|
|
3 Jun 2009, 02:19
|
#251
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 318
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
The FC you avoided?
|
Yes, one does tend to learn from experience. Having dodged a snipers bullet, one does not stick their head out the window again.
Funny though, once I recalled my fleet, I was not back at my computer for another 12 hours that day. If the FC fleets had stayed put, I would have been smashed. Lucky me tho
__________________
*KoN* ~~ *NoS* ~~ *Fang* ~~ *Angels* ~~ *Urwins* ~~ *TheFallen* ~~ *Spore* ~~ *Ult Def Planet* ~~
Saver of Sad
Supreme Commander of The Spider Colony
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 02:45
|
#252
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: xVx - statement
Then why claim it ruined your round when it didnt :/
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 03:06
|
#253
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 318
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
Then why claim it ruined your round when it didnt :/
|
You obviously did not read my post or you would understand why it did. Dodge a bullet once, consider yourself lucky, and don't give the shooter another chance. With no alliance and a hostile gal, and inability to check my planet regularly, I'd be an idiot to try and play.
And no eksero nub, you can't have my roids
__________________
*KoN* ~~ *NoS* ~~ *Fang* ~~ *Angels* ~~ *Urwins* ~~ *TheFallen* ~~ *Spore* ~~ *Ult Def Planet* ~~
Saver of Sad
Supreme Commander of The Spider Colony
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 03:25
|
#254
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: xVx - statement
Why would i bother, youre not a good target anymore
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 03:31
|
#255
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 318
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
Why would i bother, youre not a good target anymore
|
Yeah sorry about that, musta been the CT whores who roided me that one night. It was after you and your girlfriend tried roiding me and failed.
__________________
*KoN* ~~ *NoS* ~~ *Fang* ~~ *Angels* ~~ *Urwins* ~~ *TheFallen* ~~ *Spore* ~~ *Ult Def Planet* ~~
Saver of Sad
Supreme Commander of The Spider Colony
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 04:16
|
#256
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 216
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desse
In other news, Everton Aston Villa and Tottenham has asked for the Premier Leagur rules to allow only 8 players on the field in the future to allow more teams to compete for the title.
|
bizzare comparison
the premiership is somewhat even in that all teams have the same number of players. the difference between prem teams is their resources and ability of their coaching staff (which again comes to their resources - money)
their is no real way in pa this can be controlled. in pa resources = quality of player already in that 'squad', reputation and chances of victory
in this case ascendancy is the 'richest' alliance in terms of resources by a long way with the best players, a very strong reputation and a good chance of victory (5 of the past 6 rounds)
going with your premiership comparison - ascendancy is manchester united. the problem with no alliance member limit is that all players want to play for asc, the same way most footballers would join man united in a heartbeat. in the premiership there is at least some limitation to man uniteds power by the limit to their squad size. they still have a huge advantage that they have more money and have the pick of the rest of the players to try and make the best team/squad every year but at least the rest of the talent is dispersed amongst the premiership due to squad limitations. this allows other teams like chelsea/arsenal/liverpool in recent seasons to challenge united and pose a real threat.
in pa without a support rule or ally limit ascendancy have somewhat of a limitless power. they can take the likes of the gerrards, fabregas's, terrys, lampards, van persies and still give them a full role in their team with all the perks and make them champions.
players have no real incentives to NOT join asc except
1/ the feel that they need to put up a challenge (eg. the people who formed BG's or joined ND/ct/xVx this round instead of asc - the favourites for the win)
2/ loyalty to an old ally/group of friends (eg. the people who stick with allies like ND/CT/xVx round after round despite having better opportunities available for them by joining asc)
as said - the appeal of joining asc is increadibly strong. the only way i can see to even the balance a little is if
a/ asc stop recruiting and tell good players they cant play with them (which as they said before - why should they?)
b/ pa team lower the ally limit and bring back the no support rule
the pa team lowering and enforcing the alliance limit seems to be the only way to bring some sort of balance to the alliances of this game and stop this game getting boring and turning into a blockfest as we've seen this round
__________________
Nox, CT, Aud, Omen, S3XYTIME, WAFHH, Apprime, Ascendancy
#1 gal r29 - 1:10 ftw \o/
son of BENNEH, brother of bread| (former son of eksero )
"You cant say an alliance lost, when they finished 2nd" - Light, 2009
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 08:07
|
#257
|
So what?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
the pa team lowering and enforcing the alliance limit seems to be the only way to bring some sort of balance to the alliances of this game and stop this game getting boring and turning into a blockfest as we've seen this round
|
You should know better. At least, you weren't so shortsighted 2 rounds ago. Last round we had a limit of 100 and one of the most interesting and competitive rounds for a long time. Stop saying lowering limits is going to solve every 'problem' just because you want to force other people to play the way you want to.
__________________
Legion
[RaH] [Mercenaries]
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 08:27
|
#258
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
as said - the appeal of joining asc is increadibly strong. the only way i can see to even the balance a little is if
a/ asc stop recruiting and tell good players they cant play with them (which as they said before - why should they?)
b/ pa team lower the ally limit and bring back the no support rule
|
This is just simply wrong.
Even if we won this round, I'm taking a cull as inevitable. In fact, we're probably the only alliance where everyone gets culled. This is how we control our membership. As while we have 'good' players, some of them might not be the kind of people the core of Ascendancy want and they might not be reinvited. But make no mistake - if you're a trooper in Ascendancy, you'll always be welcome.
As for the support planet rule, it's just a laughable way to run a game because its enforcement is just way too political for anyone to implement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
simple solution is to get out of tag / out of gal def hard coded to be banned.
|
There's plenty of in cluster defending that some BG's clearly benefited from. The point of not having things hard coded is so that you can have political defences like this; you can't simply pick and choose when you don't like strategies as a basis to make a decision on game mechanics.
Your solution if there's big alliances you don't like is to play politics and cooperate more; likewise the other alliance can play politically to make the small alliances' life difficult too. So my suggestion is to get better at politics if you want to play in small groups, as you have to be way smarter than we are to not end up dying horribly.
I don't understand why people want 30 a tag politically restricted drivel when they're playing planetarion but I'd like to hear why.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Last edited by lokken; 3 Jun 2009 at 08:33.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 08:40
|
#259
|
InSomniac
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 1,473
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
simple solution is to get out of tag / out of gal def hard coded to be banned.
|
that certainly would solve it ;-)
__________________
Runner up in the InSomnia 'Drunkest HC' competition - Currently on the wagon
Elysium | HR | eXilition | OuZo | ND | InSomnia | DLR
db battlegroup founder and spiritual leader
Sexytime HC of Belgians (#s3xytime)
Not so retired anymore....
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 09:42
|
#260
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
simple solution is to get out of tag / out of gal def hard coded to be banned.
|
This is in direct contrast what this game is about. Community.
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 09:47
|
#261
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Your only goal was to create an environment in which other people can have fun? No wonder you're quitting. :/
|
Why other people only? if the round is somewhat balanced its fun for everyone. At least a whole lot more fun than the alternative where 1 alliance friendly with the 2 other biggest alliances cruise to the win.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 09:49
|
#262
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
This is just simply wrong.
Even if we won this round, I'm taking a cull as inevitable. In fact, we're probably the only alliance where everyone gets culled. This is how we control our membership. As while we have 'good' players, some of them might not be the kind of people the core of Ascendancy want and they might not be reinvited. But make no mistake - if you're a trooper in Ascendancy, you'll always be welcome.
As for the support planet rule, it's just a laughable way to run a game because its enforcement is just way too political for anyone to implement.
There's plenty of in cluster defending that some BG's clearly benefited from. The point of not having things hard coded is so that you can have political defences like this; you can't simply pick and choose when you don't like strategies as a basis to make a decision on game mechanics.
Your solution if there's big alliances you don't like is to play politics and cooperate more; likewise the other alliance can play politically to make the small alliances' life difficult too. So my suggestion is to get better at politics if you want to play in small groups, as you have to be way smarter than we are to not end up dying horribly.
I don't understand why people want 30 a tag politically restricted drivel when they're playing planetarion but I'd like to hear why.
|
Why is there a 90 man ally limit now?
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 09:56
|
#263
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shhhhhhh
Why is there a 90 man ally limit now?
|
Well I think you certainly need alliances to be proportionately larger than galaxies, at least three or four times the size of your average galaxy for a few reasons:
1) alliances need to be large enough to mount serious attacks at galaxy strongholds where they have the advantage of ETA 5 defending;
2) alliances need to be sufficiently large enough that they can be reasonably resilient to attacks if they use their fleets efficiently;
3) if they were too small, while planetarion would appear to be more 'competitive', the quality of play would go down as you would turn the game into some kind of chicken, where it's effectively a lottery of who gets the most incoming
4) small alliances could discourage the idea of wanting to upset one of your opposition, as they could easily get a 3 man block together and utterly overwhelm you.
5) the whole point of alliances is that there has to be some form of logistical challenge to the whole operation; 30 people isn't a challenge.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 10:34
|
#264
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
There's plenty of in cluster defending that some BG's clearly benefited from. The point of not having things hard coded is so that you can have political defences like this; you can't simply pick and choose when you don't like strategies as a basis to make a decision on game mechanics.
Your solution if there's big alliances you don't like is to play politics and cooperate more; likewise the other alliance can play politically to make the small alliances' life difficult too. So my suggestion is to get better at politics if you want to play in small groups, as you have to be way smarter than we are to not end up dying horribly.
I don't understand why people want 30 a tag politically restricted drivel when they're playing planetarion but I'd like to hear why.
|
The main reason why I am asking for this to be banned is mainly to address the fi/co advantage. (yes the fleet kind that can't be deffed against out of tag/cluster/gal). Not a question
Are you trying to claim that the BGs had the major advantage over this?
dont gies ya pish.
In previous rounds there was a very good reason why this was illegal.
No idea why fiery had decided to it otherwise.
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 10:36
|
#265
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
The reason it was banned never had anything to do with fi/co gaining a comparative advantage and if you claim otherwise you're objectively wrong.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 10:45
|
#266
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shhhhhhh
Why other people only? if the round is somewhat balanced its fun for everyone.
|
Are you having fun?
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 10:53
|
#267
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
The reason it was banned never had anything to do with fi/co gaining a comparative advantage and if you claim otherwise you're objectively wrong.
|
No it was to stop cheating
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 10:56
|
#268
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
No it was to stop cheating
|
It wasn't cheating if it wasn't against the rules. It was introduced because a bunch of faggots had a total whinefest about something they thought was unfair and they had a sympathetic multihunter. Nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 11:08
|
#269
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Well I think you certainly need alliances to be proportionately larger than galaxies, at least three or four times the size of your average galaxy for a few reasons:
1) alliances need to be large enough to mount serious attacks at galaxy strongholds where they have the advantage of ETA 5 defending;
2) alliances need to be sufficiently large enough that they can be reasonably resilient to attacks if they use their fleets efficiently;
3) if they were too small, while planetarion would appear to be more 'competitive', the quality of play would go down as you would turn the game into some kind of chicken, where it's effectively a lottery of who gets the most incoming
4) small alliances could discourage the idea of wanting to upset one of your opposition, as they could easily get a 3 man block together and utterly overwhelm you.
5) the whole point of alliances is that there has to be some form of logistical challenge to the whole operation; 30 people isn't a challenge.
|
That are reasons why you think the ally limit shouldnt be lower than 90. but why is there an ally limit?
What was the reason this limit was put in?
and yes mz I'm having fun.
Tho not as much lately because my bg's politics pissed me off
Last edited by Shhhhhhh; 3 Jun 2009 at 11:16.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 12:08
|
#270
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 216
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
You should know better. At least, you weren't so shortsighted 2 rounds ago.
|
please read my post within the context it was intended. what i was doing was taking Desse's premier league statement and buliding on it
my point is simply that unlike in professional sports were a franchise dominating can to SOME extent be prevented by financial restrictions, as well as the fact a team/squad can only have so many players...such regulating limitations do not currently exist within the planetarion community
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
Last round we had a limit of 100 and one of the most interesting and competitive rounds for a long time.
|
yeah...LAST round i already discussed previously some of the differences in my opinion between last round (and others before it) and this rounds crappy-ish situation.
i used a pretty similar argument again talking about sports \o/ ftw
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
Stop saying lowering limits is going to solve every 'problem' just because you want to force other people to play the way you want to.
|
im not saying lowering limits will solve every problem....nor am i suggesting we force people to play the way i want to...nor am i saying this is the way i want to play
my point is merely that within the current setting of the game an alliance limit would help to regulate alliance affairs and ensure some balance between competing forces which keeps the game interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
This is just simply wrong.
Even if we won this round, I'm taking a cull as inevitable. In fact, we're probably the only alliance where everyone gets culled. This is how we control our membership. As while we have 'good' players, some of them might not be the kind of people the core of Ascendancy want and they might not be reinvited. But make no mistake - if you're a trooper in Ascendancy, you'll always be welcome.
|
isn't what you just mentioned above just a reiteration of the point i made. essentially ascendancy stop themselves getting overly powerful with culling its memberbase. however if this didnt happen there is nothing within the game rules or mechanics which would prevent a large number of the community flocking to ascendacy...which as i said in my other post is a hugely appealing option atm (thats a compliment! )
i think your bottom line is key - if you're a trooper in ascendancy, you'll always be welcome. essentially ascendancy will keep and continue to invite good players with the right attitude, and why shouldnt they...im not criticising or blaming asc for that. this means for the foreseeable future asc will continue to be the dominant ally and attract the cream of the crop. again, this is not a criticism of asc...or a whine about them being too good. my point is merely that without an alliance limit within reason (imo slightly smaller than current) there is nothing stopping the political side of the game getting too one sided and boring, bar that group itself.
this has nothing to do with asc, if asc disbanded next round im sure within a few rounds an alliance would dominate in a similar way, the problem would not be solved. i speak only from a perspective of trying to achieve balance between the alliances and some fun warfare/politics/planetarion
PS. i say 'my point' a lot here to indicate a conclusion as i cant make short posts. if only writing uni essays were so easy...
__________________
Nox, CT, Aud, Omen, S3XYTIME, WAFHH, Apprime, Ascendancy
#1 gal r29 - 1:10 ftw \o/
son of BENNEH, brother of bread| (former son of eksero )
"You cant say an alliance lost, when they finished 2nd" - Light, 2009
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 12:47
|
#271
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
please read my post within the context it was intended
my point is simply that
my point is merely that
isn't what you just mentioned above just a reiteration of the point i made
i think your bottom line is key
my point is merely that
i speak only from a perspective
|
You sound like you're trying to write an undergrad essay to be honest
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 12:51
|
#272
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
The main reason why I am asking for this to be banned is mainly to address the fi/co advantage. (yes the fleet kind that can't be deffed against out of tag/cluster/gal). Not a question
Are you trying to claim that the BGs had the major advantage over this?
dont gies ya pish.
In previous rounds there was a very good reason why this was illegal.
No idea why fiery had decided to it otherwise.
|
Not at all, I'm claiming it works to the benefit and detriment of everyone involved and to discriminate about one person's activity over another's to try and change the game mechanics is plain dishonest. The fact that people do it is unimportant to me, as the game allows it and I don't object to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shhhhhhh
That are reasons why you think the ally limit shouldnt be lower than 90. but why is there an ally limit?
What was the reason this limit was put in?
and yes mz I'm having fun.
Tho not as much lately because my bg's politics pissed me off
|
Well, that's why I think alliances need to be of a certain 'size' and restricting them to be that small should be dangerous.
I don't know if there should be a limit, but the thought of planets being 'in tag' yet somehow 'not counting' is silly and if they don't count towards score they shouldn't count at all. I assume the reason 'why' was to make sure that alliances could singularly dominate by too much recruitment and that even if they did, they could still only count a few select planets to their grand total, making it harder for them to win than without restrictions.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Last edited by lokken; 3 Jun 2009 at 12:58.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 12:58
|
#273
|
So what?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
|
So what you're saying is that because this round has turned out like it has, you're assuming next round will be the same, while telling me we can't use last round as a basis for the recent political and alliance setups not being as retarded.
That's not exactly the most objective of viewings then, is it?
__________________
Legion
[RaH] [Mercenaries]
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 12:59
|
#274
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 897
|
Re: xVx - statement
People are getting too carried away with the premiership comparison I made
Anyway: YAWN!. Asc people post saying the current setup is awesome, non-asc (that are worried about asc's domination) post saying it isn't. Has no one else spotted this rather pathetic cycle?
It would make me cream myself if an ascendite actually posted in favour of fuzzy's (and the others) opinions - which are certainly not retarded or anything, they're good valid points (even if wrong) - but yet no one in ascendancy does. The result: you all look like you couldn't care less about the game and just care about ascendancy, nothing else, and post accordingly. Come on people, try to be objective for once in your lives!
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 13:11
|
#275
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newt
People are getting too carried away with the premiership comparison I made
Anyway: YAWN!. Asc people post saying the current setup is awesome, non-asc (that are worried about asc's domination) post saying it isn't. Has no one else spotted this rather pathetic cycle?
It would make me cream myself if an ascendite actually posted in favour of fuzzy's (and the others) opinions - which are certainly not retarded or anything, they're good valid points (even if wrong) - but yet no one in ascendancy does. The result: you all look like you couldn't care less about the game and just care about ascendancy, nothing else, and post accordingly. Come on people, try to be objective for once in your lives!
|
I've already said, repeatedly, that I'll be personally ensuring this does not happen next round. You can mail thank you notes to [email protected]
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 13:12
|
#276
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newt
People are getting too carried away with the premiership comparison I made
Anyway: YAWN!. Asc people post saying the current setup is awesome, non-asc (that are worried about asc's domination) post saying it isn't. Has no one else spotted this rather pathetic cycle?
It would make me cream myself if an ascendite actually posted in favour of fuzzy's (and the others) opinions - which are certainly not retarded or anything, they're good valid points (even if wrong) - but yet no one in ascendancy does. The result: you all look like you couldn't care less about the game and just care about ascendancy, nothing else, and post accordingly. Come on people, try to be objective for once in your lives!
|
The current setup can be improved. But I don't think that small disparate groups are going to improve the game or the quality of the game. I think Ascendancy will have a substantial cull pre next round, and we'll (probably) return to a size that most people are comfortable with.
I've given good reasons as to why the BG 'setup' that the BG's suggested won't improve the game; the only response I've heard so far is "we don't want to play that way". I'm not saying you can't, but there are good reasons for allowing alliances of say 60 to 70 persons (smaller than Ascendancy and the 90 limit we have currently), all counting for one tag.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 13:20
|
#277
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
You sound like you're trying to write an undergrad essay to be honest
|
If I wrote my undergrad essays like that I'd give up on my degree there and then.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 13:50
|
#278
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I saw nobody take any initiative in any direction along these lines whatsoever. Especially you.
|
To be fair you werent really around much to see if anything was being attempted. You left quite a big void, Anne and Isil stepping up to do 'politics' then both dissapearing without a word didnt really help either.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 15:04
|
#279
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 897
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I've already said, repeatedly, that I'll be personally ensuring this does not happen next round. You can mail thank you notes to [email protected]
|
Ok, you've accepted that there's a mild problem.. repeatedly! But I think your solution (whatever it'll finally be) is daft! Akin to Man utd helping the lesser teams in the premiership by playing drunk, a farcical solution instead of FIFA/UEFA/FA bringing in new legislation to even things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I'm not saying you can't, but there are good reasons for allowing alliances of say 60 to 70 persons (smaller than Ascendancy and the 90 limit we have currently), all counting for one tag.
|
An alliance limit of 70 would be a good start imo A radical drop down to 40-50 from 90 would be retarded, even though people like me would like to see it.
Planetarion just needs more top quality alliances capable of getting #1 each round. At the moment.... meh. Another bad thing is lets be honest - difference between asc and omen in r30 is that JBG chap. Is it right that the defining factor in who wins pa should be: who can dedicate their lives 100% to planetarion, 16hrs a day? No alliance has anyone that can compete with that (and certainly not round in round out)... though wish, bless his heart, tried.
Yes, this is the start of a "force JBG to get a 9hr/day job" petition.
|
|
|
3 Jun 2009, 15:05
|
#280
|
So what?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newt
It would make me cream myself if an ascendite actually posted in favour of fuzzy's (and the others) opinions - which are certainly not retarded or anything, they're good valid points (even if wrong) - but yet no one in ascendancy does. The result: you all look like you couldn't care less about the game and just care about ascendancy, nothing else, and post accordingly. Come on people, try to be objective for once in your lives!
|
The reason I'm disagreeing with Fuzzy is because he's not making any points. He's saying that the only way to stop 'this round' from happening again is to drop the limit, but not giving any evidence that this might be the case.
That doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say that lowering the alliance limit is not the most important thing needed to help planetarion - as my point about last round shows.
I don't want the current situation to be the same next round, I'm not sure why you assume I do. Personally, I don't like alliance limits - I think Planetarion is and always has been about politics rather than battlecalcs, and that trying to hardcode limitations into a game that is largely conducted on IRC is pretty silly. I don't like limiting the way people play either, so if people want to play as a BG or a big alliance, let them.
__________________
Legion
[RaH] [Mercenaries]
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 01:02
|
#281
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desse
In other news, Everton Aston Villa and Tottenham has asked for the Premier Leagur rules to allow only 8 players on the field in the future to allow more teams to compete for the title.
|
More news, Manchester United and Chelsea have asked the Premier League to allow them playing with 16 players on the field to make it even more onesided
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 10:28
|
#282
|
Jazz Maverick
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
This is in direct contrast what this game is about. Community.
|
I really don't understand why you would say that.
It just limits "community" to Alliance and Galaxy.
In cluster out of tag defense should also possibly be allowed too as an option for players without alliances (particularly given the -1 eta), though that would probably be "abused" by people exiling out of tag supporters to the appropriate clusters.
Maybe I don't understand the phenomena very well but from pretty much every post I have ever read from an out of tag defender I seem to recall them saying something like "well I only log in once a week anyway, and can't really be bothered to take part in the game properly so why would you prevent me from defending my friends?" - I hardly call that being part of a "community".
I don't understand why attacking your own galaxy / alliance has been hardcoded out of the game but defending out of alliance has always been allowed (within the game mechanics).
The one thing I would agree with though, is that if you /are/ going to allow it within the game mechanics, trying to prevent it by means of a "no support planets" rule is absolutely retarded.
I've never lead an alliance to a victory of PA, but /personally/ speaking if I ever did I would much prefer everyone to know that I had done so without requiring out of tag defense, but hey, maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 10:35
|
#283
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab
Maybe I don't understand the phenomena very well but from pretty much every post I have ever read from an out of tag defender I seem to recall them saying something like "well I only log in once a week anyway, and can't really be bothered to take part in the game properly so why would you prevent me from defending my friends?" - I hardly call that being part of a "community".
|
I think the main way it works in terms of ascendancy is that it allows people to play casually while remaining in the Ascendancy community and then coming back next round and playing more intensively. This is more likely to keep these people playing than forcing them to move to another alliance.
Quote:
I've never lead an alliance to a victory of PA, but /personally/ speaking if I ever did I would much prefer everyone to know that I had done so without requiring out of tag defense, but hey, maybe that's just me.
|
I have! It's not really something that bothered me at all. We didn't break any rules so I don't care.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 11:03
|
#284
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
This is in direct contrast what this game is about. Community.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I think the main way it works in terms of ascendancy is that it allows people to play casually while remaining in the Ascendancy community and then coming back next round and playing more intensively. This is more likely to keep these people playing than forcing them to move to another alliance.
|
I think that is Asc talk for if you aint gonna be active this round why not be a support planet. had it not occured to yous that this is damaging to the PA community as a whole?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I have! It's not really something that bothered me at all. We didn't break any rules so I don't care.
|
That is the PA equivilent of MP expenses scandal in the uk.
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 11:20
|
#285
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
I think that is Asc talk for if you aint gonna be active this round why not be a support planet. had it not occured to yous that this is damaging to the PA community as a whole?
|
This has never really been an issue until this round when a bunch of losers decided they were fed up with losing and if they were going to lose again they might as well set themselves up for a loss from PT 0 and just spend the round whining about how ascendancy are killing the game. The combined activity and contribution of the various out of tag planets to ascendancy is ****ing dick (I outlined this earlier and if anything most of them are now less active than before). What's damaging the PA community is that it's inhabited by a bunch of whining losers (and god knows it's not just limited to alliances outside of ascendancy heh).
Quote:
That is the PA equivilent of MP expenses scandal in the uk.
|
Apart from the fact it's in no way similar whatsoever I'd agree.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 11:32
|
#286
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab
I really don't understand why you would say that.
It just limits "community" to Alliance and Galaxy.
In cluster out of tag defense should also possibly be allowed too as an option for players without alliances (particularly given the -1 eta), though that would probably be "abused" by people exiling out of tag supporters to the appropriate clusters.
Maybe I don't understand the phenomena very well but from pretty much every post I have ever read from an out of tag defender I seem to recall them saying something like "well I only log in once a week anyway, and can't really be bothered to take part in the game properly so why would you prevent me from defending my friends?" - I hardly call that being part of a "community".
I don't understand why attacking your own galaxy / alliance has been hardcoded out of the game but defending out of alliance has always been allowed (within the game mechanics).
The one thing I would agree with though, is that if you /are/ going to allow it within the game mechanics, trying to prevent it by means of a "no support planets" rule is absolutely retarded.
I've never lead an alliance to a victory of PA, but /personally/ speaking if I ever did I would much prefer everyone to know that I had done so without requiring out of tag defense, but hey, maybe that's just me.
|
It's actually different to any individual's preferences (that's what Ascendancy is meant to be about). Between 6am and midnight every day, anyone from Ascendancy can pretty much text me and if I pick it up, I'll defend and confirm.
Because I have so little time when I get back from work, I don't really have time to attack and play properly and quite honestly I can't be ****ed with the effort on IRC after a day at work. But I play at the weekend, and if I've got the time, I'm happy to contribute when I can.
I want to play for Ascendancy, I'm not big enough or active enough to contribute to the tag, so I don't see why what I'm doing isn't entirely fair game. So yeah, that's how I'm seeing it.
What damages the community is not Ascendancy recruiting, but there being insufficient leadership to run several alliances that can challenge it, rather than the pretty simple (and in the long term suicidal) strategy of everyone attacking one alliance to stop it. As that's actually a competition, and I don't mind losing to alliance that I view at least as good as us, if not better. People like to pin it on Ascendancy, as people dislike the fact that we're pretty harsh on our enemies and like to pretty much reduce people and their reputations to rubble when we're done. Whether they like it or not, that's just competent planetarion, no two ways about it. I absolutely detest bad planetarion, not just from Ascendancy but from my opponents too; people are going about their business in entirely the wrong attitude and while I wouldn't put it in JBG's terms, he's not a million miles off.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 12:07
|
#287
|
tappajahai!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 236
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
What damages the community is not Ascendancy recruiting, but there being insufficient leadership to run several alliances that can challenge it, rather than the pretty simple (and in the long term suicidal) strategy of everyone attacking one alliance to stop it.
|
I disagree there. Asc's recruitment directly reflects to potential leadership in various alliances via drawing the best players in. Players that would have the will, skill and propably time as well to run competition.
I can imagine there being ppl who join higher caliber alliances, such as asc, only to lift some of the extra weight of carrying lesser dedicated players behind them. I found such harbor from eXilition. For someone that was used to doing things and suddenly being in a place where there are no expectations, but instead other people willing to do the work for you for once, I found the experience releaving.
__________________
I am the lizardking, I can do anything.
<[eX]MacTAnzu> u playing in the.. what was it.. game.planetarion.com ? or in pirate.planetarion.com ?
Ðragons
eX undercover Nihilum HC (thx to bwtmc)
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 12:16
|
#288
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizardking
I disagree there. Asc's recruitment directly reflects to potential leadership in various alliances via drawing the best players in. Players that would have the will, skill and propably time as well to run competition.
I can imagine there being ppl who join higher caliber alliances, such as asc, only to lift some of the extra weight of carrying lesser dedicated players behind them. I found such harbor from eXilition. For someone that was used to doing things and suddenly being in a place where there are no expectations, but instead other people willing to do the work for you for once, I found the experience releaving.
|
I'd agree with that but when alliances could be massively improved by doing pretty simple things like using your common sense, not risking fleet and thinking long term, I'm not so sure. There are players who have been playing a long enough time to be capable of all these things.
Ascendancy was a great place to play when we weren't dedicated at all, but we were still able to affect things because when we did intervene, we were able to maximise what little fleet value we had. I've said for a long time that this is the way I'd have much preferred to play, it would have been an ideal way to chill out with a smaller number of us playing, and CT/ND might have had more confidence to have a go at xVx.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 14:23
|
#289
|
Lemming
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recluse
With no alliance and a hostile gal
|
aw, that hurts! There are only 2 people in the gal who won't defend you against asc That's hardly hostile
__________________
hirr today, gone tomorrow
|
|
|
4 Jun 2009, 15:34
|
#290
|
Jazz Maverick
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
So yeah, that's how I'm seeing it.
|
Well, everyone is entitled to their own view, because everyone is different I guess. It's quite funny that the thing which keeps you interested in the game is one of the main reasons why I just can't be bothered with it anymore!
|
|
|
5 Jun 2009, 03:55
|
#291
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 318
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperionHK
aw, that hurts! There are only 2 people in the gal who won't defend you against asc That's hardly hostile
|
And 8 or 9 in gal who were enemies and told not to def Evo.
__________________
*KoN* ~~ *NoS* ~~ *Fang* ~~ *Angels* ~~ *Urwins* ~~ *TheFallen* ~~ *Spore* ~~ *Ult Def Planet* ~~
Saver of Sad
Supreme Commander of The Spider Colony
|
|
|
5 Jun 2009, 15:16
|
#292
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
|
Re: xVx - statement
so did xVx actually nap Asc or was it all a lie? sorry but cba to read through this entire thread.
i ask because asc is very close to xvx now in rankings.
|
|
|
5 Jun 2009, 17:27
|
#293
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: xVx - statement
Yes, we're napped.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
6 Jun 2009, 14:49
|
#294
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Considence
Interesting though how you only chose the moment that the incs started coming to give up.
Lasted what, 2-3 nights in a row before you caved in and emoed out? Thats the difference between asc and you.
PS. Your real reason for lasting 'longer' wasnt because you were hardcore, its because you were 80% xan.
|
Right, SK:
1) We cannot control when or how long we are attacked for. Afaik, noone in Evolution was in vac mode, meaning all of us where hittable. DO NOT CRY BECAUSE WE WHERE MILITAIRILY, AN UNFAVOURABLE TARGET.
2) WE FOUGHT 2-3 NIGHTS LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE INTENDED. THATS 2-3 NIGHTS LONGER THAN ASC. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASC AND US.
3) IS IT OUR FAULT WE ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO PROSPER WITH AN INFERIOR RACE THIS ROUND?
4) FOAD.
5) Jesus.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
6 Jun 2009, 14:56
|
#295
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
1) Wrong. Definitely. I can remember checking munin.asc.tv and I'd see a few (no more than 4 in fairness) planets gaining 0.0% (ie vac mode).
2) Lol. Just what.
3) Second best race this round.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
6 Jun 2009, 15:27
|
#296
|
VtS killerbee
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 202
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
3) Second best race this round.
|
tbfh i thought xan were fine this rd if you went CR
__________________
ReBorn DC, Instinct, Silver DC, Legion
TGV, xVx, Jenova BC, Vision BC, ASS BC
Easy Company - Founder
"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
Last edited by Thatcher; 6 Jun 2009 at 15:32.
|
|
|
6 Jun 2009, 15:31
|
#297
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
1) Wrong. Definitely. I can remember checking munin.asc.tv and I'd see a few (no more than 4 in fairness) planets gaining 0.0% (ie vac mode).
2) Lol. Just what.
3) Second best race this round.
|
1) As much as we would like to be in the position to nap the universe, ala Asc, (hello 3 pages of arguing "position,") we are not. It must hurt you to admit that. AND THE MAJORITY WHERE +% ?
2) "They folded like a retarded kid in an orogami class." JungleMuffin, r30, 2009.
3) I actually think ETD was better than Xan this round, but we are arguing over insignificants, thankyou for your support.
4) Like the potential r32 stats?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
6 Jun 2009, 15:48
|
#298
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: xVx - statement
I'm not going to bother replying to your points (mainly as they're almost as retarded as you are) but here's a general reply to what, if you had a point, it would be.
Your block was still bigger after ascendancy napped xvx. Your alliance, when outnumbered in a similar fashion to ascendancy, collapsed, like everyone knew it would, losing, as a %, about 3 times what ascendancy lost per night. End of story.
Nobody this round bar xvx and ascendancy accomplished anything in terms of #1 competition or determining the course of the round. This is exactly what happened. xVx not hitting ascendancy, ascendancy winning, xVx hit ascendancy, xVx move into first, xVx and ascendancy NAP, both alliances have a chance of #1 and completely dominate planet and gal ranks, everyone else gets roided blind. Wow, maybe next round you can mail us some nude pictures of your mum or something...
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
11 Jun 2009, 13:45
|
#299
|
Death666
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 13
|
Re: xVx - statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
The agreement with Asc seems to simply be "weve bashed you enough and sealed our win, so we will let you have a more fair war with the bgs".
|
Seems like your little "agreement" with asc is worth nothing now as from the uni we see asc running away with the win once again
__________________
Awaken by the terror of a thousand wars,a vision of the coming invading force.
Alliances - =IRON= | [APA] | InSomnia| Subh | ROCK | Insurrection | LOST | Redemption | the horde |We Hart Hunter
|
|
|
11 Jun 2009, 18:32
|
#300
|
Orbit HC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 184
|
Re: xVx - statement
Asc should just come out and win the next round without any rule breaking - real, imagined, implied, moral or not. Just come out, play the game 100% straight and still win.
That'll stop this damn back and forth.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:17.
| |