Motives?

[MotoX]

It seems there is a campaign of some sort to prevent alliances from blocking for next round.
And by all means blocking have ruined many rounds for many of us but this time It feels there is more then just anti blocking behind the campaign .

With Sid as the main projectile in this campaign and many other from the same direction it might be some other reasons for this campaign!?

As stated in other threads the new allie 1up have many member applications to consider and also a fare share of the” old” players returning from their “hideouts”…

I had a quick look at their current member list and after that view I got rather impressed, almost every single one in there was top player material and together with that command structure they sure gone be almost Impossible to stop… that if the 75 member rule and their no blocking campaign comes thru….

Ofc 1up can chose to block and still be a top/winning contender but I believe the odds are against them
If they chose that path. And who wouldn’t be the one to come back, start a new alliance and walk away with a victory?


So how honourable this anti block thing might be I believe there is more to it then that!

Politics to serve the public but indeed more motives behind….

[General Martok]

From what I've heared they got indeed great players in their memberbase. If they all play actively (and they probably will, most would give their online lives for Sid), and the command makes no mistakes, they probably will be the strongest alliance in R11, and got a good chance of winning, unless they get gangbanged by other alliances.

Ofc they got a better chance to win without blocks. And so what? If they got the best players and best command next round, don't they deserve to win then? And I honestly think Sid isn't just thinking about his own project, but also to the game in general. So EVEN IF the anti blocking thing is a cunning plan to raise 1up's chances, I'd still wouldn't mind, as it's better for the game imho.

May the best alliance win etc

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by General Martok

From what I've heared they got indeed great players in their memberbase. If they all play actively (and they probably will, most would give their online lives for Sid), and the command makes no mistakes, they probably will be the strongest alliance in R11, and got a good chance of winning, unless they get gangbanged by other alliances.

Ofc they got a better chance to win without blocks. And so what? If they got the best players and best command next round, don't they deserve to win then? And I honestly think Sid isn't just thinking about his own project, but also to the game in general. So EVEN IF the anti blocking thing is a cunning plan to raise 1up's chances, I'd still wouldn't mind, as it's better for the game imho.

May the best alliance win etc

With all due respect to 1UP, and you might aswell be right that they got much more quality, but don't you think it's abit too fast to go praise them all yet? I mean, if PA was decided on celebrities then 1UP would win without a problem but luckily it isn't. I don't see why alot of their OLD players should be better then the current players on "default"?

I think Sid rather wants his alliance to prove their quality on the battlefield then be praised right here on AD just cause they got some famous old players, atleast that's what I would value more.

[Rumad]

I in 1up has had to make promises to se some big hitters return.

Sid is trying to ensure he honours thos promises of a round which will be block free.

The benefit for PA is that you wont see the systematic destruction of every planet within your alliance as has been seen in the previous blocked rounds.

For FAnG's part I think in the right conditions FAnG can stan up and be counted and still be there's or there's abouts in a round of no block PA. Most of the top alliances should also believe in the abilities of their playing staff.

So Whie Sid may have a hidden agenda - everyone should

Whast the point in laying if we don't have belief in our mates?

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by General Martok

From what I've heared they got indeed great players in their memberbase. If they all play actively (and they probably will, most would give their online lives for Sid), and the command makes no mistakes, they probably will be the strongest alliance in R11, and got a good chance of winning, unless they get gangbanged by other alliances.

Ofc they got a better chance to win without blocks. And so what? If they got the best players and best command next round, don't they deserve to win then? And I honestly think Sid isn't just thinking about his own project, but also to the game in general. So EVEN IF the anti blocking thing is a cunning plan to raise 1up's chances, I'd still wouldn't mind, as it's better for the game imho.

May the best alliance win etc

Ok people put down you arms we already lost!

[lokken]

I haven't seen one alliance expressly come out and agree to Sid's proposal (some alliances may already be acting directly against it), so at the current time only 1up has the motives - they've taken the moral high ground early and the phrasing of the post tries to make sure they stay there.

I think 1up are quite confident that in a no-blocking situation they'd be well set up to win with the applications at their disposal; they wouldn't exist and have made the declarations they have done when you look at the people at the top. I don't see other alliances agreeing as they probably would end up contributing to digging their own grave, because maybe only FAnG and MISTU could have a reasonable chance of standing up to them; I don't see why one person and essentially one alliance should dictate the ground rules, even if there will be negotiations on certain points.

The concept is well meant; but its not very good when you are a smaller/less able alliance who doesn't really have a hope of winning on sheer military ability alone and I see no reason why such alliances would accept such a proposal.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Ok people put down you arms we already lost!

He never said they had the best, just if they have the bes why should they not win.

The question comes who is the best - frmer players returning or players that never stopped playing and have improved. Will be a inteesting conflict - especially if you have both types

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I in 1up has had to make promises to se some big hitters return.

Sid is trying to ensure he honours thos promises of a round which will be block free.

The benefit for PA is that you wont see the systematic destruction of every planet within your alliance as has been seen in the previous blocked rounds.

For FAnG's part I think in the right conditions FAnG can stan up and be counted and still be there's or there's abouts in a round of no block PA. Most of the top alliances should also believe in the abilities of their playing staff.

So Whie Sid may have a hidden agenda - everyone should

Whast the point in laying if we don't have belief in our mates?

In any ordinary/big alliance there are several different type of players; Pro, good and bad players (although everyone might be swell people).

1up have handpicked all of his members and they are without any doubt a fine horde of Pro players and then add a command staff who have proved themselves many times.

And if you believe you can match them on even terms then my dear fellow human being you have another thing coming!

To Fang: even if you won this round, you won not by skill, you won by numbers and that is a big different.


(Still hate blocking tho)

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

I haven't seen one alliance expressly come out and agree to Sid's proposal (some alliances may already be acting directly against it), so at the current time only 1up has the motives - they've taken the moral high ground early and the phrasing of the post tries to make sure they stay there.

I think 1up are quite confident that in a no-blocking situation they'd be well set up to win with the applications at their disposal; they wouldn't exist and have made the declarations they have done when you look at the people at the top. I don't see other alliances agreeing as they probably would end up contributing to digging their own grave, because maybe only FAnG and MISTU could have a reasonable chance of standing up to them; I don't see why one person and essentially one alliance should dictate the ground rules, even if there will be negotiations on certain points.

The concept is well meant; but its not very good when you are a smaller/less able alliance who doesn't really have a hope of winning on sheer military ability alone and I see no reason why such alliances would accept such a proposal.

When you say "actively" against sid's proposal you have to understad that blocs by its nature are strategic so planning has t be put in place.

In my view it was a ceap way to try and say "look at us, we tried our bes and had to turn to blocs and ts everyone elses fault but ours!"

If Sid wants support for his proposal the proposal has to be something of substance. In my view if he doesnt he has no moral ground - Just a bit of bravado.

[General Martok]

I was clearly exxagerating "a bit". Even if they are good players, Sid still has to keep them active, and other alliances have good members too. I know I praised them (too?) much, but that was just to make my point clear.

And, like Rumad said, I said IF.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by MotoX

It seems there is a campaign of some sort to prevent alliances from blocking for next round.
And by all means blocking have ruined many rounds for many of us but this time It feels there is more then just anti blocking behind the campaign .

With Sid as the main projectile in this campaign and many other from the same direction it might be some other reasons for this campaign!?

As stated in other threads the new allie 1up have many member applications to consider and also a fare share of the” old” players returning from their “hideouts”…

I had a quick look at their current member list and after that view I got rather impressed, almost every single one in there was top player material and together with that command structure they sure gone be almost Impossible to stop… that if the 75 member rule and their no blocking campaign comes thru….

Ofc 1up can chose to block and still be a top/winning contender but I believe the odds are against them
If they chose that path. And who wouldn’t be the one to come back, start a new alliance and walk away with a victory?


So how honourable this anti block thing might be I believe there is more to it then that!

Politics to serve the public but indeed more motives behind….

Have you actually read my post? I openly stated there that a no-block round is in 1up's interest - and that that is part of the reason behind my proposal of it. You're taking a very blinkered view of the situation however. If you're THAT scared of 1up going solo, I really can't see why you would appear to be advocating that we go and make a block. Do you really want me to try to organise a block? Maybe you'd like me to stop turning away applications and make 1up into a 3 or 4 wing alliance - and then go get allies - so at least if we win, everyone else can then devalue it by pointing out that it was done through numbers not just quality?

I'll make myself as clear as I can. I'd like to see a round of Planetarion where the winning alliance (singular) was determined by the quality of their play within that round - not by which side they ahppened to be on in blocks that were determined before the ticker even started. I believe that, in such a round, 1up would be up there competing for that first position (i'm not *quite* arrogant enough to say we'd actually get it). I also believe such a round would be far more fun for the vast majority of players of Planetarion.

Is that plain enough? There's no hidden agenda here - my agenda has been totally obvious from the start.

On a side note, I'm also confident that 1up could do well in a block situation - but it'd be far less fun, and any ultimate victory would feel like far less of an achievement.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by MotoX

In any ordinary/big alliance there are several different type of players; Pro, good and bad players (although everyone might be swell people).

1up have handpicked all of his members and they are without any doubt a fine horde of Pro players and then add a command staff who have proved themselves many times.

And if you believe you can match them on even terms then my dear fellow human being you have another thing coming!

To Fang: even if you won this round, you won not by skill, you won by numbers and that is a big different.


(Still hate blocking tho)

First off no one ets paid to play pa so there are no "pro" players.

Secondly yes it ca be done. In a small universe a active player is an active player. Sid has to mould this group into a team and that is no so easy to do. Then on top of that he has to convince them t play actively in pursuit of the alliance goals.

They will be a goo aliance, they will play to win, as will many alliances. With so many Ex fury and legin members about I find what you say hard to believe, but we will see I guess

May the best Man (or woman) win!

[mazzelaar]

<Cayl> whats an astropod do again?

[lokken]

When I say 'actively' I mean effectively ignoring it and forming their own block regardless of what 1up say.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Have you actually read my post? I openly stated there that a no-block round is in 1up's interest - and that that is part of the reason behind my proposal of it. You're taking a very blinkered view of the situation however. If you're THAT scared of 1up going solo, I really can't see why you would appear to be advocating that we go and make a block. Do you really want me to try to organise a block? Maybe you'd like me to stop turning away applications and make 1up into a 3 or 4 wing alliance - and then go get allies - so at least if we win, everyone else can then devalue it by pointing out that it was done through numbers not just quality?

I'll make myself as clear as I can. I'd like to see a round of Planetarion where the winning alliance (singular) was determined by the quality of their play within that round - not by which side they ahppened to be on in blocks that were determined before the ticker even started. I believe that, in such a round, 1up would be up there competing for that first position (i'm not *quite* arrogant enough to say we'd actually get it). I also believe such a round would be far more fun for the vast majority of players of Planetarion.

Is that plain enough? There's no hidden agenda here - my agenda has been totally obvious from the start.

On a side note, I'm also confident that 1up could do well in a block situation - but it'd be far less fun, and any ultimate victory would feel like far less of an achievement.

Of course you have a hidden agenda - stop the twaddle - any alliance hc has a hidden agenda!

I agre with the sentiment, but so much work needs doing get it t a stage where you have "firm" proposals. No one in pa will disagee with what you are saying but the emphasis is on you to do something now. You have some vague outline and a lot of goodwill. If you wan to stop alliances planning blocks then you have to be actively making the proposal bulletproof so that alliances buy into your vision.

I still hink there is a hell of a long way to go yet though.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

When I say 'actively' I mean effectively ignoring it and forming their own block regardless of what 1up say.

Most alliances will formulate blocks - dont mean they will be exercised if enough belief in the proposal is made. I have no idea who you think are making blokcs though because i know FAnG will not exercise a block should the proposal proove tight enough to ensure
a fair and ven round for all. ou cannot expect alliances to not hink in contingency though.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

The concept is well meant; but its not very good when you are a smaller/less able alliance who doesn't really have a hope of winning on sheer military ability alone and I see no reason why such alliances would accept such a proposal.

My proposal was never intended to stop smaller alliances working together - it would be entirely unreasonable. I'm not opposed in principle to alliances cooperating - it would be hypocritical of me to claim that I was, and politics is part of the fun of Planetarion. What I'm opposed to is determining sides before the round even starts - especially when those sides then last for the entire duration of the round. That approach means not only top alliance, but also top planet (and in private rounds top galaxy) are determined more by the side you happen to begin on than by your play during the round.

With the current 75 member limit proposal I wouldn't view any 2 alliances working together as a block. For smaller alliances even 3 or 4 of them together wouldn't constitute a block in the sense that concerns me (i.e. a block that forces polarisation of the universe into a few camps). And in such circumstances 1up would continue to play unallied and without any naps.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Of course you have a hidden agenda - stop the twaddle - any alliance hc has a hidden agenda!

I agre with the sentiment, but so much work needs doing get it t a stage where you have "firm" proposals. No one in pa will disagee with what you are saying but the emphasis is on you to do something now. You have some vague outline and a lot of goodwill. If you wan to stop alliances planning blocks then you have to be actively making the proposal bulletproof so that alliances buy into your vision.

I still hink there is a hell of a long way to go yet though.

So what you are essentially saying, whilst not really saying anything at all, is that unless you see something akin to a written contract that all alliances "sign" saying they will go it alone and an absolute definition of what every inch of the alliance may or may not do during the round you are going to block?

So far everything you've said sounds like you're trying to find a loophole.

"You enevr defined what a block was so how were we to know we were creating a block"

"Well you never came up with a cast iron version of all your plans in triplicate so we just assumed you were blocking and made one too"

Sort it out mate - it's not rocket science.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

My proposal was never intended to stop smaller alliances working together - it would be entirely unreasonable. I'm not opposed in principle to alliances cooperating - it would be hypocritical of me to claim that I was, and politics is part of the fun of Planetarion. What I'm opposed to is determining sides before the round even starts - especially when those sides then last for the entire duration of the round. That approach means not only top alliance, but also top planet (and in private rounds top galaxy) are determined more by the side you happen to begin on than by your play during the round.

With the current 75 member limit proposal I wouldn't view any 2 alliances working together as a block. For smaller alliances even 3 or 4 of them together wouldn't constitute a block in the sense that concerns me (i.e. a block that forces polarisation of the universe into a few camps). And in such circumstances 1up would continue to play unallied and without any naps.

so you propose a block be a set of alliances working togteher with more than 1/5th of the universe? (200 players?).

so 3 meium alliances with 50 members would no constitute a block?

This is where the deinition looses clarity. How d you equally and fairly ajudge someone to be a block or be a "partnership"?

Also 3 alliances with 50 members would probably be stronger alliance thna 2 of 75 on the basis of the 3 alliances having a better split of coverage for players.

So is this were the vague becomes vaguer?

[JonnyBGood]

Oh wow, you mean that sid only chose this course of action because he thought his alliance could win by being better, man for man, than any other alliance? And here was I thinking 1up was all about organising tea parties

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

So what you are essentially saying, whilst not really saying anything at all, is that unless you see something akin to a written contract that all alliances "sign" saying they will go it alone and an absolute definition of what every inch of the alliance may or may not do during the round you are going to block?

So far everything you've said sounds like you're trying to find a loophole.

"You enevr defined what a block was so how were we to know we were creating a block"

"Well you never came up with a cast iron version of all your plans in triplicate so we just assumed you were blocking and made one too"

Sort it out mate - it's not rocket science.

I am saying unless you ge smehing that shows clear defined boundaries and who will be the decision making body and the mechanics of when its enacted and how enforcement will work you have very little for any hc to commit too.

You have to have some formal agreement, you have to have it comprehensive enough so that people (members and HC's) can see what your proposing.

At the minute the proposal is far too vague to be commital.

The thinsg I have suggese have been "loopholes" as you call them. Not fr gain or to beat the sysem, but simply so that if I have piece of mind, my mmembers have piece of mind, my fellow hc have piece of mind. Without it being defined you don't really have anything, which is why you have some vague answers of we suppor tat in principle, because outside of the principle there really isn't anything else.

BTW Maz - i am retiring at teh round end from pa - s I really think you are barking up thewrng tree with me digging for loopholes. In reaiity he only thing that would make me play is no blocks

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Have you actually read my post? I openly stated there that a no-block round is in 1up's interest - and that that is part of the reason behind my proposal of it. You're taking a very blinkered view of the situation however. If you're THAT scared of 1up going solo, I really can't see why you would appear to be advocating that we go and make a block. Do you really want me to try to organise a block? Maybe you'd like me to stop turning away applications and make 1up into a 3 or 4 wing alliance - and then go get allies - so at least if we win, everyone else can then devalue it by pointing out that it was done through numbers not just quality?

I'll make myself as clear as I can. I'd like to see a round of Planetarion where the winning alliance (singular) was determined by the quality of their play within that round - not by which side they ahppened to be on in blocks that were determined before the ticker even started. I believe that, in such a round, 1up would be up there competing for that first position (i'm not *quite* arrogant enough to say we'd actually get it). I also believe such a round would be far more fun for the vast majority of players of Planetarion.

Is that plain enough? There's no hidden agenda here - my agenda has been totally obvious from the start.

On a side note, I'm also confident that 1up could do well in a block situation - but it'd be far less fun, and any ultimate victory would feel like far less of an achievement.

Yep I read all you posts…..

Still, with this low PA player base and with the current setup, 75/allie and lets say, with no blocks you got a huge advantage. Skill, dedication, experience etc…

You see, I’v been on the none Fury/furgion side all my PA carrier so I know what you guys are coming from…. – I also seen what a winning side (none Furgion side tho) are capable of ; they posses skills like a dead fish*… = Zero (*pointing at no particular round/allie tho)

Every round have been rather easy to predict if you knew witch alliances would team up. This round would be as easy as the rest – the different is that this round would be without any blocks.

Either way this thread is not necessary cos all the intelligent HC:s out there already got this scenario figured out!?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Rumad

so you propose a block be a set of alliances working togteher with more than 1/5th of the universe? (200 players?).

so 3 meium alliances with 50 members would no constitute a block?

Could 150 medium players beat 75 top alliance players? Probably not - either way it seems like a fair fight, so why would anyone want to stop it?

Originally Posted by Rumad

This is where the deinition looses clarity. How d you equally and fairly ajudge someone to be a block or be a "partnership"?

I think you're splitting hairs somewhat. We've all been playing this game for over 3 years, I think we can all probably tell the difference between a block that is powerful enough that it can only be beaten by a larger block, and a block that allows lesser alliances to compete with the larger ones a little more effectively.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Also 3 alliances with 50 members would probably be stronger alliance thna 2 of 75 on the basis of the 3 alliances having a better split of coverage for players.

This is just plain wrong. Assuming a random round, there would be no disadvantage to large single alliances as their members are spread out automatically. Also, if a 50-member alliance gets incoming on 10 planets, it has 40 planets not under attack who can defend. In that situation, a 75-member alliance has 65 members left able to defend. I'm sure you can work the conclusion of that out.

Originally Posted by Rumad

So is this were the vague becomes vaguer?

I'm really not finding it all that vague.

[Forest]

Surely rather that call for no blocks, it would be better for all top alliances to publically announce they would go for a singular win, and admit that coming second to your ally is actually a loss.

That would of perhaps seen Mistu go for #1, created war, and made politics a lot more interesting.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

My proposal was never intended to stop smaller alliances working together - it would be entirely unreasonable. I'm not opposed in principle to alliances cooperating - it would be hypocritical of me to claim that I was, and politics is part of the fun of Planetarion. What I'm opposed to is determining sides before the round even starts - especially when those sides then last for the entire duration of the round. That approach means not only top alliance, but also top planet (and in private rounds top galaxy) are determined more by the side you happen to begin on than by your play during the round.

With the current 75 member limit proposal I wouldn't view any 2 alliances working together as a block. For smaller alliances even 3 or 4 of them together wouldn't constitute a block in the sense that concerns me (i.e. a block that forces polarisation of the universe into a few camps). And in such circumstances 1up would continue to play unallied and without any naps.

Firstly I'd agree that blocks pre set before rounds start based on past grudges is entirely counterproductive and only exists to perpetuate the ongoing grudges in the game - The Fury/Xanadu blocks illustrate that nicely and it ended up being quite dull in the main.

Agreements of convenience require far more ability at HC level and are generally far more entertaining for the masses than any other type of agreement. What I would object to is this issue of saying how many planets we can have - this thing of 150 with 2 alliances being ok yet 3 over 100 not being ok (from what I gather from your post) puzzles me - I don't understand how 150 planets blocked together can be better than 100 - it's a neat loophole for someone to exploit and needs to be clarified and closed, for someone's peace of mind (I don't know who's).

A block (in the sense that it has an effect to polarise and stagnate) has nothing to do with numbers - it's more subjective than that, as to what score and military power it possesses. The only thing I can think of that could really deal with PA in this sense is a competition authority, but they are expensive and difficult to come by . The obvious fear is that agreements of convenience soon become more than just that, and this is when the trouble starts to set in and that they need to broken up - I think here is where things come to the crunch.

Using my useless board spamming ways, I'd simply moan at HC to get some balls and be more flexible in politics, but that's why I don't run alliances no more.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Forest

Surely rather that call for no blocks, it would be better for all top alliances to publically announce they would go for a singular win, and admit that coming second to your ally is actually a loss.

That would of perhaps seen Mistu go for #1, created war, and made politics a lot more interesting.

This is the crunch i'm talking about btw - the problem is enforcing it.

One way I thought of is by the creators closing the top 20% of the offending alliances until they conform, although this might be a bit heavy handed.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

1) Could 150 medium players beat 75 top alliance players? Probably not - either way it seems like a fair fight, so why would anyone want to stop it?

I think you're splitting hairs somewhat. We've all been playing this game for over 3 years, I think we can all probably tell the difference between a block that is powerful enough that it can only be beaten by a larger block, and a block that allows lesser alliances to compete with the larger ones a little more effectively.

2) This is just plain wrong. Assuming a random round, there would be no disadvantage to large single alliances as their members are spread out automatically. Also, if a 50-member alliance gets incoming on 10 planets, it has 40 planets not under attack who can defend. In that situation, a 75-member alliance has 65 members left able to defend. I'm sure you can work the conclusion of that out.


I'm really not finding it all that vague.

1) OK I as a FAnG HC will take my player base down to 50 players. I will ally wih LDK and MISTU. Does that still look like a fair fight against 1 Alliance? How about one decent and a average ability 75 member alliance?

MY "issue" is over how you actually work out wha is a block and waht is a partnership. From my view there is little difference.

2) Your assuming you don't know what planets are what co ords. I am asuming at the hieght of a war you know exactly who is with what alliance. It becomes then a tactical thing and if you have 150 members in 3 alliances and 75 members in 2 alliance then your defensive resources are stronger - especially in a random universe.

WIth such small alliance limits on allies you will be more reliant in gal defence - that definitely puts te 3 50 member alliances in pole position in my view and why its essential that these sort of descriptions are hammered out now.

If your not finding it vague matey your not readin what I have read :/

By previous experience I know vague agreements never work. It has to be flexible enough to allow common sense and judgement, but firm enough so individuals can see and understand fully what they are letting themselves in for, Atm I dont have that comfort zone and if no other alliances have followed you I would assume they have no confidence either.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Could 150 medium players beat 75 top alliance players? Probably not - either way it seems like a fair fight, so why would anyone want to stop it?

If they had good leadership - yes.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

What I would object to is this issue of saying how many planets we can have - this thing of 150 with 2 alliances being ok yet 3 over 100 not being ok (from what I gather from your post) puzzles me - I don't understand how 150 planets blocked together can be better than 100 - it's a neat loophole for someone to exploit and needs to be clarified and closed, for someone's peace of mind (I don't know who's).

It may well be due to bad wording on my part - the example you gave is most definitely NOT what I meant. Any agreed limit on block size should be based on number of members: so if that limit were 150 then any number of alliances with a combined membership of <=150 could cooperate without being considered a block.

[LB|away]

the game changed

who says all these old blokes are still good at it?

the round will tell

as for blocking....

why should anyone block... ?

The only reason why people blocked in the past is when alliances didnt had limit and the immense member counts made it allmost impossible to win from them so alliances blocked to overtake an other alliance. Or they blocked cos other alliances made deals unofficial deals to quickly out number other alliances in the fight for a top position in the ranks.

and there are like 10 alliances with say 75 players next round. why do you think only FAnG or MISTU stands a chance to 1up? its not like 1up proved anything yet.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by LB|away

the game changed

who says all these old blokes are still good at it?

Who says the current 'elite' are any good at the game also.

We cant judge until we see what happens, so let the fun begin

[Forest]

Originally Posted by LB|away

why should anyone block... ?

The only reason why people blocked in the past is when alliances didnt had limit and the immense member counts made it allmost impossible to win from them so alliances blocked to overtake an other alliance.

There were limits this round, and fang/phrak/mistu blocked whilst napping pack.

[LB|away]

Not excactly

FPM didnt work as a whole in the choices of NAPs they made.
FAnG never NAPPED or allied any other alliance then MISTU or Phraktos.

I do not deny that given the political unstability in the universe with phraktos being bitches and alot of alliances teaming up to take on FAnG/MISTU, we never talked to alliances to cut deals.
It has all been politics and planning. For FAnG/MISTU it turned out good for some other alliances it turned out a bit bad.

[Jackal2112]

'shittin the pants'

[Forest]

Originally Posted by LB|away

Not excactly

FPM didnt work as a whole in the choices of NAPs they made.
FAnG never NAPPED or allied any other alliance then MISTU or Phraktos.

I do not deny that given the political unstability in the universe with phraktos being bitches and alot of alliances teaming up to take on FAnG/MISTU, we never talked to alliances to cut deals.
It has all been politics and planning. For FAnG/MISTU it turned out good for some other alliances it turned out a bit bad.

Fang allied the two other best alliances, knowing there would be next to no competition.

And we both know we were all ordered to avoid pack.

I also know that u told all members we would start hitting pack members in hostile gals, whilst u told the officers at the same time that we would start pulling down pack but didnt want them to know about it

[LB|away]

Originally Posted by Forest

Fang allied the two other best alliances, knowing there would be next to no competition.

And we both know we were all ordered to avoid pack.

I also know that u told all members we would start hitting pack members in hostile gals, whilst u told the officers at the same time that we would start pulling down pack but didnt want them to know about it

1 week before the round started FAnG was one of the weakest alliances out there.
you can all know that. me and alch worked our arses of the get a member base of 100 people. mailed/smsed contact 20 million old pa players (old FAnGers). Mistu and Phraktos were both new alliances with alot of problems. FAnG was Reborn but very weak. We had to trust on Phraktos and MISTU to even stand a chance in the universe.

Also we blocked before Eclipse disbanded. But then again there still was VSN ND ELY PACK LCH which are 5 alliances that where all stronger then just FAnG.

During the crisis with Phraktos trying to back stab us FAnG had a couple of backup plans prepared. Phraktos delayed their move but still had the plans. Ofcourse officially we couldnt do anything to them for even considering it. Cos as you know FAnG is allready the most hated alliance, and if FAnG would have acted in advance and strike on Phraktos, we would been going against a policy which I care for alot and that is not to backstab your allies.
As most of the people who actually are bored enough to spam and read AD all the time think, FAnG does has Values which we like to follow. So yes we avoided pack for a while (in friendly gals). We didnt wanna stir to much shit as we had enough enemies allready.
But this was just cos of the rumours that Phraktos napped ND and worked with them providing them targets and the fact that Phraktos wanted to backstab FAnG for being "bad allies".
Once FAnG had more grip on the situation we decided to take on Pack with Mistu, Remove strongest alliance left in the ranks that would actually ally phraktos against us was simply not avoidable anymore and it would force phraktos to go against pack or go with them.

They picked the easy road. like FAnG did a few times. Later they still tried to break us, they didnt succeed and they got their asses kicked.

[Forest]

Yes but u talk about honour and not breaking agreements all the time.

Then u told officers that we would twat pack, whislt u told members we would only hit certain pack, just to keep things away from pack.

Surely, if honour is needed in a war game, the best thing would be to just hit pack and tell them all ties were broken,

[LB|away]

we never had official ties
nor did we have any open relation and rules that we avoided them in friendly gals. that was more the situation with pack/mistu/phraktos.

I as affairs HC never agreed to such an understanding
So I never broke this understanding either.

They played us
like they said on the forums

"we did whatever was in our power to break up FPM"

And I just did what suited FAnG the most.
I kept my honour and FAnGs honour. in whatever scenario FAnG been in this round.

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by MotoX

It seems there is a campaign of some sort to prevent alliances from blocking for next round.
And by all means blocking have ruined many rounds for many of us but this time It feels there is more then just anti blocking behind the campaign .

With Sid as the main projectile in this campaign and many other from the same direction it might be some other reasons for this campaign!?

As stated in other threads the new allie 1up have many member applications to consider and also a fare share of the” old” players returning from their “hideouts”…

I had a quick look at their current member list and after that view I got rather impressed, almost every single one in there was top player material and together with that command structure they sure gone be almost Impossible to stop… that if the 75 member rule and their no blocking campaign comes thru….

Ofc 1up can chose to block and still be a top/winning contender but I believe the odds are against them
If they chose that path. And who wouldn’t be the one to come back, start a new alliance and walk away with a victory?


So how honourable this anti block thing might be I believe there is more to it then that!

Politics to serve the public but indeed more motives behind….

I know of at least one block being built ready for next round!

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Sevrok

I know of at least one block being built ready for next round!

I'm suprised mighty Wolf Pack (or whatever your new name is) needs to form a block. After all you destroyed Legion anf Fury's fleets in past rounds

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Forest

Yes but u talk about honour and not breaking agreements all the time.

Then u told officers that we would twat pack, whislt u told members we would only hit certain pack, just to keep things away from pack.

Surely, if honour is needed in a war game, the best thing would be to just hit pack and tell them all ties were broken,

For someone who never really wanted to be in FAnG, told me in pm he'd quit once every week, who only joined FAnG cause he wanted to win a round, not to be in fang, and who in the end actively tried to tear an alliance appart by running to the phraktos who then declared war on us, your have lost all your credibility when you talk about FAnG. To me and to most FAnG members atleast.

As a person I might like you on IRC but as an AD poster and a current still alliancem8, I do alot less.

[Heartless]

Actually Sid's proposal is something that is not new.

The request to stop the blocking has been made since ages, yet it didn't stop because the game is designed in a way that the biggest party will win, thus cooperation with people is enforced by it. And it is the good right of everyone to try to win that way, as sad as it is. That it does take away the fun from the game for everyone not in the block from a certain point on is clear to everyone I think, round 9 and 11 have shown this.

In the end there is absolutely nothing that speaks against the fact of blocking, as in cooperation between people since it is a "flaw" in the game design. What needs to be stopped is the massiveness of this blocking, I mean nobody would play risk if right from the start you could see that a significant amount of the players cooperate just to take down one player right from the beginning.

I would also like to compare PA with Risk a bit more, since you can compare both games very well on most parts (well, at least the more educated and intelligent player can):
In risk by default everyone plays against everyone. During a risk match people go and form cooperations to ensure their own victory, they cannot really start blocking from an earlier point on since nobody knows which countries he will posses at the start. Then the rest tries to take down the leading player during the round and once he is down from that position the opposition against the next one forms, more or less. Always depending upon each players mission.

Therefore I think alliances should simply agree on some limits for blocking until the game administration had time to sort this issue. But then again this would require every alliance to see certain points.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Therefore I think alliances should simply agree on some limits for blocking until the game administration had time to sort this issue. But then again this would require every alliance to see certain points.

We're on like the 13th round or something. I don't think TIME is the issue with the game "administration". They have historically just tossed it in the player's laps and said "You run your alliances the way you want, but don't whine at us when the round sucks"

[LB|away]

It will be very easy to stop people from blocking at the start.

At this time and with all the talking about it. and with an alliance size limit.
No alliance will have to block cos another alliance is bigger.
Maybe later in the game blocking will still happen when 1 alliance plays a good game and like heartless says it posses the most countries, people will try to work together to take the biggest alliance down so they have a bigger chance to become bigger then that alliance.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Cayl

We're on like the 13th round or something. I don't think TIME is the issue with the game "administration". They have historically just tossed it in the player's laps and said "You run your alliances the way you want, but don't whine at us when the round sucks"

I think the game administration has also shown that it is tired of too powerful alliances by integrating alliances into the game, a first step into the direction of preventing too powerful alliances thus taking action on the way alliances are run. Or they wouldn't change ship stats every round if they wouldn't care whether a round sucks or not.
Also the game administration has, or should have, an interest that players have fun playing their game, especially since it is Pay-To-Play, since more paying players -> more money. To attract more players you do not need a million of new features, you more need to ensure the people have fun playing the game.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Darky]

with private gals pa team is kinda forcing alliances to block to fill up their gals, noone will make gals that just contains one ally. so they go out and find some other allies which they can share their gals with and that automatically leads to a block then cause it would be kinda dumb to attack those alliances you share gals with and then weaken your own gals with attacking them. so i just hope next round will be random again and i can asure you wolfpack will go solo

[Cayl]

Well Heartless you post a lot of "shoulds" and those are all ok. But what they DO is of more consequence to me. I am admittedly old school, so maybe things have recently been heading in the right direction, but its not generally been that way.

I was about to go off on a rant, but its somewhat off topic for such a lame thread, so I won't.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

For someone who never really wanted to be in FAnG, told me in pm he'd quit once every week, who only joined FAnG cause he wanted to win a round, not to be in fang, and who in the end actively tried to tear an alliance appart by running to the phraktos who then declared war on us, your have lost all your credibility when you talk about FAnG. To me and to most FAnG members atleast.

As a person I might like you on IRC but as an AD poster and a current still alliancem8, I do alot less.

<Kjeldoran> I knew from the very first moment I wanted to recruit you that you'd join FAnG but never settle for fang
<Kjeldoran> you're an opportunist
<Forest_afk> but never settle for fang <-- thats kinda wrong, that insinuates i wouldnt stay because u are not good enough, which is no way the case. I havent settled IN fang.
<Kjeldoran> no it means Forst
<Forest_afk> alliances are run differently, and fang isnt run the way i would like an alliance is run
<Forest_afk> thats a personal choice
<Kjeldoran> that you settled for the best alliance around for r10.5
<Kjeldoran> and not for FAnG
<Forest_afk> if i wanted the best alliance i would of joined Mistu.
<Forest_afk> i joined fang cause u showed u wanted me
<Kjeldoran> I mean best alliance in ranks
<Kjeldoran> and I don't rate mistu higher, I rate them equal
<Forest_afk> i think skill for skill, MISTU is a better alliance. Thats just my personal opinion


I certainly never chose fang as best alliance. U say in thios post i joined fang (before ticks start) because they are the best, yet in other posts u say that fang had only 20 members,

Get a grip.

[gzambo]

heres a thought but why not have it agreed before hand that no agreements are reached before ticks start (if u have the balls to walk the walk and not just talk the talk)

also limit who can ally with who based on in-game alliance ranking so that after protection ends there is a way to stop 2 alliances from top 5 allying up and bringing in stagnation

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Well Heartless you post a lot of "shoulds" and those are all ok. But what they DO is of more consequence to me. I am admittedly old school, so maybe things have recently been heading in the right direction, but its not generally been that way.

I was about to go off on a rant, but its somewhat off topic for such a lame thread, so I won't.

I agree that things have not necessarily been that way, after all I am playing this game since a very long time as well and I know there have rarely been attempts into certain directions. Yet there has been a constant try by the game administration to change things, at least since round 8, as they noticed the playerbase dropped siginificantly every round until then.

Just to sum it up, as you possibly might not have seen it:
- Zeus organized a meeting between all alliances HC's to ask for them not to block. It failed miserably because of a lack of discussing as what could be defined as blocking and to which degree it should be stopped and so on.
- in PAX the alliances were imported into ingame and the dynamic eta's were removed to make blocks less efficient concerning shared defense.

I do, however, agree that there was not enough done and some decisions seem to contradict others, but in the end they at least tried to disable blocking.