

Too tired or unable to get the real meaning behind this thread

nn

[The Subotai]

well, the way that i have always played this game was under the assumption that the game itself is ridiculously simple. even with ever-changing stats, it's fairly easy to find out what works and do that - repeatedly. adding races definitely threw a wrench in that since you couldn't really examine the long-term staying power of any race or the effects of the between round stats changes. the general PA public wasn't privy to the delicate issues of balance that beta testers knew and still, there was no way to see how those stats would play out in the long run. other factors influenced this round which couldn't have been known before they were implemented (e.g. had i known exactly how the mil scan would display information - or rather, lack of information, i and an even larger portion of the universe would have chosen xan).

on the other hand, the qualities which make a good PA leadership are not like ship stats. they don't change so drastically over time and it is reasonable to think that someone who is good at organizing people and providing a good community and environment for their alliance could stay around primarily for those purposes. in fact, i'd say it's a majority of players that stay around for the cameraderie of their alliance/friends rather than for the ticking spreadsheet that is PA.

a true leader in every circumstance displays both effective inter/intrapersonal skills combined with a continuously growing expertise. so, yes, i do believe that PA alliance leaders should command respectable planets. in RL industry it is these people that ultimately command the respect of their peers. sure there are corporations run by the underserving offspring of former greats... but those don't tend to last for long. passion, intensity, fairness, wisdom, and skill are all needed for the long-term success of any leader.

in a game like PA, there are not the restrictions we find in RL. we have the freedom to make the game whatever we want and to extract enjoyment from it however we like. if it doesnt' satisfy us, we leave. considering that this is/was a community focused game, i'd say that if u find something in this game that makes it worth playing day after day... enjoy.

[TrinTara]

You just answered your own question if you think about it Scouse.

Yes, a HC/command officer needs to be active and yes a player with a big planet needs to be active. Whether the time and effort a command officer puts in results in themselves having a large planet is however a matter of cost-benefit analysis and a decision as to optimum allocation of resources.

In other words, the large planets an alliance has behind it need not be the command officers' planets. You admitted that yourself when you mentionned your planet was not large in Rd 6. Sometimes, the alliance resources that would be needed to cover your own planet might simply not be worth it and its the responsibility of a command officer to recognise that reality.

So in summary, yes its nice to have big planets but its not valid to judge performance of command based on planet size.

[Bashar]

Scouse - I beg to differ. Admittedly I was never the best player, a tendency to sleep in, and a tendency to say "I don't care" when people phoned me and I was out drinking made sure of that, but I always put the effort in, and I personally find that, if you are TRULY working for the team, unless you are either:
a) overstaffed
b) Already miles ahead
you just simply do not have time for your own planet (admittedly mine was already small for various reasons) and end up spending all of your time dealing with military stuff within your alliance. I judged that I could make more of an impact with the military side than the playing side, and so my planet did not launch any proper attacks in the last month of the game (it took more of a supportive role, and hit planets that nobody else WOULD - unlike some BC's/MO's, I don't prepick on targets, I take last, so my own planet suffered whilst others got lots of roids).

Your argument seems somewhat lacking in common sense. It is a sweeping generalisation which gives the impression that you believe that any person with a small planet consistently throughout rounds is unsuitable as HC/officer. Also, it is quite clear that you are an HC, as only HC's who abuse the position have lots of time (abuse meaning in this case passing the workload onto someone else), as BC's/DC's/MO's have bugger all time whilst online, every minute is taken up, and any decent HC notices this, and tries their best to spend their time making the job easier for such people if their own jobs are not that time consuming (my HC/execs were particularly good at this).

Basically Scouse - when you write a post, read through it, and think about it. If it is making broad sweeping statements, find some EVIDENCE for those statements :-)

Oh, and with respect to your most recent post on this thread - being big may mean you are better able to help, but in the time it takes me to launch my fleet on an attack or defence mission (about 10 seconds), I could have directed about 10-15 other people, or added another 2 fleets into a calc etc, it is not a question of how much a big planet benefits your alliance, but of WHAT MOST benefits your alliance.

[Obfuscator]

I won't comment on how it works in big alliances. I've never been a part of them. In the my experience, in small alliances though, the best HC's do have better planets than most. They will not always have the biggest in their alliance, but they will be big, at least compared to the average in their alliance. I was usually one of the bigger planets in TE, except in rounds where I was unable to be as active. Surprise surprise, in those rounds, my ability to lead in TE was also drastically hurt. In Nemesis, the alliance was primarily run by Lord Dain, Nova, and myself. We were Nemesis' 3 biggest planets in r6, at least for most of the round. This isn't because we always stole the best targets or anything like that, and it's not because we never defended the alliance. On the contrary, at least Nova and I were defending the alliance every night, and if we DID get the best targets, it was usually because we were quick on the draw in selection, and overly active during attack times.

I disagree with anyone who says that if you are working hard as an HC, you don't have time to play your planet hard. This MAY be true in some situations, and I won't fault someone for making that choice if it is true in their situation, but it is hardly true as a rule. Playing my planets hard has really never taken up so much time that I wasn't also able to do an awful lot of coordinating in the alliance overall. The only times I felt pressed for time, it was usually because of RL factors, not the conflict between HC'ing and playing.

I'm not going to say that to be a good HC you have to be a good planet manager, or vice versa. There would obviously be exceptions. On the other hand, I would say that MOST of the best HC/BC/etc, are also extremely capable players, and in order to stay good at HC/BC'ing, you have to maintain your abilities in the game as well.

[Scouse]

Bashar, you misunderstood my post. I never said to be a good HC/BC you need a big planet, not at all. Re-read my posts and re examine your reply please.

Thanks to Subo and Obfuscator for getting the point.

[Maddix]

Originally posted by Scouse
The only alliance that I noted this round with even a few big planets was FAnG, when they had FeNiX, LEFF, Subo, Lockhead etc of a decent size, but they were shortly roided down or deleted.

RaH command members had a reasonable collection of decent sized planets (in relation to the alliance size ofc )

Your point was pretty valid tho

[Zither]

Leadership has nothing to do with actual player skill.

Leadership is about leading other people, that is a mental thing.

A good leader makes those in his/her alliance to be good, to work together, to play pa to the best of theri abilites.

The fact that they may like sleep does not make them a bad hc.

[Petru]

Originally posted by Scouse
So, to all you command members who play crap planets every round and think it's 'ok', you should be a little ashamed for your performance, and by you having a small planet are actually causing more harm for your alliance than good.

In my history of HCing, from r2 through till today, I can count the number of times Ive asked for alliance defence on my 2 hands. I can't possibly count the number of times I've sent my fleet out to defence multiple members each, most and sometimes every night of the week.

I was booted out of one college and failed a second for spending time on working a decent planet in round 2, tried briefly in round 3 and nearly lost my job. I may have too much time on my hands sometimes, but not so much I will fritter it away losing sleep over a planet in this infernal game.

Just priorities Scouse. I'm willing to spend my time securing possibilities and gains for people who look to me for leadership. I'm not willing to sacrifice my sleep, time and health to get a "big planet" in a game that I haven't enjoyed playing since round 3.

No excuse, I just could never be bothered, there are greater priorities than I HAVE A BIG FLEETETTET!!!11 in my life, my members are one, my girlfriend is another, my sleep is a huge one.

On the reading of Zithers comment, I'll add this. Are you suggesting that having a "big planet" makes you an immediately credible leader?

So be it.

[Petru]

Originally posted by Scouse

1) Being big means you have more ships and can defend your alliance better.

On average, big members are the ones that are sneaking three roiding fleets out each night and sending far less defence than they receive.

Originally posted by Scouse

2) Being big means you are harder to take down by enemies, than if you were small.

Being big means you are a higher profile target and will require more regular and more quantitive defence.

AD Post- OMG OMG WE NAILED YOUR HC LAST NIGHT HAHAHA AND GOT ALL YOUR DEFENCE THEN HIT 50 OTHER PLANETS

Case in hand, a large planet HC is a defence magnet, and a liability when it comes to the propaganda war.

Originally posted by Scouse

3) If you are command then you should be relatively active and thus should be online more often to send defence, than your average big alliance player.

You need to have a big planet to send defence regularly?

Originally posted by Scouse

First three off the top of my head, now tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

[Psi_K]

Originally posted by Kileman
A) a player

DAMN FKING GOOD

and B) a MO

I wouldn't know =/

[Legator]

in my opinion everyone should have a planet as big as possible, hc, bc or whoever.

1. every single ship helps the alliance.

2. if you make rules which count for others u should follow them urself ofc too....and should help with ships or scans out.

imo its a pretty lame excuse, to have no time for a planet coz of beeing a hc....

also i saw hcs or officers without a planet.....kinda strange isnt it ?

[Sirad]

if i cared to step in id say something like
i was in europe and wasent at the internet al lthe time as sightseeing was more important so i dident take sweet targets and let thoose more dedicated to there planets then I was to mine.

i think that also has something to say for being a good hc, not being selfish and letting the members get the good targets instead of grabbing them up youself ( i know a few who do this :-/ )
they know who they are i launched there fleet for them a round or 2 ago cant remember which

[Razorback]

Well Scouse, as you havent identified my planet as many others, i doubt you can really judge that. On the other hand i think its not necessary to have a planet at all to be an hc.

Some of these jobs require pure admin and calc skills, so your own fleet is not needed.

On the otherhand you claim a big command planet would have a certain influence on the members, on this i agree. Clearly ppl even big sized ones look more up to someone who actually knows what he is talking about or who has achieved "something" in their eyes. And to someone who is and was also "up there".

On the otherhand i know myself that beeing a busy hc often means you planet suffers under it. I.e. Targetpicking, Missing Launchtime, realising your own planet is under attack when u didnt look for an hour because of stuff you sorted. So on a sidenote i think for a highly involved command member its harder to maintain a decent or good planet.

Nevertheless i disagree with the point that single command planets play a huge role in defences or beating the enemy. Basically the fact behind losing or winning, is the organisation and the odds you fight against. If you have 2 mio ships and your enemy has 100k its easy to bash and plunder, while limited ressources show the skill and the knowledge of a fist class commander.

But good thread and nice topic.

[Legator]

Originally posted by Razorback
Well Scouse, as you havent identified my planet as many others, i doubt you can really judge that. On the other hand i think its not necessary to have a planet at all to be an hc.

hm, pa is a game and imo u should have ofc a planet.

if not its like being in a half-life-clan (or wotever) and not playing the clan wars...

[RealJames]

Trintara and Petru between them have said everything that I'd like to have pointed out. Please read above and put a dull and monotonous tone on it, and it'll sound like one of my posts.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally posted by The Subotai
well, the way that i have always played this game was under the assumption that the game itself is ridiculously simple. even with ever-changing stats, it's fairly easy to find out what works and do that - repeatedly. adding races definitely threw a wrench in that since you couldn't really examine the long-term staying power of any race or the effects of the between round stats changes. the general PA public wasn't privy to the delicate issues of balance that beta testers knew and still, there was no way to see how those stats would play out in the long run. other factors influenced this round which couldn't have been known before they were implemented (e.g. had i known exactly how the mil scan would display information - or rather, lack of information, i and an even larger portion of the universe would have chosen xan).

on the other hand, the qualities which make a good PA leadership are not like ship stats. they don't change so drastically over time and it is reasonable to think that someone who is good at organizing people and providing a good community and environment for their alliance could stay around primarily for those purposes. in fact, i'd say it's a majority of players that stay around for the cameraderie of their alliance/friends rather than for the ticking spreadsheet that is PA.

a true leader in every circumstance displays both effective inter/intrapersonal skills combined with a continuously growing expertise. so, yes, i do believe that PA alliance leaders should command respectable planets. in RL industry it is these people that ultimately command the respect of their peers. sure there are corporations run by the underserving offspring of former greats... but those don't tend to last for long. passion, intensity, fairness, wisdom, and skill are all needed for the long-term success of any leader.

in a game like PA, there are not the restrictions we find in RL. we have the freedom to make the game whatever we want and to extract enjoyment from it however we like. if it doesnt' satisfy us, we leave. considering that this is/was a community focused game, i'd say that if u find something in this game that makes it worth playing day after day... enjoy.

all a nice dream subo, but what about this:

You're Hc, you're VERY big and your enemies know your coords. What will happen? They will surely bring your score down, cause hurting you hurts the alliance even more. resulting in probably overdefending the planet time after time till the attackers finally got through and killed the big HC's planet.
I mean come on, how many times have we seen this in the past? HC's just simply get more defence, members are more willing to overdefend him, that's a simple fact which you cannot avoid.

My points are

a) you don't CHOSE to be small most of the time
b) even when you're big you, as a HC, draw too much defence then you can offer during war
c) Being a big player requires totally different activity then being HC. Hc's don't HAVE to be online all night, yo have several HC's, others who will be there when you're not. But your own planet, you have to be up online else you get crewed over etc ...

rgds Kj

[Silva baby]

i think this was sorta thing i was hintin on
if an officer and HC had big planets wouldn't that bring up several moral issues?
i mean um if HC is usin his/her alliance as an defence whore and just defendin his own planet i mean? isn't bad?
plus i'm sure Sid has done so before
any fury want to comment?

[RealJames]

Originally posted by Silva baby
i think this was sorta thing i was hintin on
if an officer and HC had big planets wouldn't that bring up several moral issues?
i mean um if HC is usin his/her alliance as an defence whore and just defendin his own planet i mean? isn't bad?
plus i'm sure Sid has done so before
any fury want to comment?

Sid did have a very successful planet in R5, but never once to my knowledge hoovered up defence. The only real incident of note was when every noob in the universe launched on Yeh at the end of round 5. He was in Sid's galaxy.

[Scouse]

It's the job of the HC to keep their coords under wraps so noone knows them and abuses that knowledge. Both for the good of the alliance and the good of the planet.

[isildurx]

ummmm

scouse when you say big, what do u put into the word big?

top 10?

top 50?

top 100?

top 250?

i was nearly top 100 when the rnd ended, is that 'big' enuff to b a command member in an alliance? :P

[Scouse]

I'm awfully sorry, but I think I overestimated the intelligence of your regular AD reader.


I DID NOT SAY YOU NEED A BIG PLANET TO BE A GOOD COMMAND MEMBER, OR TO BE IN COMMAND.

[GavGull]

The relation you craft between score and rank is invalid. As long as the said command member's score is acceptable bearing in mind the average score of the alliance's members I can't see any problem.

The problem comes when the command member doesn't meet the 'minimum requirements'. However, this isn't at all relevant to rank within the alliance, the question is "Why's he in the alliance" and not "Why's he an MO/HC/etc".

'Excuses' should be judged on individual merit. Generalisation should be avoided (I recognise this is hardly a concept that is practised in this community).

[Hicks]

Originally posted by Silva baby

plus i'm sure Sid has done so before
any fury want to comment?

Since I’ve been Fury (Late Round 3) the only time I can think of that happening was near the end of Round 3 where most of the universe was involved in the battle. I can recall quite a lot times in Round 4 especially when Sid refused to take Fury defence and sent his own ships to defend other Fury members.

[Razorback]

happend this round when sid defended me while losing 1 tick roids himself.
So in r6 where his ships were nearly every day in 10:16
and other occasions

HC are like members they get attacked they get defence and sometimes there is no chance to defend them, a good hc knows when its senseless and calls it off without wasting valuable ressources in blind loyalty.

[G.K Zhukov]

13:12 - r7

good exampel of what Focht described.

[KillGhost]

I LOVED BEING A SCANPLANET.

[Zh|l]

Hm

I havent had a good planet since round 4. Round 5 was my first ever attempt at leadership and in a real position of responsibility so I couldnt care less about my planet. I dont regret it and am not ashamed of it - in fact it helped bond the community abit more imo.

In later rounds, I should have made more an effort with my planet - That I am ashamed of and disappointed with. Essentially noone from r5 onwards really knew I did have some skill in the game.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by RealJames
Sid did have a very successful planet in R5, but never once to my knowledge hoovered up defence. The only real incident of note was when every noob in the universe launched on Yeh at the end of round 5. He was in Sid's galaxy.

Your memory doesn't serve you well. The attack on Yeh contained very few n00bs, being almost entirely made up of a coordinated alliance strike. If you were hoping to point out a massive n00b attack, I'd look at Revolt's attack on Ish. They were quite distinct in flavor.

[Norseman]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
Your memory doesn't serve you well. The attack on Yeh contained very few n00bs, being almost entirely made up of a coordinated alliance strike. If you were hoping to point out a massive n00b attack, I'd look at Revolt's attack on Ish. They were quite distinct in flavor.

indeed

Yeh pushed out of top10 and mission accomplished

One of, if not the greatest battle in the history of planetarion - considering; orginazed by an alliance few knew anything about (lo nemesis), by a bc unknown to most of us (lo Dravvin) and a Fury that knew close to nothing before hand

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Norseman
indeed

Yeh pushed out of top10 and mission accomplished

One of, if not the greatest battle in the history of planetarion - considering; orginazed by an alliance few knew anything about (lo nemesis), by a bc unknown to most of us (lo Dravvin) and a Fury that knew close to nothing before hand

I recall Sid telling us he had only about 15 minutes warning

[Norseman]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
I recall Sid telling us he had only about 15 minutes warning

he was shocked, that much i remember

one of a kind that attack; to get that many alliances together, in such difficult times - managing to somehow prepare the members, without leaking any information.. considering whos galaxy it was

a true masterpiece

[Cochese]

To get this thread back on track *cough*...


I don't think Scouse's points are necessarily true of everyone, or every situation...Petru made some excellent points in that regard.

However, there are people who do fit the description Scouse laid out...I myself was one of those people, and probably still would be if I had played this round.

In perfect honesty though, the social interractions (ie, politics/doing alliance matters) are the point of the game...not the actual game itself.

[Salomo]

It is obvious that it's in general better for an alliance to have large planets (scorewise) than only small ones. This has absolutely nothing to do with command staff though, so imo this whole discussion is irrelevant. I at least could not have done any better job as command member if i had had top 10 planets all the time.

prolly i shouldn't postr at all here, considering the discussion as irrelevant, but i felt the need to inform you of this.

[Razorback]

The attack on Yeh was nicely done, but can hardly be called genuine attackingskill. Losses on the attackers side were devastating, goal achieved ? hardly, because if my memory serves me right, Yeh wasnt Fury anymore the time he got attacked.

Fury only defended him because the lack of Intel on your side forced us to do. I can recall quiet a few ppl who refused to defend Yeh in the first line and send only into his defence because of the loyalty towards Fury.

About the losses on Yeh's planet is to say, that like this round, certain shipclasses which are only owned strongly by the planet under attack (i.e. Battleships in r5 if my memory serves me right a 2nd time tonight) are targeted and wiped out completely, while most of his short eta defence belongs to another class. So infact it was not surprisingly that those BS/CR/DE losses in the first tick all went on Yeh's shoulders, but i guess if he would have send away those ships, sid would have ordered a recall

[The Subotai]

Originally posted by Kjeldoran
all a nice dream subo, but what about this:

You're Hc, you're VERY big and your enemies know your coords. What will happen? They will surely bring your score down, cause hurting you hurts the alliance even more. resulting in probably overdefending the planet time after time till the attackers finally got through and killed the big HC's planet.
I mean come on, how many times have we seen this in the past? HC's just simply get more defence, members are more willing to overdefend him, that's a simple fact which you cannot avoid.

My points are

a) you don't CHOSE to be small most of the time
b) even when you're big you, as a HC, draw too much defence then you can offer during war
c) Being a big player requires totally different activity then being HC. Hc's don't HAVE to be online all night, yo have several HC's, others who will be there when you're not. But your own planet, you have to be up online else you get crewed over etc ...

rgds Kj

aye KJ, i agree with you 100%. there's a lot of things that can influence the size of a planet and your indeed correct that being an HC draws plenty of enemy attention to your coords. i was really just making broad, general statements about leadership in general. i think it's reasonable to expect an HC to grow at a rate faster than the average player. part of this of course requires that a certain amount of discretion regarding your coords and unfortunatley, a leader's planet's success is tied in directly with this information (assuming you have large enough/persistent enough enemies).

i also agree that constantly sucking up defense for a large planet can have wide ranging impacts on the alliance... but isn't that the point of the game? to get a few big planets and then defend them?

i'm just saying that for the good of the alliance, every committed member keeps their fleets alive and planets growing. this goes for HC (not counting those whose coords have been leaked and are a universal target). i could never get pissed at someone for losing their fleets only to let mine die night after night. only in the most harsh of situation's is this impossible (yes, i know this happens). as FAnG BC and eventually HC, i kept my planet growing even after many miserable nights. in fact, my largest loss was absolutely 100% my fault and in all honesty, i should be shot for that loss... but the rounds over, and i won't dwell on that little mishap. if you know about it, please don't rub it in... it still hurts. regardless, as someone else pointed out, what is big anyway?

my final word on the matter is found in the final paragraph of my original post in this thread. if you have found something that keeps you coming back to this game, more power to u. whether that's social-only, gaming-only, a combination of both, or a l33t combination of both... you're welcome, so enjoy.

[Norseman]

Originally posted by Razorback
The attack on Yeh was nicely done, but can hardly be called genuine attackingskill. Losses on the attackers side were devastating, goal achieved ? hardly, because if my memory serves me right, Yeh wasnt Fury anymore the time he got attacked.

Fury only defended him because the lack of Intel on your side forced us to do. I can recall quiet a few ppl who refused to defend Yeh in the first line and send only into his defence because of the loyalty towards Fury.

About the losses on Yeh's planet is to say, that like this round, certain shipclasses which are only owned strongly by the planet under attack (i.e. Battleships in r5 if my memory serves me right a 2nd time tonight) are targeted and wiped out completely, while most of his short eta defence belongs to another class. So infact it was not surprisingly that those BS/CR/DE losses in the first tick all went on Yeh's shoulders, but i guess if he would have send away those ships, sid would have ordered a recall

Goal achieved as in putting a knife into Yeh`s ego

that was the goal, had nothing directly to do with fury

about the quality of the attack... hard to compare really. as the only similar ones can be said to be the AoB in r3 and Revolt.

but to manage to get everything in system when each and every non-furgion players runs into the channels, offering their fleets and all the fury/legion ones trying their outmost to **** up the attack...
the coordination and the percent which infact landed together, in the first battletick without chickening out (massive propaganda attemps had to be countered continously).. everything taken into consideration; highly impressive imo

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Salomo
It is obvious that it's in general better for an alliance to have large planets (scorewise) than only small ones. This has absolutely nothing to do with command staff though, so imo this whole discussion is irrelevant

I was waiting for someone to point that out. The same thing applies to every single member, but bad members who have low scores generally arn't seen as useful to their alliance and can be removed, whereas command members obviously can't due to the command role they fulfill. So, command members can get away with playing poor planets because of the excuse "Oh, but all my efforts go into command", when my point was that they shouldn't really be able to get away with that.

As Trin said there are many ways to contribute, scanning, defending, being command etc, but being small for a member is more 'dangerous' than for a command member because command think they can get away with it, when they shouldn't be able to.

It's every members duty to do as well as possible with their planet for the sake of their alliance. I'd personally not be happy at all to see a Titans member saying "It's only my planet, who cares?", "I'm losing roids, this is funny" or "Haha, I just lost my entire fleet again!". As that implies that they don't care for their planet and can't contribute to the alliance. They then can't defend anymore and just soak alliance ships defending themselves. They could contribute in a 'community' sense or as a scanner and still be of benefit to the alliance.

Of course, people who have small planets because they never get defence, never ask for it and never want it, purely because they don't want to bother playing are a different matter as they will only ever defend the alliance, even if the amount of ships is pitiful, and never soak any alliance ships in defending themselves.

[Aaranaf]

i suck and im a ViruS HC...

tbh though, its not a matter of me being bad at the game, its more that i tend to send 3 def fleets out and no attack fleets, as im on at defence needy times.

18:2:4 <-- 15mil 1k roids

700 of my roids were scanned

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Scouse
I was waiting for someone to point that out. The same thing applies to every single member, but bad members who have low scores generally arn't seen as useful to their alliance and can be removed, whereas command members obviously can't due to the command role they fulfill. So, command members can get away with playing poor planets because of the excuse "Oh, but all my efforts go into command", when my point was that they shouldn't really be able to get away with that.

As Trin said there are many ways to contribute, scanning, defending, being command etc, but being small for a member is more 'dangerous' than for a command member because command think they can get away with it, when they shouldn't be able to.

It's every members duty to do as well as possible with their planet for the sake of their alliance. I'd personally not be happy at all to see a Titans member saying "It's only my planet, who cares?", "I'm losing roids, this is funny" or "Haha, I just lost my entire fleet again!". As that implies that they don't care for their planet and can't contribute to the alliance. They then can't defend anymore and just soak alliance ships defending themselves. They could contribute in a 'community' sense or as a scanner and still be of benefit to the alliance.

Command members need to be able to get away with having a lower planet score. If this wasn't the case, alliances would need to give away the service this command member provides to the alliance, and if it is a good command member an alliance usually can't afford that. So the reason why a good command can get away with it is pretty much identical with the reason why he should be able to get away with it.

Of course it would be better if he didn't need to be able to get away with it, but there we're back to the fact that every planets size is important for the alliance.