An Announcement and a Proposal

[BLACK_OPPS]

jon has mark got ya with the marker again ?

[Gerbie]

I see that your alliance can be the best in the game next round. Not blocking will give you a chance to win. Smaller alliances will have 0 chance of doing well, if they can't co-operate with others.

[K-W]

AndroX, since when? Its not like these alliances have been in PA since rd 1 with the same people. People come and go, they find new alliances. There are pretty much no allainces left in PA that arent a result of other alliances disbanding or people leaving one alliance.

Im not neccesarily saying I think this is a good idea, im not sure it will change anything, but I cant honestly think that there is any group of over 75 people in PA that are so tight knit and dedicated to each other that they couldnt bare to be seperated.

I guess the hope is to force some people to have to do something different and hopefully force people to take some more interest in what is going on and to try and expand the allaince base.

[ParraCida]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Your point is what exactly?

The point would be that if there is one thing that sid has shown during his time in this game that he will stop at nothing to win, wether it be by utilizing tactics such as farming, betraying allies or simply breaking the game rules by organizing account swapping. Therefore he should not be trusted with any type of information that could possibly give him and his alliance an advantage next round.

But I'm sure you could draw these conclusions without my help, being such an intelligent young man yourself and all. I didn't make this stuff up, it simply happened. I have no idea what kind of information Sid is exposed to, nor do I wish to know, and even if he chooses not to share it right now, nothing will stop him from doing so at the first tick. Wwhich would be no different than if he had shared it two weeks before, knowing PA the information was subject to change untill tow days before tickstart anyway.

Look, I really couldn't care less about planetarion right now, if sid had access to admin tools and was giving the whole of unified peniledisfunctionsufferers more fleet then that's great for him. But please don't come here acting on these forums as if sid won't spill, I had really hoped we were passed that stage.

[lokken]

The key for alliances is to be in the loop as to what's happening next round stat and mechanics wise; i'm sure any alliance worth their salt will have key members betatesting, and noting down any potential (ab)uses within.

I don't see much of a difference when other HC/BC's have betatested in the past - I'm sure plenty have knowingly used their position to their advantage in the past- it's not as if its anything new, its the perks of being a betatester.

What is bad if one particular betatester is allowed to set the agenda; as then you the potential to have a game working to their own convenience rather than to what necessarily would be best.

[ParraCida]

Originally Posted by lokken

The key for alliances is to be in the loop as to what's happening next round stat and mechanics wise; i'm sure any alliance worth their salt will have key members betatesting, and noting down any potential (ab)uses within.

Exactly, just don't expect anyone to believe that those members are not letting the rest of their alliance in on the information, like the boys from uninteresting pushovers are trying to make believe.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I hope you're recovered from that wisdom tooth stuff.

I'm not asking for pats on the back Focht. What I'm asking is you to just admit to the fact that we won this round and like every winner we should deserve credits for it. I'm sure alot of pple will counter the fact that we deserved it but in the end it is us ending first.

Or are you gonna use the past against us for every and eternity?

I don't think we deserve that. Nway, I hope if we'd fight next round, that we both have fun in it, which is still why we play this game.

KJ i dont know why you even answer focht on ad anymore. he doesnt play pa, so his opinion doesnt matter. When you answer him you give his thoughts relevance.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

what are the guarantees 1 will not abuse the system and say 1 group blocked they get wasted the rest should disband but the 2/3 bigger alliances stay together and have a go at the rest since the other alliances what are leftover are just too unorganised and too small too do it again and punish the blockers yes its fictional but it doesnt mean it cant happen and wont happen, i guess you could say it has some similarities to r9 where the 'anti block' 'block' was created o_O and what did it bring nothing worth to write about it even got it stagnated after a week and the 'superblock' stayed together. I understand it is a nice try but youre trying to change the nature of the game what does make you think anything will change and not make it perhaps worse. i have always been pro solo or max 1 other alliance to work with depending on the numbers of players in an alliance. Im wondering how itll work and the details of how you think youll manage to make it work. imho something like this only works if HC's of the alliances agree to it and keep their word of not trying to make the game unbalanced by blocking with x and y alliance and x with z etc.

This is not a diplomatic meeting. It was a simple statement, take it or leave it. No guarantees were provided, none were needed. It was not negotiation, it was simply stated, not even offered. Nothing to game from offering it, nothing to lose by not offering it, hence guarantees are neither necessary nor relevant.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by BLACK_OPPS

jon has mark got ya with the marker again ?

I can't see "TWAT" written across his forehead yet, but it could happen I guess.

[AndroX]

Originally Posted by K-W

AndroX, since when? ...........

Since alliances are becomming communities (ours at least), so with a community with about
150 members (where lets say 97 play planetarion) that cant play in their alliance anymore due to some new "rules" ? I hope you do realize, that not every one plays this game to become #1, not in alliance as in planet or galaxy. We (yes we) have an alliance that is based on FUN. We dont cheat or care to end up last or first - thats probably also the only reason why we still have the will to strike and have so much members still active. But we do care to stick together, in nearly any form.
So just because one alliance thinks its best for everyone to get a 75 member limit, I can only say for VisioN's point of view; we disagree.


**Edited some blah blah settings that might have been read as offencive, wich in no case was the intention**

[Lord_Thunderball]

1Up is brave. Set 75 as player limit. Wow, 75 1Up members can take up against 75 noobs. Or 75 players who play for fun. Give room for allaince's like VsN. Give room for community's where even less active or scanplanets(not those illegal) can be part of an allaince. If membersize would be cut down 25% you might think about lowering the number in an allaince, but since I think in a random round, MORE people will play then this round, reducing won't benefit the game and it;s members.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Lord_Thunderball

1Up is brave. Set 75 as player limit.

I'm assuming things here, so I could be wrong, but I think that 1up could quite easily go over the 75 player limit. There are plenty of people who want to get in there, and Sid is going to have to be rather stringent to keep within the boundaries.

75 is a good number though. Large alliances are what started blocking (smaller/medium teamup against larger ones), and are currently ruining the Game-We-Must-Not-Mention at the moment.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I'm assuming things here, so I could be wrong, but I think that 1up could quite easily go over the 75 player limit. There are plenty of people who want to get in there, and Sid is going to have to be rather stringent to keep within the boundaries.

75 is a good number though. Large alliances are what started blocking (smaller/medium teamup against larger ones), and are currently ruining the Game-We-Must-Not-Mention at the moment.

So it's the smaller/medium alliances that start the blocking and cause all this mess? Ok, Mistu was mediumsized. ToT was mediumsized in WEET. But to blame it all on them would go a bit far.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

KJ i dont know why you even answer focht on ad anymore. he doesnt play pa, so his opinion doesnt matter. When you answer him you give his thoughts relevance.

So having a planet is needed to have valid thoughts ?
"heh"

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

KJ i dont know why you even answer focht on ad anymore. he doesnt play pa, so his opinion doesnt matter. When you answer him you give his thoughts relevance.

Sorry behe, my bad.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So having a planet is needed to have valid thoughts ?
"heh"

Yes, you need to pay £7 and have some coordinates before you're allowed to post. Sorry, cough up the cash!

[Jackal2112]

theres hardly a chance to prevent blocking. its a domino effect which is started by one alliance without balls who are afraid to get owned. they team up, forcing others in turn to team up, then the others get more allies, etc etc etc and in the end you have 2 big blocks, some indepent alliances and a) a nice long war if the biggest blocks are balanced in organisation and numbers b) a boring short war and a lot of frustrations and stagnation after some weeks.

it would take a lot of balls and guts for every alliance HC not to block. as too many people think pa is such an important part of their life and losing a round of pa is a shame that will humiliate them and their silly ego's i find it hard there will be rounds without blocking (unless in miraculous ways theres some technical solution ingame which prevents blocking, but can't think of anything that would technically prevent blocking - unless its some form of system that forces alliances to declare war to another alliance before they can attack them, and limit the number of alliances that one alliances can be at war with).

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So having a planet is needed to have valid thoughts ?
"heh"

How can you give an honest opinion of a The new ford mustang if you dont own one?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

How can you give an honest opinion of a The new ford mustang if you dont own one?

How can you be truly objective if you are involved politically and have an interest in the game?

<3

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Sorry behe, my bad.

you finally figured out who fyodor is

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by lokken

How can you be truly objective if you are involved politically and have an interest in the game?

<3

I dont think true objectivity can be had from most players in this game. As most people arent honest with themselves let alone others. But someone who is "not involved with the game anymore" and whom wasnt very objective (from what ive seen in alot of prior posts) is not someone whom i think my alliance bros should waste their breath responding to.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

How can you give an honest opinion of a The new ford mustang if you dont own one?

So following your analogy every newspaper or magazine reporting about the new ford mustang needs to buy one to write a report about it ? Seeing most magazines have 20+ reports per series the must own alot of cars.....

Tho seriously i doubt you need to play every round to know a) the ppl b) the game c) the politics
if you have friends who play the game or like me have some insight in various alliances etc.

By your logic the ppl not only play for the game but also for the community, irc, their alliance and their command. I remember having rounds where we had hc or even officers playing without a planet and they did their job, since i.e. recruiting requires no planet, nor does intel or anything else which can be run by some tools like pilkara, some decent intel and a brain.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So following your analogy every newspaper or magazine reporting about the new ford mustang needs to buy one to write a report about it ? Seeing most magazines have 20+ reports per series the must own alot of cars.....

Tho seriously i doubt you need to play every round to know a) the ppl b) the game c) the politics
if you have friends who play the game or like me have some insight in various alliances etc.

By your logic the ppl not only play for the game but also for the community, irc, their alliance and their command. I remember having rounds where we had hc or even officers playing without a planet and they did their job, since i.e. recruiting requires no planet, nor does intel or anything else which can be run by some tools like pilkara, some decent intel and a brain.

but like every magazine, you got those magazines which only post lies, rumours etc to sell high numbers. What you're doin on AD is exactly the same. Even in the thread I made (about the new 75 members restriction), which had a decent point to discuss, you never reached further then saying "and the FAnG train goes on ...".

How can you expect anyone to take you serious if you're even gonna troll our serious posts? Your anti FAnG PR really hit new high grounds so don't expect any of us to take you any serious....

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

but like every magazine, you got those magazines which only post lies, rumours etc to sell high numbers. What you're doin on AD is exactly the same. Even in the thread I made (about the new 75 members restriction), which had a decent point to discuss, you never reached further then saying "and the FAnG train goes on ...".

How can you expect anyone to take you serious if you're even gonna troll our serious posts? Your anti FAnG PR really hit new high grounds so don't expect any of us to take you any serious....

I dont know what is funnier, your wild imagination of how magazines are ALL full of lies and rumors or that you actually think i give a damn if you take me serious or not ?

The whole point i argued was if you need to pay 10 euros to have more valid thoughts then any other boarduser. If you miss again the topic you can have my pity kj.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

I dont know what is funnier, your wild imagination of how magazines all ALL full of lies and rumors or that you actually think i give a damn if you take me serious or not ?

The whole point i argued was if you need to pay 10 euros to have more valid thoughts then any other boarduser. If you miss again the topic you can have my pity kj.

you were right heartless

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

I dont know what is funnier, your wild imagination of how magazines are ALL full of lies and rumors or that you actually think i give a damn if you take me serious or not ?

The whole point i argued was if you need to pay 10 euros to have more valid thoughts then any other boarduser. If you miss again the topic you can have my pity kj.

fact that you dignify this post with a reply, means you give a damn.

my point was in that other thread. Why did you give such a shity reply there?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

fact that you dignify this post with a reply, means you give a damn.

my point was in that other thread. Why did you give such a shity reply there?

So you reply to this thread to argue something from another thread ?

If you wanted to discuss my reply there you could have written me a board pm or pestered me on irc, like usual.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So you reply to this thread to argue something from another thread ?

If you wanted to discuss my reply there you could have written me a board pm or pestered me on irc, like usual.

If I'd have pm'd you on IRC, you'd go spreading AD about the fact that I pm'd you, so I' m not gonna bother there. And a board pm, maybe yes ... but I didn't.

Fact is, and you know it aswell, your reply there was completely shit and only meant to provoke and ruin the thread.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So following your analogy every newspaper or magazine reporting about the new ford mustang needs to buy one to write a report about it ? Seeing most magazines have 20+ reports per series the must own alot of cars.....

Tho seriously i doubt you need to play every round to know a) the ppl b) the game c) the politics
if you have friends who play the game or like me have some insight in various alliances etc.

By your logic the ppl not only play for the game but also for the community, irc, their alliance and their command. I remember having rounds where we had hc or even officers playing without a planet and they did their job, since i.e. recruiting requires no planet, nor does intel or anything else which can be run by some tools like pilkara, some decent intel and a brain.

While I agree with you that people dont need to have a planet to be HC or Officers or any other political position but, as far as i have been told (which of course could be wrong) you are in none of these postions. As far as I know you are an ex player/HC who has connections but are no longer in the thick of it. Which is the reason, imo your opinion doesnt matter and is why i stated so to my alliance mate. This wasnt meant to be a personal attack and it doesnt seem as you took it at one. To me its like Bill Clinton commenting on George Bush Jrs. United States, While clinton still know things and people. Times have changed. Relationships have changed, and wars have changed.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

While I agree with you that people dont need to have a planet to be HC or Officers or any other political position but, as far as i have been told (which of course could be wrong) you are in none of these postions. As far as I know you are an ex player/HC who has connections but are no longer in the thick of it. Which is the reason, imo your opinion doesnt matter and is why i stated so to my alliance mate. This wasnt meant to be a personal attack and it doesnt seem as you took it at one. To me its like Bill Clinton commenting on George Bush Jrs. United States, While clinton still know things and people. Times have changed. Relationships have changed, and wars have changed.

and as a conclusion bill clinton wouldnt be allowed to voice his opinion ?
I wonder how the presidents ever change if noone who is not in any function is not allowed to voice his concerns.
Also this is alliance discussion board, point me to where the forum rules state you are only allowed to post if you play the game and/or act in any function.
Unless you have found such a paragraph my thoughts are as valid as anyone elses.
On a sidenote i doubt the game changed much within 1 round and considering i might return next round, something which isnt decided yet, i think your evaluation is kinda off anyways.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Razorback

and as a conclusion bill clinton wouldnt be allowed to voice his opinion ?
I wonder how the presidents ever change if noone who is not in any function is not allowed to voice his concerns.
Also this is alliance discussion board, point me to where the forum rules state you are only allowed to post if you play the game and/or act in any function.
Unless you have found such a paragraph my thoughts are as valid as anyone elses.
On a sidenote i doubt the game changed much within 1 round and considering i might return next round, something which isnt decided yet, i think your evaluation is kinda off anyways.

While Bill Clinton does in fact voice his opinion once in a blue moon, neither the press or the public pay much credence to what he has to say anymore as he is a bygone leader. And please dont misunderstand my prior comments. I said nothing about your being allowed to post wherever and whenever you want. I was advising my alliance mate not to pay any attention to you for said reasons.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

I dont think true objectivity can be had from most players in this game. As most people arent honest with themselves let alone others. But someone who is "not involved with the game anymore" and whom wasnt very objective (from what ive seen in alot of prior posts) is not someone whom i think my alliance bros should waste their breath responding to.

Just because he doesn't play, doesn't mean he doesn't receive intel, just like you

Otherwise politics hardly changes. Either the opposition defence buckles or it holds.

If he's trolling you, ignore him. If he gives you a reasonable opinion respond - planets ain't got much to do with it.

[LORD-NIKO]

Hmm

I havent played planetarion for some rounds now and thats just cause of the game stinks bigtime.
But this.. seems very interesting. so good luck to u all!

[Copie]

Looks to be an interesting round.

[mikay]

Can I join

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

Originally Posted by Bashar

This is not a diplomatic meeting. It was a simple statement, take it or leave it. No guarantees were provided, none were needed. It was not negotiation, it was simply stated, not even offered. Nothing to game from offering it, nothing to lose by not offering it, hence guarantees are neither necessary nor relevant.

ofc it is of importance there is a proposal for going solo and if alliances would agree with it, then there should be some kind of guarantees otherwise the whole proposal is useless and void and only a different way of politics to have a go of another block round of pa (hence nother r9).

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by §pa¢e¢ook¦e

ofc it is of importance there is a proposal for going solo and if alliances would agree with it, then there should be some kind of guarantees otherwise the whole proposal is useless and void and only a different way of politics to have a go of another block round of pa (hence nother r9).

HWat amuses me is 1up are portraying themselves as the white knights of pa, yet are doing nothing to actively progress this poposal.

I guess it strengthens your post

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Rumad

HWat amuses me is 1up are portraying themselves as the white knights of pa, yet are doing nothing to actively progress this poposal.

I guess it strengthens your post

I'm not sure that's a valid criticism. Were I to put forward a detailed proposal now - without other alliances having had a say - it would immediately be flamed as being designed to further 1up's objectives and tailored to fit our desires for the coming round. There are a number of threads on this board discussing specific aspects of any proposal - and myself and others from 1up actively comment upon and contribute to them.

What concerns me is that a lot of alliances seem to actually WANT blocks - so rather than trying to work to ensure that any anti-block agreement is acceptable to them, would rather try to find some way in which THEY can make a block without one being formed to oppose them. Unless/until a sizable portion of alliances express unequivocally that they are opposed in principle to the formation of large blocks there is little point in proceeding to the next stage - defining precisely how, in practice, such an agreement could be implemented in a manner fair to all.

[Forest]

Of course certain alliances only want blocks. I know one alliance in particular that is so terrfied of being woned, its actively trying to block.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I'm not sure that's a valid criticism. Were I to put forward a detailed proposal now - without other alliances having had a say - it would immediately be flamed as being designed to further 1up's objectives and tailored to fit our desires for the coming round. There are a number of threads on this board discussing specific aspects of any proposal - and myself and others from 1up actively comment upon and contribute to them.

What concerns me is that a lot of alliances seem to actually WANT blocks - so rather than trying to work to ensure that any anti-block agreement is acceptable to them, would rather try to find some way in which THEY can make a block without one being formed to oppose them. Unless/until a sizable portion of alliances express unequivocally that they are opposed in principle to the formation of large blocks there is little point in proceeding to the next stage - defining precisely how, in practice, such an agreement could be implemented in a manner fair to all.

As far as I am concerned a detailed document by you is the only way to get things moving.

I think it probably will require changing, but in my view I think that its the only valid way if can be discussed and to be able to get the majority of PA to agree is if it is deconstructed in such a public way.

I think alliances will support your initiative - but its gonna require more discussion and more detail. Most aliances have been playing PA too long t lead them blindly to th slaughterhouse and while i am sure yur intentions are honourable - paranois is rife and so it should be in a war game

If needed I as FAnG HC support your initiative and will be the only way I will continue to play (even though I ge my home connection back next week which will increase my onine time).

I will even go as far to say should a formal proposal be constructed we are ready to go into the round without a block should the agreement be demed acceptable.

I will say however that we will not cessate strategic planning for the new round and as such the possible formation of a block - until such time as there is a official document which can be upported we are going to have to think in contingency for the new round.

I think thats a fair comment don't you?

[Vandal]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

So it's the smaller/medium alliances that start the blocking and cause all this mess? Ok, Mistu was mediumsized. ToT was mediumsized in WEET. But to blame it all on them would go a bit far.

Mistu may be medium in terms of player numbers but there is nothing else "middle of the road" about them. It is a very well organized, well run alliance.

[CryWolf]

I'm spooked by how many old timers have posted in this thread.. well, good 'seeing' all of you again ;-)

[Axis_WLF]

Has been very interesting reading this thread. If your intent is to play for fun then blocking is easy to avoid, but if your intent is to try to play hard and go for solo victory then it is pretty tough to say "no blocking".

1: ya always have those members who suck up defence, not normal cover defence but loads extra to prevent 0 loss heh. If defence runs out and they lose a little they start going looking for who can protect them the most + some. Of course ya can kick peeps but sometimes those guys are in command and when they go they carry others along.

2: Blocking or not someone will be bound to send their ships to protect them and they usually reside in another alliance. Peeps get wind of this block or not they will cry BLOCK BLOCK! Even if that does not happen ya still have to deal with that common problem.

3: Size of the universe. If it is small then your good to go, if it is hella large then your ripe for the picking. Hard to go in alone even against a force of "I dunno wtf im doing" peeps. Members might get too much on them "i said might" and they would also begin looking elsewhere.

4: telling peeps your plans for the round etc. usually works to be false and something else develops but never wise to tell peeps your goals.

It is pa, go blow up peeps fleet, steal their stuf etc. It is fun to group up with mates or even the politics were fun to be honest.

[fbd]

It's quite simply a war game, you play to win by any means (excluding cheating) that's necessary. Blocks, deceit, betrayal and the rest are all valid tactics and no amount of complaining will ever change that. The only hope is that the players in general play for fun, for themselves and for each other. Human nature isn't like that however, winning through stagnation and boredom is still a victory for some and the pleasure of fighting a fun game that's won or lost enjoyably is inconceivable to them. I do hope that others listen to that proposal, blocks will inevitably form, maybe this time though it will not be to the detriment of PA.

[DeeJay]

Originally Posted by fbd

It's quite simply a war game, you play to win by any means (excluding cheating) that's necessary. Blocks, deceit, betrayal and the rest are all valid tactics and no amount of complaining will ever change that. The only hope is that the players in general play for fun, for themselves and for each other. Human nature isn't like that however, winning through stagnation and boredom is still a victory for some and the pleasure of fighting a fun game that's won or lost enjoyably is inconceivable to them. I do hope that others listen to that proposal, blocks will inevitably form, maybe this time though it will not be to the detriment of PA.

there is one PRO-BLOCK player who just tried to hide his real identity... that's lame... shame on you

[fbd]

Nope this is my real identity, my account was deleted for inactivity a long time ago. As for pro-blocks, I'm far from it, in truth I'm more of a pessimist than an optimist. For blocks not to form this round there'll have to be a change in the thinking of the majority of the players. I don't see it happening even if it would mean more fun for their money.

[Razorback]

not sure if you played the last rounds but i can say deffinate the blocks became less and less fun with just 1-2k players

[lokken]

lo fbd

[Cayl]

Well there will be at least one alliance willing to make the leap of faith. It won't have to be the majority of players, it will have to be the majority of LEADERS and there aren't so many of those left in PA anymore. I think its very doable.

[JonnyBGood]

Perhaps you missed this. So, apparently, that makes two.