Round 11

[Sevrok]

i just read an announcemt from those who run the game about round 11, it mentioned somthing about avoiding large blocks to ensure the excitement doesnt die quickly! so any way i thought it could be good if we agreed that once an alliance goes above a certain number of member they should have to fend for themselves! also if a block is over that same number of members it must divide so that no alliance or block will achieve dominance easily! what do you all think of this idea?

[JC]

I'll be majorly surprised if PA team can have any say on the politics of the game. The 100 member limit was intended to reduce the problem, but didnt. I'm sure that number could be lowered but that in itself isnt going to stop alliances blocking. Without a radical change in the dynamics of the game blocks will continue to exist, PA team just has to try and adapt the game to even it up for the smaller guys.

[Rumad]

The way in game alliances work make it pretty hard to be a solo alliance. if they are srious about it they need to make alliance transfer more fluid.

[Sevrok]

changing between alliances takes far too long at the moment, i mean it take 72 hours til you can join another alliance! i think if that time was shorter things may be more exciting! it isnt that hard to be a solo aliance, my alliance is doing just fine and we arent in a block! i think the whole problem with blocks is they become a pain when there is no war going on, if they just existed in wars between alliances it would be much better as then you would not have to deal with 3 or 4 aliances in one block holding the top 4 spots thus ensuring no one can touch them!

[Seth Mace]

Blocks happen because the game engine promotes the sensibility, that the more ships/ players you have, the greater chance of success. So in order to prevent large alliances (ie blocks), there needs to be a strong game quality that makes it more benificial for alliances to remain solo.

The problem is of course, is that there may not be any solution to this, as most alliances control their politics outside of the game, so no matter what game restrictions are inplaced, it wont restrict blocking (just like the 100planet limit). I cant help but feel the only way to solve this is for the community itself to agree on certain things, although this has been tried in the past and never seemed to work or last?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Sevrok

changing between alliances takes far too long at the moment, i mean it take 72 hours til you can join another alliance! i think if that time was shorter things may be more exciting! it isnt that hard to be a solo aliance, my alliance is doing just fine and we arent in a block! i think the whole problem with blocks is they become a pain when there is no war going on, if they just existed in wars between alliances it would be much better as then you would not have to deal with 3 or 4 aliances in one block holding the top 4 spots thus ensuring no one can touch them!

The problem is not blocks but the lack of fluidity in which you are able to beak away once agreements have been made. I agree shortening timescales, as raising the alliance limit to maybe 125 members and maybe the ability to change galaxy formation during a round.

if you could make it more fluid then agreements would be made and broken more like round 2 Fury did

[Seth Mace]

Yeha Sevrok, i agree, it's as if a "cold war" scenario is created and the block is there in anticipation of somebody "else", starting trouble.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Yeha Sevrok, i agree, it's as if a "cold war" scenario is created and the block is there in anticipation of somebody "else", starting trouble.

absolute rubbish - blocks are made to ensure they are able to compete and have a stable galaxy structure. Wars are supplementary, not the reason for block formation - although usually there are at least 2 sides.

Although on a side note instead of being able to change galaxy formations perhaps random would do

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Rumad

absolute rubbish - blocks are made to ensure they are able to compete and have a stable galaxy structure. Wars are supplementary, not the reason for block formation - although usually there are at least 2 sides.

Er, well whats the reasoning for the alliances that create the first block? If they dont have a "block" to compete with, then they are forming that block in "anticipation" of another block being created.

So i think you've jumped the gun with "absolute rubbish" or you took my reply wrongly or i just didnt explain myself well;P

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

absolute rubbish - blocks are made to ensure they are able to compete and have a stable galaxy structure. Wars are supplementary, not the reason for block formation - although usually there are at least 2 sides.

Wars are supplementary - well if thats the attitude wtf are we playing a war game for - no wonder you lot bored the bollocks off this round.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Rumad

The problem is not blocks but the lack of fluidity in which you are able to beak away once agreements have been made. I agree shortening timescales, as raising the alliance limit to maybe 125 members and maybe the ability to change galaxy formation during a round.

if you could make it more fluid then agreements would be made and broken more like round 2 Fury did

How would speeding up movement between alliances affect the ability to make/cancel agreements with other alliances? I wasn't aware that it was necessary for members to defect to cancel, for example, a nap. By the same token, how would raising the number of members in allowed in an alliance impact on blocks?

And as a side-issue would you care to name ONE agreement that Fury broke in round 2? Were you even around in round 2? Fury never had agreements with any of the alliances we went to war with: in the case of BT and Concordium, discussions had been held but no actual agreement was ever reached. With BT it was because they were unwilling to agree to any rigidly defined sanctions to apply when members broke the terms of an agreement, and in the case of Concordium negotiations ceased when Moridin (with whom I'd been negotiating) ceased to play an active role in Concordium. If you want to have digs at Fury - at least try to have some factual basis for them.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Rumad

absolute rubbish - blocks are made to ensure they are able to compete and have a stable galaxy structure. Wars are supplementary, not the reason for block formation - although usually there are at least 2 sides.

Although on a side note instead of being able to change galaxy formations perhaps random would do

Random would remove one of the main reasons for formation of blocks - the perceived need for galaxies to all be "on the same side" and, at the same time, to be defendable.

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

How would speeding up movement between alliances affect the ability to make/cancel agreements with other alliances? I wasn't aware that it was necessary for members to defect to cancel, for example, a nap. By the same token, how would raising the number of members in allowed in an alliance impact on blocks?

And as a side-issue would you care to name ONE agreement that Fury broke in round 2? Were you even around in round 2? Fury never had agreements with any of the alliances we went to war with: in the case of BT and Concordium, discussions had been held but no actual agreement was ever reached. With BT it was because they were unwilling to agree to any rigidly defined sanctions to apply when members broke the terms of an agreement, and in the case of Concordium negotiations ceased when Moridin (with whom I'd been negotiating) ceased to play an active role in Concordium. If you want to have digs at Fury - at least try to have some factual basis for them.

that is true fury never agreed any kind of blocking! they went to war legitimately every time, and used some very good tactics to cripple legion and my alliance at the time which was becoming a pain in legions backside! fury used mine and legions squable to their advantage and hit both alliances very hard! at one point legion and my alliance almost agreed a cease fire in order for us to deal with fury, yet the fundamental issue of legion being dishonourable and that they had pressured my glaxay and several others into being roid farms eventually lead to talks between us breaking down!

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Rumad

The problem is not blocks but the lack of fluidity in which you are able to beak away once agreements have been made. I agree shortening timescales, as raising the alliance limit to maybe 125 members and maybe the ability to change galaxy formation during a round.

if you could make it more fluid then agreements would be made and broken more like round 2 Fury did

how unsurprising a FaNg member saying blocks arent the problem, you wouldnt think that because you are not sat on the other side of table looking at your situation, the only reason you guys are number one is beacause of blocking! with out blocks small alliances such as mine would be able to take you on with out the fear of being crippled by your allies, blocking could just as easily destroy your power as it has given you it! if i were to manage to join all the smaller alliances together in a block we could take down the enitre top ten alliances in between 1 to 3 weeks! blocks are a major problem as the second smaller allainces start banding together, the larger blocks dont like it and cripple us!

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

How would speeding up movement between alliances affect the ability to make/cancel agreements with other alliances? I wasn't aware that it was necessary for members to defect to cancel, for example, a nap. By the same token, how would raising the number of members in allowed in an alliance impact on blocks?

And as a side-issue would you care to name ONE agreement that Fury broke in round 2? Were you even around in round 2? Fury never had agreements with any of the alliances we went to war with: in the case of BT and Concordium, discussions had been held but no actual agreement was ever reached. With BT it was because they were unwilling to agree to any rigidly defined sanctions to apply when members broke the terms of an agreement, and in the case of Concordium negotiations ceased when Moridin (with whom I'd been negotiating) ceased to play an active role in Concordium. If you want to have digs at Fury - at least try to have some factual basis for them.

In the current sructure you have to allow for defections - if you get down 2 two aliances who are fighting each other then you have to allow for strengthening your hand in certain galaxies. If not you have to do what lyrtas did round nine and self exile which is expensive and timely and a waste.

Fury had so many naps of convenience round 2 it was ridiculous. you went to war with aliance after alliance until the final war with BT.

Perhaps I oversimplified, but the ability to make and break fluid agreements and the ability to strengthen positions in key galaxies needs to exist in order for the agreements to be broken. In current structure its hard - if not impossible, but I do believe random would go some way towards this.

You cannot deny you had a very succint attitude round two - it was join us or die and it was how pa needs to return to. Without fluidity, without the ability to restructure and with limits being set as low as they are means you would struggle to cover all incommings.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Random would remove one of the main reasons for formation of blocks - the perceived need for galaxies to all be "on the same side" and, at the same time, to be defendable.

whether you would remove the total need for blocking is hard to see (round 6 blocking still existed an that was fully random). however random would make it easier to break agreements and put less reliance on allies in any given round.

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Rumad

In the current sructure you have to allw for defections - if yu get down 2 two aliances who are fighting each other ten you have to allow for strengthening your hand in certain galaxies. If not you have to do what lyrtas did round nine and self xile which is expnsive and timely and a waste.

Fury had so many naps of convenience round 2 it was ridiculous. you went to war with aliance after alliance until the final war with BT.

Perhaps I oversimplifid, but the ability to mak and break fluid agreeements and the ability to strengthen positions in key galaxies need to exist in order for th agrements to be broken. In current structure its har, but I do belive random would go some way towards this.

You cannot deny you had a very succint attitude round two - it was join us or die and it was how pa neds to return to. Without fluidity, without the ability to restructure and with limits being set as low as theya re means yu would struggle to cver all incommings.

fury had a lot of nap agrements, i know this becaus ei had spies within their ranks in round 2, i know they had nap agreemnets with legion and my alliance The Wolf Pack when we were at war, yet they were attacking us both, and both myself and legion thought it was just our oppsition doing the attacking by the time my spies told me this it was too late as talks for a ceasefire between legion and the wolf pack had broken down and when ever we tried to tell legion what was going on we were accused of lying!

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Random would remove one of the main reasons for formation of blocks - the perceived need for galaxies to all be "on the same side" and, at the same time, to be defendable.

galaxies do not all need to be on the same side, as far as i am concerned the alliance comes before the galaxy and if any memebr of my galaxy posed a threat to my alliance i would order the attack on their planet!

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Rumad

In the current sructure you have to allw for defections - if yu get down 2 two aliances who are fighting each other ten you have to allow for strengthening your hand in certain galaxies. If not you have to do what lyrtas did round nine and self xile which is expnsive and timely and a waste.

Eh? War isn't ment to be simple and easy, you have to work at making galaxies yours in such circumstance, just recruiting the enemy to improve your situation is a tactic but one which should have less "fluidity" so it's just not that easy to do. Besides, i've never liked members who jumpship when the ride becomes a bit buppy and imo, such members should be made to suffer for their dis-loyal actions in the heat of war.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Perhaps I oversimplifid, but the ability to mak and break fluid agreeements and the ability to strengthen positions in key galaxies need to exist in order for th agrements to be broken. In current structure its har, but I do belive random would go some way towards this.

Why does there need to be more fluid creation/ termination, in order to make for a more dynamic political arena? Part of the fun of PA and games in general is overcoming the difficulties, tackling tricky situations and coming out on top

Originally Posted by Rumad

Without fluidity, without the ability to restructure and with limits being set as low as theya re means yu would struggle to cver all incommings.

So? It's a game! It's ment to be challenging, making such things easier wont stop blocking. It would only allow alliances to join/ form/ leave/ destroy multiple blocks throughout the round.

It's the way alliances go about preparing for rounds, BEFORE the game has started that is the problem. Blocking is the current trend and if the alliance haven't thought about what they are to do if their block wins, well it's their own fault if they stagnate their remaining round.

I think if the double-bluffing in regards to block forming (pre-round) is stopped, then we might see a round of individual alliances, fighting other individual alliances.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Random would remove one of the main reasons for formation of blocks - the perceived need for galaxies to all be "on the same side" and, at the same time, to be defendable.

Or, make it so that galaxies can only contain one alliance.

random galaxies may well still end up with a big mixture of alliances, which would mean that you'd get lots of fencesitting gals, like previous random rounds

[Seth Mace]

Yeha, i think galaxies with just 1 ally would be a positive step against fence sitting gals but they would be a b1tch to defend

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Sevrok

how unsurprising a FaNg member saying blocks arent the problem, you wouldnt think that because you are not sat on the other side of table looking at your situation, the only reason you guys are number one is beacause of blocking! with out blocks small alliances such as mine would be able to take you on with out the fear of being crippled by your allies, blocking could just as easily destroy your power as it has given you it! if i were to manage to join all the smaller alliances together in a block we could take down the enitre top ten alliances in between 1 to 3 weeks! blocks are a major problem as the second smaller allainces start banding together, the larger blocks dont like it and cripple us!

Actualy I have ben around the block alot matey as I have played since round 1. Round 9 I was WP for a time and I left bcause I id not agre with the WEET split and WP eventually lost because of there stance early on (ironically much how they lost this round too).

So I VERY much understand what the curent predicament is. Blokcs are the easist way of blaming. But in truth its not that you block its that you block in too greater numbers (as we were guilty of this round) or you cannot effectively break up the block because of the galaxy structure (as was th case this round).

Alliances will always be struck up by likeminded hc's. Its in there interests. However you ned to be able to get fluidity in the game so these agreements canbe broken if needed. I dont agree that its "easy" to break up a block. You have galaxy mates giving news status to there own hc - you have the fact you are purposely weakening your own galaxies. Phrak trid to break away and look what happned to them - its a doomed scenario in such an uneven block.

Even round 3 when FUry and Legion "dumped" Rb - they took in defectors and restructured there own galaxies. In current in game alliances thats impossible to do limiting th eeffectiveness of any breakaway from allies.

However the in game mechanics whuile still limiting alliances could also help create more fluidity in politics. Simple fact is that the lack of fluidity is hampering any ways of changing your allies at short notice (before end of round). We hit lucky with the Phrak split - they had no spine - but the simple fact is that if it was dne right it would have been very bloody for both sides.

[-=Zyth=-]

1. Random.
2. Allow players to have packs of 2-3 players to stay together.

It aint perfect, but its a damn sight better than block gals, or being left on your tod in a random hostile gal.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

1) Eh? War isn't ment to be simple and easy, you have to work at making galaxies yours in such circumstance, just recruiting the enemy to improve your situation is a tactic but one which should have less "fluidity" so it's just not that easy to do. Besides, i've never liked members who jumpship when the ride becomes a bit buppy and imo, such members should be made to suffer for their dis-loyal actions in the heat of war.

2) Why does there need to be more fluid creation/ termination, in order to make for a more dynamic political arena? Part of the fun of PA and games in general is overcoming the difficulties, tackling tricky situations and coming out on top

3) So? It's a game! It's ment to be challenging, making such things easier wont stop blocking. It would only allow alliances to join/ form/ leave/ destroy multiple blocks throughout the round.

4) It's the way alliances go about preparing for rounds, BEFORE the game has started that is the problem. Blocking is the current trend and if the alliance haven't thought about what they are to do if their block wins, well it's their own fault if they stagnate their remaining round.

I think if the double-bluffing in regards to block forming (pre-round) is stopped, then we might see a round of individual alliances, fighting other individual alliances.

1) All wars shouldn't be easy, but if private galaxies stay or go you need to strengthen position in your galaxies in a war with someone you have allied with. In any key war galaxy control is what wil decide the outcome. I can point to many incidents of side hopping which has strengthened a position in a war and which solidified there position. Its a fundamental need to allow you to change political and membership structure to coincide in the new playing conditions. Only pure gals could stop that completely.

2) If you don't include politics inside the structure of the game then people will make agreements outside it. If you want fluidity and to impact on what has become second nature in pa you need to ensure that the political conditions are correct for such a war. People will always have friendships and I don't think even the most utopian beliver of solo alliances really believes that alliances will ever go solo. Its as valid tactic as militarily attacking key targets.

I don't believe you will ever get agreement by all alliances for the sort of politics you want without a shove. They tried with the congress or whatever it was called and alliances just did what they wanted anyway. Its a game. People play to prosper and for alliance goals - if your alliance is playing to win then that dictates what you do to solidify that position. FAnG blocked, but so did Ely - its always they blocked before us, but everyone looks for an excuse.

3) It is a game, it is meant to be challenging, but as a HC I want to ensure my alliance will be there or there's abouts. I have no interest in the other alliances and I am here to promote the betterment of my friends and my allies. However - stagnation happens in most rounds of pa - because other HC take the same view as me. Rightly or wrongly I am suggesting things which I believe would help - and if multiple blocks are formed and destroyed is that such a bad thing? Increases tension and bad feeling can only be good for the game.

4) Sun Tsu once said every battles won before it reaches the battlefield - and never a truer wor said. Alliances look for positions that wil give them what they want from the round. They also look for alliances they can trust and help - especially in the growth stage early part of the round when you are most suseptable to being destroyed.

Bluff and Double bluf fis a smokscreen sethy - its all about how do i get a position I would be happy with for the round and what threats are around?

[Edit] Anyway I hope you are well sethy - not talked to you in ages

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Or, make it so that galaxies can only contain one alliance.

random galaxies may well still end up with a big mixture of alliances, which would mean that you'd get lots of fencesitting gals, like previous random rounds

If you do concentrate allainces like that then a player increase will almost definitely be needed. As would lower to classes to defend intra alliance.

[ComradeRob]

The reasoning for blocks is very simple.

With private galaxies, it becomes possible to make sure that all membes of a galaxy are on the same side - nobody in the galaxy will act as a spy, or betray the interests of fellow galaxy members. However, the reasons run deeper than this. Let's assume a universe of 5000 planets. Let's also assume that there are 50 alliances, each with 100 planets in them. If each alliance employs no prejudice in its choice of targets - that is to say, they pick their targets based on whether they are good targets (with lots of roids and not too many ships), everyone will be attacking everyone else. Every alliance has 49 potential enemy alliances, all capable of attacking them.

This means that, on any given night, 4900 other planets have the potential to attack you. If those other alliances are being unprejudiced in their target selection, this will never happen - the chance of 49 alliances randomly deciding to attack one alliance is vanishingly slim.

But this isn't how it works. Alliances have personal rivalries, and other issues such as cluster politics come into play. At this point, alliances have to decide who their real enemies are. Rather than randomly attacking good targets, alliances make enemies, and target those enemies more frequently than they target others. This could be for any number of reasons, from personal rivalry to desire to gain the top rankings.

Once this happens, an alliance can divide the rest of the universe into two broad categories: enemies and non-enemies. The enemies are dealt with by attacking them, but what about non-enemies?

It becomes obvious that these non-enemies cannot be ignored. They are numerous enough to swing the balance of the alliance's battles with its enemies. If, say, Fury were at war with Xanadu, this may be a fair fight. But if the remaining alliances happen to target either Fury or Xanadu disproportianately, they may swing the balance of the Fury-Xanadu war. Therefore it becomes desirable for the leaderships of Fury and Xanadu to make some kind of deals with these other alliances, usually in the form of mutual NAPs - simply agreements not to target each other. In theory, this leaves Fury and Xanadu the freedom to focus on each other, while everyone else stays out of the fight. In practice it doesn't work like that, because NAPs always last longer than intended.

At first a NAP begins as a way of allowing alliances to focus all of their attention on a small number of enemies, ignoring the larger mass of 'non-enemy' alliances (for example Legion and Fury allying against BT in r2. They acted in the belief that they could not defeat BT whilst also fighting each other). But this quickly develops into a 'protection' scenario. If you have a deal with Xanadu, and Xanadu are the most powerful alliance, that deal protects you from a powerful enemy. Suddenly all of the alliances with NAPs to Xanadu realise that it is in their interests for Xanadu to succeed, and they begin coordinating with Xanadu. The same process occurs on the other side. Before long, anyone who is not on a 'side' is simply left open to attack from both, a clearly undesirable position.

We end up with this situation: an alliance with no allies can be attacked by anyone. An alliance with lots of allies can be attacked by only a small number of enemies. The less incoming they get, the faster they will grow. It is pretty much a no-brainer: the alliance with no allies is at a disadvantage.

My personal opinion is that NAPs are inevitable. They are also incredibly effective. The only real solution I can think of is that NAPs should become more fluid - that inter-alliance agreements should last for short periods of time, and that sentimentality should not cloud the decisions made by alliance leaders. Alliances need to be able to make deals, but they need to also learn how to break them. Unforunately, private galaxies make this difficult. Galaxies often contain close friends, and splitting a galaxy up can cause bitterness and resentment. As such, alliance HCs often try to avoid doing this.

Random galaxies would go some way towards preventing blocking, but they are not a perfect solution. They certainly do make blocking less effective, but they don't alter the basic fact that NAPs are a good way of reducing an alliance's incoming. Pure alliance galaxies look like a good idea at first, but it's easy to imagine a powerful block arising and bashing everyone else, before turning on itself.

I can't currently think of a better solution... and besides, the place to discuss suggestions is the Suggestions forum

[Rumad]

hmm

Rob

I agree with you a lot these days

Either your mellowing or I have - not sure which

ON a side note I don't think this is suggestions material - ist about alliances and what they feel there alliance position will be and why.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Sevrok

fury had a lot of nap agrements, i know this becaus ei had spies within their ranks in round 2, i know they had nap agreemnets with legion and my alliance The Wolf Pack when we were at war, yet they were attacking us both, and both myself and legion thought it was just our oppsition doing the attacking by the time my spies told me this it was too late as talks for a ceasefire between legion and the wolf pack had broken down and when ever we tried to tell legion what was going on we were accused of lying!

You (and Rumad) seem to be jumbling up pieces of different rounds. Wolfpack didn't exist as an alliance until late round 3 - so how we could have any agreement with them in round 2 beats me. The channel #wolfpack was a private chat/attack channel for a small group of legion/fury players - including myself. Your chronology is totally wrong - you're taking a slanted and misinformed view of the later stages of round 3, and inserting them into round 2 before the BT war.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) All wars shouldn't be easy, but if private galaxies stay or go you need to strengthen position in your galaxies in a war with someone you have allied with. In any key war galaxy control is what wil decide the outcome. I can point to many incidents of side hopping which has strengthened a position in a war and which solidified there position. Its a fundamental need to allow you to change political and membership structure to coincide in the new playing conditions. Only pure gals could stop that completely.

Yeah i know m8 i'm not saying this isnt needed, i just dont think it should be made easier for the sake of those "hoppers" or alliances. If the ally needs such people to strengthen their gal control, in a private universe, they should have looked at their situation and planned for the worse.

If this was not possible, well tough, they will have to do their best but if you allow a fluid way to change control, this will KILL the round, not to mention cause allies to fold more often. As the better players who value success over loyalty, will side with the bigger-more propserous alliance at times of war, in turn shortening the length of war with all the players jumping to the same alliance.

Originally Posted by Rumad

2) If you don't include politics inside the structure of the game then people will make agremenst outside it. If you want fluidity and to impact on what has become scond nature in pa you need to ensure that the political conditions are correct for such a war. People will always have friendships and I don't think even the most utopian beliver of solo alliances really believes that alliances will ever go solo. Its as valid tactic as militarily attacking key targets.

I made my 2nd point in response to your comment that things need to be made more fluid, to allow the breaking of agreements. I understand what your saying, that implementing new systems into pa will allow for easier block creation/ termination but this still happens regardless of a need for more fluid systems.

Originally Posted by Rumad

I don't believe yu will ever get agreement by all alliances for the sort of politics you want without a shove. They tried with the congress or whatever it was called and alliances just did what they wanted anyway. Its a game. People play to prosper and for alliance goals - ifyuor alliance is playing to win then that dictates what you do to solidify that position. FAnG blocked, but so did Ely - its always they blocked before us, but everyone looks for an excuse.

Thats exactly what i was saying before, blocks are formed originally because they expect the enemy to form one. Even if they dont know for a "fact", they just need to read the ADs to be inspired for such motives.

Originally Posted by Rumad

3) It is a game, it is meant to be challenging, but as a HC I want to ensure my alliance will b there or there's abouts. I have no interest in the other alliances and I am here to promote the betterment of my friends and my allies. However - stagnation happens in most rounds of pa - bcause other HC tae the same view as me. Rightly or wrongly I am suggesting things which I believe would help - and if multiple blocks are formed and destroyed is that such a bad thing? Increases tension and bad feeling can only be good for the game.

I agree that this MAY be benificial to the politics of things but blocks are seen by many as the main reason PA sucks nowadays. Its impossible for little people to enjoy a full round, as there is no hope for them to succeed in their position, which has a detrimental affect on the PA memberbase, if the player is unwilling to progress up the alliance recruitment tree.

Originally Posted by Rumad

4) Sun Tsu once said every battles won before it reaches the battlefield - and never a truer wor said. Alliances look for positions that wil give them what they want from the round. They also look for alliances they can trust and help - especially in the growth stage early part of the round when you are most susptable to being destroyed.

Bluff and Double bluf fis a smokscreen sethy - its all about how do i get a position I would be happy with for the round and what threats are around?

I agree again but this thread is about how to stop blocking (ensuring fuller found enjoyment for the "masses") and my comments were aimed in that direction, based on your suggestion that there needs to be new PA ingame systems, to allow alliances (basically, the big boy alliances) the easier ability to ally and betray others at will.

Originally Posted by rumad

Anyway I hope you are well sethy - not talked to you in ages

And fine m8 (just got my home inet back after 5months away;(), hope everythings ok your end too

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Fury had so many naps of convenience round 2 it was ridiculous. you went to war with aliance after alliance until the final war with BT.

Name ONE of these "naps of convenience" in round 2.

Fury made precisely 4 agreements with other alliances in round 2 - 2 of which were with alliances that disbanded very early in the round (8th and UFS). The other 2 were with Legion and RE.

You could theoretically add a 5th - with TE - but that was made AFTER we'd won the war with them, when we offered them a cease-fire as they'd got to the stage where their members were on the verge of quitting the game as they'd been beaten so badly.

So: put your money where your mouth is, and name ONE of the "many naps of convenience" Fury had in round 2 please.

P.S. Do any alliances actually make naps that are inconvenient?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You (and Rumad) seem to be jumbling up pieces of different rounds. Wolfpack didn't exist as an alliance until late round 3 - so how we could have any agreement with them in round 2 beats me. The channel #wolfpack was a private chat/attack channel for a small group of legion/fury players - including myself. Your chronology is totally wrong - you're taking a slanted and misinformed view of the later stages of round 3, and inserting them into round 2 before the BT war.

I probably am. My alliance round 2 was BD with Tubs and cyrille and all and I only joined then a the end really> I was in the great ARK alliance before that and was alianceless round 1.

Although I do seem to rememeber (as one of seven my gc made us join BT at some point that round), that you did in fact expand by strengthening your position in the galaxies you were in. I remember my good mate XaV joining Fury from IPC under the threat of dying. I also remember wars with TGV (Trans something or another vikings) werent they at war with you and then allied? O r was in BT they allied wit (it was so long ago my memory is fuzzy and I have smoked to much weed since then). I know that the alliances you warred with though you also claimd members from.

Round 3 I remember as the Legion split which as a HC I worked against Fury witH BD helping petru - though we had limited effectiveness due to our size.

However the point stands - we need fluidity and I am sure thre are numerous early round examples with wha i say would hold true.

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You (and Rumad) seem to be jumbling up pieces of different rounds. Wolfpack didn't exist as an alliance until late round 3 - so how we could have any agreement with them in round 2 beats me. The channel #wolfpack was a private chat/attack channel for a small group of legion/fury players - including myself. Your chronology is totally wrong - you're taking a slanted and misinformed view of the later stages of round 3, and inserting them into round 2 before the BT war.

i said The Wolf Pack not Wolfpack! two different alliances! the wolf pack never had its own irc chanel, we comunicated through messaging planets! it was the only secure way for us to act! i have a very definate knowladge of my chronology!

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

1) Yeah i know m8 i'm not saying this isnt needed, i just dont think it should be made easier for the sake of those "hoppers" or alliances. If the ally needs such people to strengthen their gal control, in a private universe, they should have looked at their situation and planned for the worse.

2) If this was not possible, well tough, they will have to do their best but if you allow a fluid way to change control, this will KILL the round, not to mention cause allies to fold more often. As the better players who value success over loyalty, will side with the bigger-more propserous alliance at times of war, in turn shortening the length of war with all the players jumping to the same alliance.

3) I made my 2nd point in response to your comment that things need to be made more fluid, to allow the breaking of agreements. I understand what your saying, that implementing new systems into pa will allow for easier block creation/ termination but this still happens regardless of a need for more fluid systems.

4) Thats exactly what i was saying before, blocks are formed originally because they expect the enemy to form one. Even if they dont know for a "fact", they just need to read the ADs to be inspired for such motives.

5) I agree that this MAY be benificial to the politics of things but blocks are seen by many as the main reason PA sucks nowadays. Its impossible for little people to enjoy a full round, as there is no hope for them to succeed in their position, which has a detrimental affect on the PA memberbase, if the player is unwilling to progress up the alliance recruitment tree.

6) I agree again but this thread is about how to stop blocking (ensuring fuller found enjoyment for the "masses") and my comments were aimed in that direction, based on your suggestion that there needs to be new PA ingame systems, to allow alliances (basically, the big boy alliances) the easier ability to ally and betray others at will.

And fine m8 (just got my home inet back after 5months away;(), hope everythings ok your end too

1) you can plan all you want, but when push comes to shove you need some allaince swappers in any war . I don't like them and gam mechanics are such that we can show them why its bad (and we have), but at th end f the day not allowing side hopping limits the games fluidity and makes agreements more static.

2) I think if you can become more fluid you will se a lot of positioning and maneuvering. I don't agree that you would kill the game, but clever hc's will swap according to best benefit. Nothing can kill the game more than the current static nature of in game alliances anyway.

3) no need to comment

4) Yep I agree but with a slightly different stance. You sat blokcs are formd because of the rumourmongering - i am saying that blocks will be formed anyway - the rumourmongering is just the excuse.

5) I agree i curet structure, but not if you take politics in the game and make in game politics more efefctive than external (ie eta bonus for intra alliance defence).

6) Too many have tried to stop blocks in the past (me included) and failed. Better to make politics internal to the game rather than constantly denying its existence.

& I am good mate - only access at work atm but we should have a chat sometime - good to se you back though

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Rumad

If not you have to do what lyrtas did round nine and self exile which is expensive and timely and a waste.

Lrytas had to selfexile in r9.5. Please get your facts straight.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Desse

Lrytas had to selfexile in r9.5. Please get your facts straight.

only half a round out

lol

[EDIT] also hardly relevent - it was the action that was important - not particularly the round.

Thats goes with most of the facts i present in support - its the actions that are important even if a old man like me does get a little confused occasionally

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Rumad

only half a round out

lol

I have more of your quotes:

(round 6 blocking still existed an that was fully random).

R6 was not a random round.

R8 on the other hand was Random.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Desse

I have more of your quotes:

(round 6 blocking still existed an that was fully random).

R6 was not a random round.

R8 on the other hand was Random.

read above edit

[Rumad]

right of fhome now - will reply tommorow

night all

[Seth Mace]

I think we have nearly sorted the mis-communicated responses out now, lol;P

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) you can plan all you want, but when push comes to shove you need some allaince swappers in any war . I don't like them and gam mechanics are such that we can show them why its bad (and we have), but at th end f the day not allowing side hopping limits the games fluidity and makes agreements more static.

Yeah, members will ofc always leave for another ally for various reasons, including the need for a better chance for success. I just ment i thought the game mechanics in this area were fine, ie they dont need shortening or removing, i also didnt mean to imply that hopping shouldnt be allowed at all (although, im not sure if i did imply this?).

Originally Posted by Rumad

2) I think if you can become more fluid you will se a lot of positioning and maneuvering. I don't agree that you would kill the game, but clever hc's will swap according to best benefit. Nothing can kill the game more than the current static nature of in game alliances anyway.

Well i only think this would speed up who wins and who doesnt. The clever HCs are more likely to control the better alliances, so they would make use of this system more efficiently over the "lesser" HCs/ Alliances. In turn, the smaller allies would find it harder to have impact on the universe, while the big allies achieve a sort of "checkers" effect?

Originally Posted by Rumad

4) Yep I agree but with a slightly different stance. You sat blokcs are formd because of the rumourmongering - i am saying that blocks will be formed anyway - the rumourmongering is just the excuse.

Yeah, possibly but i'm sure they will be more inclined to form such blocks, if they feel threatened.

Originally Posted by Rumad

5) I agree i curet structure, but not if you take politics in the game and make in game politics more efefctive than external (ie eta bonus for intra alliance defence).

6) Too many have tried to stop blocks in the past (me included) and failed. Better to make politics internal to the game rather than constantly denying its existence.

This is an interesting angle, a sort of "if you cant beat them, join them" approach. I think there could be a solution to a lot of the current game problems, for both sides of the arguement with this.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Rumad

read above edit

If the facts are irrelevant to prove your point, then why are you using them in your arguments ?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Sevrok

i said The Wolf Pack not Wolfpack! two different alliances! the wolf pack never had its own irc chanel, we comunicated through messaging planets! it was the only secure way for us to act! i have a very definate knowladge of my chronology!

Well, given that I'd never even heard of this mythical alliance of yours, I find it very hard to believe that Fury ever had a nap with you - let alone that we broke it. If you were ever at war with Legion I very much doubt that they even noticed it.

Having now read your post in the Alliance Recruitment forums, I suspect you've somehow migrated across from some parallel universe. As in this universe, no alliance called "The Wolfpack" had any noticable impact on round 2. Your recruitment post also referred to you returning to PA after a 5 year absence (something which is just flatly impossible) and also refers to the alliance you were fighting against as "The Fallen Legion" - which, if it ever existed, is nothing to do with Legion. Are you sure it wasn't some other Fury you had a nap with?

For that matter, are you sure you didn't just make up a totally fabricated history to try to attract recruits by making them believe you, in some way, actually have a clue?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

stuff....

Come on, admit it, it was the toughest battle the combined forces of Fury and Legion ever fought and you simply don't want to give him credit for being able to do something no alliance has ever done in PA - they whupped your ass!*

*In no way is the to be taken even slightly seriously

[Sevrok]

would like to point out the victors of wars always tell the history of the war, fury and legion crippled my alliance beyond repair i will never deny that! my alliances histroy is not made up! fury and legion will always deny our existance, because it looks better for them that one of legion's slave galaxies never rose up and faught them head on, no gorilla tactics just all our war! i still harber my grudge against both legion and fury and i am always in the mood for a good hunt!

[Tomkat]

Gorilla tactics... teehee....

Sorry.

[Sevrok]

gorilla tactics, we made sure that legion knew exactly who and exactly why they were being attacked! legion and fury can chose to deny us all they want, but we are returning to planetarion and we have not forgotten what they did to sella!

[Mad Matte]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

And as a side-issue would you care to name ONE agreement that Fury broke in round 2? Were you even around in round 2? Fury never had agreements with any of the alliances we went to war with: in the case of BT and Concordium, discussions had been held but no actual agreement was ever reached. With BT it was because they were unwilling to agree to any rigidly defined sanctions to apply when members broke the terms of an agreement, and in the case of Concordium negotiations ceased when Moridin (with whom I'd been negotiating) ceased to play an active role in Concordium. If you want to have digs at Fury - at least try to have some factual basis for them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Fury did attack Videer at end of round2? If that is correct, then did you not break agreement with them, even if it was just for "fun".

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Mad Matte

Correct me if I am wrong, but Fury did attack Videer at end of round2? If that is correct, then did you not break agreement with them, even if it was just for "fun".

falls over laughing and once again legion and fury's version of history is turned up side down! this is so stupid of both legion and fury! my personal message to legion and fury is grow up and face facts you are gonna have to accept the wolf pack are back and you are filling your panties with poo at even the thoguht of the idea! :gollum:

[SYMM]

Gorilla=big ape-type creature
Guerilla= covert/harassing war.

Are you really sure you weren't playing a different game?

[edit]Legion and Fury haven't been playing PA (Planetarion...) as alliances for quite a while now...

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by SYMM

Gorilla=big ape-type creature
Guerilla= covert/harassing war.

Are you really sure you weren't playing a different game?

yes i am sure! so what if i cnat spell i study chemistry biology, maths and physics not english!

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by SYMM

Gorilla=big ape-type creature
Guerilla= covert/harassing war.

Are you really sure you weren't playing a different game?

[edit]Legion and Fury haven't been playing PA (Planetarion...) as alliances for quite a while now...

*sulks* oh well i'll have to find another evil alliance to wage a war with!