So many fools...

[Jonas]

Yeah! Lets block and destroy another round

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Exactly, and wasnt Sids post an attempt to deny certain posible political configuration during the round?

Not really - Sid was quite honest about his intentions. He believed 1up had a good chance of winning a round if no blocks formed, and so nobody was under any illusions about Sid's plans.

Nobody has the power to prevent other alliances from making their own decisions. In fact, I'm not sure there's any real evidence to suggest that this happened - most of the posters criticising Sid are in neutral positions, or are not playing this round. To my recollection, none of the rival HCs have made any real complaint about Sid's proposal. Some met the proposal with enthusiasm, seeing it as a potential benefit for themselves (FAnG spring to mind here, they did seem genuinely in favour of a round without blocks).

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

This is what me and others have been writing. See my above answer.

I was addressing my point at Rumad, who seemed to think it was a good idea to have a pre-set political configuration (and, bizarrely, seemed to think that this would help to "destabilize" the political situation).

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

The very core of the discussion is weather Sids post was noble or a tactic used for winning.
Taking into Sids history, it would be extremly naive to say it was for nobility.

Focht, your close, I write you a pm about it.

I still don't accept the idea that simply having no blocks is somehow a bad thing. This round has worked without blocks, and most people agree that the best-performing alliance is currently winning. Surely this should focus the attention of the other alliances on trying to improve themselves, so that they can win in future? If the best alliance wins, then everyone has a completely level playing field, and any alliance can win if they improve themselves enough.

I actually think most alliances have accepted this point. 1up didn't use a block to get to its current position, it used tactics. Where the other alliances have failed, it has been because of a deficit in their tactical abilities, not in their politics.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

1)To my recollection, none of the rival HCs have made any real complaint about Sid's proposal.

2) I still don't accept the idea that simply having no blocks is somehow a bad thing. This round has worked without blocks, and most people agree that the best-performing alliance is currently winning. Surely this should focus the attention of the other alliances on trying to improve themselves, so that they can win in future? If the best alliance wins, then everyone has a completely level playing field, and any alliance can win if they improve themselves enough.

3) I actually think most alliances have accepted this point. 1up didn't use a block to get to its current position, it used tactics. Where the other alliances have failed, it has been because of a deficit in their tactical abilities, not in their politics.

1) HC should have gone far more than complain - they should have utterly rejected it as soon as they gave it some thought. With the command 1up were likely to have, and the people they were recruiting, as a neutral observer, I thought in a FFA situation no one apart from 1up would have a real chance to win the round - not because of their ability to play the game, but out of the fact they'd be competent throughout and in terms of winning a round they'd have far much more gas in the tank than anyone else to grind out a well earned win.

2) It isn't a bad thing - but in this round, wiith an alliance so obviously superior in 1up, blocks are necessary or else it's just a case of letting 1up win - blocks in the conventional sense don't really exist this round, as they don't even touch the cooperation of a Xanadu or Fury sphere type block which is required to take down an opposition in/led by 1up. There is currently no alliance in the game that could realistically step up to the activity/skill of 1up in a short space of time except by recruitment of exceptional individuals (unlikely). The other method (and the best one) is to form a block and gain enough effective numbers to take out a superior, yet smaller enemy. A free for all would be fine, but with most of the real talent left in the game in 1up, a free for all just turns into farce with an alliance obviously much better than anyone else.

Just because an alliance performs best, doesn't mean it should win - just like in risk (as much as i hate to compare) people should always have the opportunity to bomb out the greatest threat, so they can secure a win for themselves - and if they fight it out and win after that, they deserve it because they managed to survive through it all, regardless of how much better another alliance is to them. The really good rounds are ones where smaller alliances can hold bigger ones to ransom and attempt to outwit them by exploiting their very superiority.

3) 1up used what i'd term anti politics by seeding in a frame of mind that block was a dirty word, when it isn't. It's given the impression that blocks are bad when they clearly aren't if they are managed properly - politics has certainly lost some of its influence, anyway. By stalling politics (intentionally or unintentionally) they just moved the advantage to them even more because cooperation would be that more loose even if blocks formed - that is my key objection to 1up - their means of suggesting how we should play while they are around only actually benefits themselves, and doesn't benefit anyone else, because everyone else has a slim chance of winning. This of course is a ringing endorsement of 1up's ability, and I congratulate them on that - they've done very well for themselvesand probably do deserve a win simply because of the amount of shit they've had thrown at them and staved off.

To those who merely suggest that I want us to go back to the old days of stagnation - I don't want that all - I'd like HC's to play to win, and use some kind of initiative, positivity and aggression to take out their competitors, rather than being content to do nothing after they take out their first major enemy - there are plenty of excuses people give - but in reality there are none. To suggest r11 shouldn't have blocks is crazy - if 1up didn't exist, i think a FFA would have been a much more viable and potentially more interesting round.

Also don't think i don't know that blocks have formed - they have, but have been totally inadequate. They either aren't what i'd deem to be of the level of cooperation i have certainly seen previously (maybe they've only come to the conclusion i have too late), or they are actually quite bad compared to 1up - which just shows how stupid a block free round would be if 1up was allowed to go at it in a FFA situation in r11.

I understand what 1up thinks and that the way they play the game is potentially beneficial - it's just that in the context of this round it doesn't really help very much where they don't have someone to realistically challenge them during the course of the whole round. They have many players who don't understand what it's like to be in a less capable alliance that wants to win and don't understand that position.

[Tis]

Lokken, while you have some valid points, you seem to exaggerate things a bit. You make it sound like 1up just beat the crap out of the universe from the word 'go'. From my persepective, the outcome of this round has been in doubt far longer than any round I can remember. As far as combating stagnation, Id say thats a pretty good start. Sure, we seem to be pulling away now, but its been an absolutely exhausting struggle. I really think you are asking a bit much to demand a tight race throughout.

[Rumad]

actually no - lokken is 100% correct.

Blocks are needed otherwise the alliances never stood a chance and unfortunately never will.

While I think stagnation has been better than in previous rounds ask yourselves this; how many players are actually still playing? How many players are still playing to improve rather than just attacking a few no hope targets for easy roids?

Simply while stagnation has not resulted in roidation stagnation is still present.

Alliances should be competing not just playing to gather and keep the most roids, but actually working on tactics to avoid maximum roid loss and countering. That is no where near possible now, but with HC's competing dynamic blocking could work really well.

The whole point of PA is that alliances compete and jockey for position - when you get to a "won" situation (which we are pretty much at) the game dies and stagnation steps in (lack of activity, people roiding without defence or minimal defence etc etc etc).

It was a good political move by 1up to dismantle the blocking mentality and all cudos for you doing so (at least to stop them being as effective). However, with the quality f yur players, the activity you always would have had and the size of your fleets at your disposal and no blocking was always going to result in this.

For me, PA is always most interesting when its nip and tick, Rob is right when he says a pre-defined allied partnership is bad, but blocking doesn't have to be predefined or last an entire round. The whole point is that allies hc's are always keeping at the back of there mind there desire to win. Breakaways and forming new partnerships would be a pre requisite, but I think thats now entirely possible after this round.

Rob answer to your question what do I think was wrong with ths round comapred to previous? I would say nothing particularly, but I do have a desire that one ay I might return to PA where players are competing to win where here are several alliances all in with a shout of winning the game.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Tis

Lokken, while you have some valid points, you seem to exaggerate things a bit. You make it sound like 1up just beat the crap out of the universe from the word 'go'. From my persepective, the outcome of this round has been in doubt far longer than any round I can remember. As far as combating stagnation, Id say thats a pretty good start. Sure, we seem to be pulling away now, but its been an absolutely exhausting struggle. I really think you are asking a bit much to demand a tight race throughout.

The massive superiority I see with 1up is not necessarily their activity and skill - it's that i see that they had the stamina to fight through a whole round, even with larger amounts of opposition. No other alliance currently in the game could cope with that, i'd wager. It was going to be hard for you because of the numbers, but like i said in my previous post, and you've pointed out - right now you are grinding out a win.

The point is what you've created has resulted in only one real contender (2 at a push if you count LCH for about a week) to win the round - that's not really satisfying, as all you've ultimately created is a system which advantages only yourselves - as i've said above, it's your very own existence that puts your own ideas up the spout when you've put them into practice. Had there been blocks, 1up would probably have had a good chance of winning anyway, but we are currently in a situation no different to r3 where you have one camp that were going to win from day 1(admittedly you haven't been as dominant as that), while the masses outside were always going to fall by the wayside because they weren't good enough and not cooperating well enough.

As a result, i'd have told you were to go from day 1 - there is no point in allowing a system to foster which only benefits 1 alliance in reality, would even further highlight the deficiencies of other alliances even IF it was beneficial to the game - simply because there was no incentive whatsoever for other alliances to agree with it from my point of view.

[G.K Zhukov]

Rob, Im not going to reply, becouse Lokken did it for me.

Bad lokken

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by lokken

The massive superiority I see with 1up is not necessarily their activity and skill - it's that i see that they had the stamina to fight through a whole round, even with larger amounts of opposition. No other alliance currently in the game could cope with that, i'd wager. It was going to be hard for you because of the numbers, but like i said in my previous post, and you've pointed out - right now you are grinding out a win.

The point is what you've created has resulted in only one real contender (2 at a push if you count LCH for about a week) to win the round - that's not really satisfying, as all you've ultimately created is a system which advantages only yourselves - as i've said above, it's your very own existence that puts your own ideas up the spout when you've put them into practice. Had there been blocks, 1up would probably have had a good chance of winning anyway, but we are currently in a situation no different to r3 where you have one camp that were going to win from day 1(admittedly you haven't been as dominant as that), while the masses outside were always going to fall by the wayside because they weren't good enough and not cooperating well enough.

As a result, i'd have told you were to go from day 1 - there is no point in allowing a system to foster which only benefits 1 alliance in reality, would even further highlight the deficiencies of other alliances even IF it was beneficial to the game - simply because there was no incentive whatsoever for other alliances to agree with it from my point of view.

I think you overestimate 1up to be honest, crediting us with a win from the get go. Are all the other alliances really -that- bad?

As for blocking, I for one has found this round far more challenging. We could have had a block round and won easily. I still think you are being entirely unfair in saying this type of no-block round has only benefitted 1up - but then, I don't really expect much from you nowadays. Far too many alliances are goverened by their emotions rather than what is tactically advantageous. A block from the word go against 1up would only have resulted in one of the many wonderous block rounds we have had before and then you would all be moaning about that instead. 1up stood to its policies and opposition has formed. It is completely different to this 'one side' camp from r3 or any other block rounds.

The incentive as you call it for all alliances was that it gave them more equal footing compared to the rest - and left them not worrying too much about a repeat of r10.5 and having to form blocks/counter-blocks. Honestly, I can't really fathom how you sit there and think 1up has had an easy ride. We aren't Fury and not as powerful as you make us out to be.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

I think you overestimate 1up to be honest, crediting us with a win from the get go. Are all the other alliances really -that- bad?

As for blocking, I for one has found this round far more challenging. We could have had a block round and won easily. I still think you are being entirely unfair in saying this type of no-block round has only benefitted 1up - but then, I don't really expect much from you nowadays. Far too many alliances are goverened by their emotions rather than what is tactically advantageous. A block from the word go against 1up would only have resulted in one of the many wonderous block rounds we have had before and then you would all be moaning about that instead. 1up stood to its policies and opposition has formed. It is completely different to this 'one side' camp from r3 or any other block rounds.

The incentive as you call it for all alliances was that it gave them more equal footing compared to the rest - and left them not worrying too much about a repeat of r10.5 and having to form blocks/counter-blocks. Honestly, I can't really fathom how you sit there and think 1up has had an easy ride. We aren't Fury and not as powerful as you make us out to be.

1up hasn't had an easy ride, I haven't claimed that - they are just the only alliance with the ability to grind out a win over a long period of time, even when they get hurt - in a free for all situation, the advantage is with them. Realistically 1up are the only alliance that can win over a long period of time, even if for a week they get hurt reasonably bad. Other alliances get hurt - they don't come back anywhere near as well, and suffer as a result. 1up are pretty resiliant, attack with tactics and have an activity above anyone else so over time i believe they stand out from the rest.

And yes, I actually do believe that alliances one on one can't compete with 1up, as they've played to pretty high standards this round. A block was the only way to really counter them, and even with some kind of loose block in existence, 1up are still winning - in the total ffa situation, it all becomes clear who would be the victor.

Blocking in this round would be merely necessary for other alliances to survive - that in my view is a better option than just rolling over and effectively letting 1up win over time because 1up are the best alliance by quite a way (which is what has happened) just for the sake of entertainment. What would follow from that is their perrogative (hopefully they'd have a good sense to try and get a win). It might have well been a shit round, but then more than 1 alliance would have stood a real chance over the course of the round of winning. A block round where 2 alliances stand a chance of winning, is far better than a free for all where only 1 stands a chance as long as those 2 are fighting it out.

The only equal footing alliances were put on were with alliances that weren't 1up. Anyone who is in a neutral perspective can see that as pretty obvious

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Rumad

ask yourselves this; how many players are actually still playing? How many players are still playing to improve rather than just attacking a few no hope targets for easy roids?

i am......now stupid 1up, stop waving my planet, I AM DAMN CUDDLY AND DONT DESERVE THIS FFS!!!!!

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

I think you overestimate 1up to be honest, crediting us with a win from the get go. Are all the other alliances really -that- bad?

Not really, but 1up formed and many established ppl in other alliances joined. WP as an example, did you recruit all their command or do they have any officers left?

on a serious note, all alliances arent that bad, but many of them lack good military organisation when it comes to whom to target. Many BC/MO's out there look for cheap roids for their member instead of setting up attacks every night that has 90% chance of defence(me included at some times). You can say that many alliances lack military initiative/will, but they're not that bad. You should instead ask "how many alliances decided to finnish #1 this round" and you might see 4 alliances(yours included) saying "we did".

universe = small | alliances = big ....therefor i blame the 100 member limit, make it 75 or 50 and maybe we'll see a more open race

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by lokken

1up hasn't had an easy ride, I haven't claimed that - they are just the only alliance with the ability to grind out a win over a long period of time, even when they get hurt - in a free for all situation, the advantage is with them. Realistically 1up are the only alliance that can win over a long period of time, even if for a week they get hurt reasonably bad. Other alliances get hurt - they don't come back anywhere near as well, and suffer as a result. 1up are pretty resiliant, attack with tactics and have an activity above anyone else so over time i believe they stand out from the rest.

And yes, I actually do believe that alliances one on one can't compete with 1up, as they've played to pretty high standards this round. A block was the only way to really counter them, and even with some kind of loose block in existence, 1up are still winning - in the total ffa situation, it all becomes clear who would be the victor.

Blocking in this round would be merely necessary for other alliances to survive - that in my view is a better option than just rolling over and effectively letting 1up win over time because 1up are the best alliance by quite a way (which is what has happened) just for the sake of entertainment. What would follow from that is their perrogative (hopefully they'd have a good sense to try and get a win). It might have well been a shit round, but then more than 1 alliance would have stood a real chance over the course of the round of winning. A block round where 2 alliances stand a chance of winning, is far better than a free for all where only 1 stands a chance as long as those 2 are fighting it out.

The only equal footing alliances were put on were with alliances that weren't 1up. Anyone who is in a neutral perspective can see that as pretty obvious

You can't honestly believe a two sided war would have made for a more interesting round. You keep on claiming this rounds outcome was known from the get-go when it wasn't. Either you are grossly misinformed or simply out of touch.

I do not oppose blocks, I've been behind blocks myself on many occassions - as you are well aware. Yet you seem to advocate a fully blocked up universe. I have no wish to repeat history, but I still do believe a static political status that forms at the beginning of the round will only spiral into an utterly boring round.

Also, you are hardly neutral Lokken. So drop that charade.

I think what needs to be asked is how this round could have been made better - rather than simply diving into a "omg lets all block" result. It's rather ironic how the situation has now become so twisted, don't you think?

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

Not really, but 1up formed and many established ppl in other alliances joined. WP as an example, did you recruit all their command or do they have any officers left?

WP can speak more on this than me, but can you tell me exactly how many WP command joined 1up?

I can only think of Helix from the top of my head.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

You can't honestly believe a two sided war would have made for a more interesting round. You keep on claiming this rounds outcome was known from the get-go when it wasn't. Either you are grossly misinformed or simply out of touch.

I do not oppose blocks, I've been behind blocks myself on many occassions - as you are well aware. Yet you seem to advocate a fully blocked up universe. I have no wish to repeat history, but I still do believe a static political status that forms at the beginning of the round will only spiral into an utterly boring round.

Also, you are hardly neutral Lokken. So drop that charade.

I think what needs to be asked is how this round could have been made better - rather than simply diving into a "omg lets all block" result. It's rather ironic how the situation has now become so twisted, don't you think?

I think i can pretty much look at one alliance see who it has in it, and pretty much guess how well it's going to do. It seemed easy for me to come to a conclusion that 1up would win, it was pretty obvious to some others as well. My suggestion was that if the others wanted to really have a good chance of winning, they should have formed a block and take out 1up, because in my view they certainly weren't going to take out 1up on their own as they weren't good enough - they would need coordinated firepower, and quite a bit of it. That's not being anti 1up, it's just the situation as I see it - it is highly unpleasant, and indeed highly unfair, to run an alliance out of the game just for existing - but it might well be a necessary step.

Once 1up were dealt with, they'd have other alliances to worry about, and wouldn't need to sit together. Blocks are a feature of necessity and are of a means to preventing a superior enemy gaining an advantage (if you can't agree that 1up are the best alliance right now, well I'm lost to you). I'm sure if 1up had real competition they wouldn't be so generous in offering a ffa, and they'd be blocking because they'd have to in order to survive/win - so I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that others can't. I doubt i could ever see 1up laying down and dying if they didn't have to do it.

I'm all for a ffa - but when it results in one alliance being handed the advantage out of being significantly better than anyone else, why should anyone play it? The view I have is that they shouldn't, because every alliance exists to be successful for itself and to make life as hard as possible for the other ones. The end result has been some form of blocking, although even that has proved to be inadequate - i feel the fact that 1up continues to succeed in spite of this only serves to further prove the points i've made, yet this comment i keep writing down seems to be ignored - the simple fact is that if MISTU/VsN/LCH were of comparable quality, 1up should be dead in the water when they are all attacking it - instead they are pulling away. Am i in error here making such a conclusion? I don't believe so. Lest we even forget Cayl's very own comment that he was confident that 1up could take on 2 alliances at a time - that to me just further highlights the difference in quality from day 1

My argument is that other alliances should have simply disregarded playing for entertainment, and played for success, because that was the only option that would have seen a positive result for them at the end of it all, because the entertaining option in this rounds scenario would only mean that one alliance in 1up could realistically win it, and that they should have given themselves a chance to prevent that and open it up to the rest of them.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by lokken

I think i can pretty much look at one alliance see who it has in it, and pretty much guess how well it's going to do. It seemed easy for me to come to a conclusion that 1up would win, it was pretty obvious to some others as well. My suggestion was that if the others wanted to really have a good chance of winning, they should have formed a block and take out 1up, because in my view they certainly weren't going to take out 1up on their own as they weren't good enough - they would need coordinated firepower, and quite a bit of it. That's not being anti 1up, it's just the situation as I see it - it is highly unpleasant, and indeed highly unfair, to run an alliance out of the game just for existing - but it might well be a necessary step.

Necessary for whom? I don't think it's in many alliance's interests. Once a mechanism has been created (a block) to destroy a single alliance, any alliance could become a future target of this block. "Kill 1up because they're winning" could easily become "Kill LCH because they're winning" after 1up are beaten, so why would LCH want to create a blocking scenario until it was the only option left?

It's even more dubious for the smaller alliances. If the block formed to kill a single alliance doesn't remain together after the task was completed, what long-term benefit would a smaller alliance get from being a part of it? They might climb one place higher in the rankings, but they will also have reduced the competition above them, making it possible for the top alliances to simply gather roids from down the food chain (since they don't need to worry about 1up any more).

Originally Posted by lokken

Once 1up were dealt with, they'd have other alliances to worry about, and wouldn't need to sit together. Blocks are a feature of necessity and are of a means to preventing a superior enemy gaining an advantage (if you can't agree that 1up are the best alliance right now, well I'm lost to you). I'm sure if 1up had real competition they wouldn't be so generous in offering a ffa, and they'd be blocking because they'd have to in order to survive/win - so I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that others can't. I doubt i could ever see 1up laying down and dying if they didn't have to do it.

I totally agree in principle. In practice though, a semblance of a block has been in place for some time now - LCH/Mistu/Vision do appear to have a NAP (their HC are free to correct me if I'm wrong about that). Their failure to defeat 1up has been a failure of tactics and imagination. Not only is blocking the lazy way out, it doesn't even really work.

Anyone else could do what 1up have done, with a bit of hard work and some genuine tactical innovations. I think the conditions for victory should depend much more on tactical imagination rather than political scheming, simply because politics is too easy.

Originally Posted by lokken

I'm all for a ffa - but when it results in one alliance being handed the advantage out of being significantly better than anyone else, why should anyone play it? The view I have is that they shouldn't, because every alliance exists to be successful for itself and to make life as hard as possible for the other ones. The end result has been some form of blocking, although even that has proved to be inadequate - i feel the fact that 1up continues to succeed in spite of this only serves to further prove the points i've made, yet this comment i keep writing down seems to be ignored - the simple fact is that if MISTU/VsN/LCH were of comparable quality, 1up should be dead in the water when they are all attacking it - instead they are pulling away. Am i in error here making such a conclusion? I don't believe so. Lest we even forget Cayl's very own comment that he was confident that 1up could take on 2 alliances at a time - that to me just further highlights the difference in quality from day 1

1up weren't always winning though. LCH were ahead for a time, and the other alliances were pretty close behind. Once 1up took a substantive lead over LCH, we were facing attacks from the three alliances immediately below us - as well as some sporadic targetting of our members from HR. The other alliances really had no interest in fighting us, as they would only have been helping LCH to win instead, a position that wouldn't really benefit them in any way.

LCH could have made political moves sooner - perhaps they became overconfident in their #1 position. What nobody can doubt is that LCH had more than enough firepower at their disposal to rival 1up. They outroided 1up and were leading for a period of time. I don't think this round was a one-horse race at all, it was pretty even until the real wars started, at which point the alliances which employed the best tactics were the most successful.

Originally Posted by lokken

My argument is that other alliances should have simply disregarded playing for entertainment, and played for success, because that was the only option that would have seen a positive result for them at the end of it all, because the entertaining option in this rounds scenario would only mean that one alliance in 1up could realistically win it, and that they should have given themselves a chance to prevent that and open it up to the rest of them.

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice any block would have resulted in putting someone else in the #1 position. Either that block splits and the new #1 is targetted heavily, or it doesn't split and the smaller alliances get screwed over one-by-one by the new #1.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Once 1up took a substantive lead over LCH, we were facing attacks from the three alliances immediately below us - as well as some sporadic targetting of our members from HR

I hope you aint trying to imply HR has been helping LCH there because you see most alliances in the game has had sporadic incoming from HR.

When there are random universes rob, you sometimes find different alliances mixed together. Its crazy i know but im told thats just the way things are!!

[ComradeRob]

My post very clearly avoided implying that you were working with LCH. I said LCH/Mistu/Vision were cooperating; if I had thought HR were part of that cooperation then I would have listed you with them.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Rob

The other alliances really had no interest in fighting us, as they would only have been helping LCH to win instead, a position that wouldn't really benefit them in any way.

I should have posted this bit as well, which imo implies such a notion:P

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

WP can speak more on this than me, but can you tell me exactly how many WP command joined 1up?

I can only think of Helix from the top of my head.

mazzelaar, squidly? bah, it was a joke anyway, notice the " ", my indication that i was joking. if i sound angry at 1up, i am NOT, just at the rest of the universe for not blocking and beating the crap out of you guys

[Vaio]

Rob, if you remember your history, a certain PA alliance helped another to win the round. It didnt really benefit them but they did it anyway

~Vaio~

[lokken]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

1) Necessary for whom? I don't think it's in many alliance's interests. Once a mechanism has been created (a block) to destroy a single alliance, any alliance could become a future target of this block. "Kill 1up because they're winning" could easily become "Kill LCH because they're winning" after 1up are beaten, so why would LCH want to create a blocking scenario until it was the only option left?

2) It's even more dubious for the smaller alliances. If the block formed to kill a single alliance doesn't remain together after the task was completed, what long-term benefit would a smaller alliance get from being a part of it? They might climb one place higher in the rankings, but they will also have reduced the competition above them, making it possible for the top alliances to simply gather roids from down the food chain (since they don't need to worry about 1up any more).



3) I totally agree in principle. In practice though, a semblance of a block has been in place for some time now - LCH/Mistu/Vision do appear to have a NAP (their HC are free to correct me if I'm wrong about that). Their failure to defeat 1up has been a failure of tactics and imagination. Not only is blocking the lazy way out, it doesn't even really work.

Anyone else could do what 1up have done, with a bit of hard work and some genuine tactical innovations. I think the conditions for victory should depend much more on tactical imagination rather than political scheming, simply because politics is too easy.



4) 1up weren't always winning though. LCH were ahead for a time, and the other alliances were pretty close behind. Once 1up took a substantive lead over LCH, we were facing attacks from the three alliances immediately below us - as well as some sporadic targetting of our members from HR. The other alliances really had no interest in fighting us, as they would only have been helping LCH to win instead, a position that wouldn't really benefit them in any way.

LCH could have made political moves sooner - perhaps they became overconfident in their #1 position. What nobody can doubt is that LCH had more than enough firepower at their disposal to rival 1up. They outroided 1up and were leading for a period of time. I don't think this round was a one-horse race at all, it was pretty even until the real wars started, at which point the alliances which employed the best tactics were the most successful.

5) Sounds nice in theory, but in practice any block would have resulted in putting someone else in the #1 position. Either that block splits and the new #1 is targetted heavily, or it doesn't split and the smaller alliances get screwed over one-by-one by the new #1.

1) I think it''s perfectly necessary - say i'm LCH - i'd rather take on MISTU than 1up to win a round. A perfectly reasonable perspective to take. The point is once 1up was taken out they'd have the opportunity to take out people on the level that sadly other alliances are playing at. It's just pure common sense.

2) It's far easier for the smaller alliance to prey on LCH/MISTU than it is on 1up. The point is this round that there is only really one top alliance who will stand up take a hit, and fight back. I don't see much fight in that sense in the top 4 alliances outside of 1up. Reducing the competition above them is how smaller alliances win, as they have more sway in the rounds outcome than people believe they have.

3) I don't disagree that a semblance of a block has existed - i've pointed out it's simply totally inadequate, and that those inadequacies merely highlight 1up's superiority. Politics are essential for less able alliances to exist and survive and succeed - without them, they are lost. They should of course try to improve, but politics is the best way of making up for their own inadequacies - who cares if it is lazy, it is the best means to an end for them - and they can't stagnate the round off their own bat until they reach a winning position (in which case people would recognise the threat)

4) The LCH threat was only brief, and that once you weren't the greatest targets they moved away from you because they failed to recognise the threat 1up pose - that for me is another indicator to other alliances failings, because they let 1up keep their foot in the door, when they should have attempted to shatter 1up to truly break them and stop them. The point of what i'm saying is that when it comes to the crunch, you will always put your money on 1up, and therefore there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever - they have some of the best old school talent in planetarion. LCH would never have the gas in the tank to take them on - there are players in 1up who have suffered in planetarion (including your good self), and are able to cope with almost anything that's thrown at them.

5) My belief is that the other alliances would be on a more equal level than when compared to 1up - there would indeed be some fighting between them, but it would be far more of a competition than with 1up and unpredictable as they have not only the ability to beat each other, but throw it away at the same time, unlike 1up. The new #1 wouldn't lead by a great deal, and 1up would effectively be put in some kind of kingmaker position for a time until it was in a position to take the round for itself. That for me is a pretty decent postion to have. To not split would be totally stupid, and then no one should have bothered to intervene and help out in the first place if play is that bad.

To sum up, I just think the alliances key failings that you've pointed out reinforce my point because they didn't recognise the threat, didn't move to defeat it properly, and when they have actually tried, it's simply not been good enough to beat it. The key with PA is to stop resistance before it starts, not by the time its in full swing (as 1up were allowed to)

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by lokken

1) I think it''s perfectly necessary - say i'm LCH - i'd rather take on MISTU than 1up to win a round. A perfectly reasonable perspective to take. The point is once 1up was taken out they'd have the opportunity to take out people on the level that sadly other alliances are playing at. It's just pure common sense.

You're talking with the benefit of a) hindsight and b) probably a better knowledge of 1up that most 'neutral' people. It's easy to say now that everyone should have banded together against 1up, but how easy was it to say that when LCH were #1?

At that point, forming a block would have simply guaranteed LCH a victory - just as if 1up had formed a block at that point, it would have guaranteed 1up's victory. So it was not in the interests of any of the smaller alliances to entier into a block at that point (unless such a block excluded both LCH and 1up).

What occurred next was the beginning of hostilities between 1up and LCH. Once 1up gained a visible advantage over LCH, 1up quickly became the target of the three alliances immediately below them in the rankings - Mistu had been targetting 1up most of the round already, and LCH/Vision agreed a NAP for the purposes of attacking 1up (if any Vision/LCH want to correct me on the details, they are welcome to).

My point is this: it was not for lack of blocking/politics that LCH lost. It was for lack of tactics. I'd hate for the general conclusion from this round to be that there was not enough blocking, because it means future rounds will become more block-oriented, not less. The conclusion to draw from this round is about alliance organisation and tactics - something every alliance can improve in without resorting to ever-increasing amounts of blocking.

Originally Posted by lokken

2) It's far easier for the smaller alliance to prey on LCH/MISTU than it is on 1up. The point is this round that there is only really one top alliance who will stand up take a hit, and fight back. I don't see much fight in that sense in the top 4 alliances outside of 1up. Reducing the competition above them is how smaller alliances win, as they have more sway in the rounds outcome than people believe they have.

Again, this is all easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. Until war broke out, LCH and 1up looked like an even match for each other - attacking one side or the other could have handed victory to their opponents, hastening a victory that may have taken longer. Most alliances played their politics perfectly well and can't be blamed for aiding 1up's cause to any undue extent.

Originally Posted by lokken

3) I don't disagree that a semblance of a block has existed - i've pointed out it's simply totally inadequate, and that those inadequacies merely highlight 1up's superiority. Politics are essential for less able alliances to exist and survive and succeed - without them, they are lost. They should of course try to improve, but politics is the best way of making up for their own inadequacies - who cares if it is lazy, it is the best means to an end for them - and they can't stagnate the round off their own bat until they reach a winning position (in which case people would recognise the threat)

The block isn't insufficient - in almost any other circumstance, 3/4 of the top 4 alliances should be able to defeat a single alliance. They just needed better tactics to do it, rather than the somewhat random, unfocussed strategies displayed. The only alliance that mounted any kind of impressive hit on 1up this round (at least during my watch) was Vision, the others didn't seem to have any tactics at all. Simply allocating a bunch of targets might be enough in a private galaxy round, but random rounds call for much better tactics than this.

Originally Posted by lokken

4) The LCH threat was only brief, and that once you weren't the greatest targets they moved away from you because they failed to recognise the threat 1up pose - that for me is another indicator to other alliances failings, because they let 1up keep their foot in the door, when they should have attempted to shatter 1up to truly break them and stop them. The point of what i'm saying is that when it comes to the crunch, you will always put your money on 1up, and therefore there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever - they have some of the best old school talent in planetarion. LCH would never have the gas in the tank to take them on - there are players in 1up who have suffered in planetarion (including your good self), and are able to cope with almost anything that's thrown at them.

I agree, a lot of 1up's members are extremely dedicated people who have years of PA experience and know-how. And for that reason you might well be right in saying that 1up should have been more heavily targetted. LCH could, and probably should, have started their attempts at hitting 1up sooner rather than later. I still remain convinced, though, that LCH could quite easily have won (especially with support from other alliances) had they only used their forces more effectively.

Originally Posted by lokken

5) My belief is that the other alliances would be on a more equal level than when compared to 1up - there would indeed be some fighting between them, but it would be far more of a competition than with 1up and unpredictable as they have not only the ability to beat each other, but throw it away at the same time, unlike 1up. The new #1 wouldn't lead by a great deal, and 1up would effectively be put in some kind of kingmaker position for a time until it was in a position to take the round for itself. That for me is a pretty decent postion to have. To not split would be totally stupid, and then no one should have bothered to intervene and help out in the first place if play is that bad.

LCH would have had a substantial lead over any other alliance if an anti-1up block had been formed earlier than it was. They would simply have used the other alliances to draw def out, and made their profit on late launches against 1up.

Originally Posted by lokken

To sum up, I just think the alliances key failings that you've pointed out reinforce my point because they didn't recognise the threat, didn't move to defeat it properly, and when they have actually tried, it's simply not been good enough to beat it. The key with PA is to stop resistance before it starts, not by the time its in full swing (as 1up were allowed to)

I think LCH did recognise 1up as a threat, they just didn't fight properly. I do agree with your basic point, that the smaller alliances could have done better. I just disagree on what their failing was. I think the long-term consequences of saying their failing was political would be a return to block politics, which is unnecessary and not desirable. I suppose a better way of putting it would be to say that PA doesn't need more Dingos, it needs more Agamemnons.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by lokken

1) I think it''s perfectly necessary - say i'm LCH - i'd rather take on MISTU than 1up to win a round. A perfectly reasonable perspective to take. The point is once 1up was taken out they'd have the opportunity to take out people on the level that sadly other alliances are playing at. It's just pure common sense.

2) It's far easier for the smaller alliance to prey on LCH/MISTU than it is on 1up. The point is this round that there is only really one top alliance who will stand up take a hit, and fight back. I don't see much fight in that sense in the top 4 alliances outside of 1up. Reducing the competition above them is how smaller alliances win, as they have more sway in the rounds outcome than people believe they have.

3) I don't disagree that a semblance of a block has existed - i've pointed out it's simply totally inadequate, and that those inadequacies merely highlight 1up's superiority. Politics are essential for less able alliances to exist and survive and succeed - without them, they are lost. They should of course try to improve, but politics is the best way of making up for their own inadequacies - who cares if it is lazy, it is the best means to an end for them - and they can't stagnate the round off their own bat until they reach a winning position (in which case people would recognise the threat)

4) The LCH threat was only brief, and that once you weren't the greatest targets they moved away from you because they failed to recognise the threat 1up pose - that for me is another indicator to other alliances failings, because they let 1up keep their foot in the door, when they should have attempted to shatter 1up to truly break them and stop them. The point of what i'm saying is that when it comes to the crunch, you will always put your money on 1up, and therefore there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever - they have some of the best old school talent in planetarion. LCH would never have the gas in the tank to take them on - there are players in 1up who have suffered in planetarion (including your good self), and are able to cope with almost anything that's thrown at them.

5) My belief is that the other alliances would be on a more equal level than when compared to 1up - there would indeed be some fighting between them, but it would be far more of a competition than with 1up and unpredictable as they have not only the ability to beat each other, but throw it away at the same time, unlike 1up. The new #1 wouldn't lead by a great deal, and 1up would effectively be put in some kind of kingmaker position for a time until it was in a position to take the round for itself. That for me is a pretty decent postion to have. To not split would be totally stupid, and then no one should have bothered to intervene and help out in the first place if play is that bad.

To sum up, I just think the alliances key failings that you've pointed out reinforce my point because they didn't recognise the threat, didn't move to defeat it properly, and when they have actually tried, it's simply not been good enough to beat it. The key with PA is to stop resistance before it starts, not by the time its in full swing (as 1up were allowed to)

I try to put things in the simplest form. I don't over think PA because in most aspects, it is very simple. The thing that LCH or others didn't do was take losses. Even early when I was MO'ing, there were so many recalls it was not even funny. While their side was pulling, our side was landing. In a war, you must realize that you need to kill ships also, getting roids should not satisfy anyone. Take for instance, a certain 1up planet that got roided ridiculously. People hit him and took roids. He still has his entire fleet. People tend to forget that you need to kill ships to win. 1up lost a ton of roids score when they were attacked. But 1up always had its ship value and score. Someone hit it right on the nose, 1up people were getting roided dude to not having enough defense late in the night, early morning. But they were not losing fleet. Thus, they turned into horrible targets, huge fleets with no roids. They still had fleet to roid anyone they wanted. The MO's did a great job too. They honed in on roid fat targets and took back the roids they lost and then some. 1up had the most roids at start, thus the biggest fleets, had they let LCH capitolize off all of the roids that they had, they would have not taken #1. But LCh got greedy, and thier MO's chose by roids, and not by potential threat. Thus only doing a percentage of thier job as an MO. Hopefully they learn from this and improve on it. In a nutshell, if your ally won't lose any ships, and won't kill any, you are not at war, you are in it for the roids, and roids sadly in this new PA, is not the only thing you need to be leading in to win. You need more fleet value also. When you choose targets after you have roided your opponent, start checking that fleet value, because that is what comes back and bites you in the ass.

[Forest]

Could I possibly throw another point into the equation.

That point is history.
History shows that mistu/vsn and lch have all been waht I would call 'support alliances' aiding another alliance to #1 and they ahve done this to a very impressive effect.

Is it not conceivable though, that as their role has changed, mentally, tey ahve been left 'inexperienced', and ecperience is so important in pa.

[MotoX]

Everyone knew about 1up setup, some of us even came here to remind you all.
Ok I can understand if some HC:s stood by their members and thought they could beat them.

But I can’t understand why you all stood by when they slipped away further and further and none tried to do anything about it???

I believe everyone (HC) needs to question their actions/decisions etc…. cos I’m pretty sure every alliance got members who play this game to win (will they still be in your ranks now when they saw your lame action this round?).

In the “old days” everyone at least tried to make a different by making pacts etc but this round all just lay down and died…????

Once again PA have taken a path that makes people leave this game – this time with Sid who collected many of the veterans into an unbeatable force….. And a community who let it happen… without any kind of actions to stop it? Again why?

I can only salute Sid cos he once again tricked you all to submission and his ego will now get to heights that will leave us all to…..

So many people who comes here and tries to explain why this defeat came about is just pathetic, I will not mention names but for god sake run and hide yourself cos you are truly pathetic!





Oh and a side note: if 1up and LCH are that big of a enemies why are the nr:2 planet in universe a LCH planet – skill? Or doesn’t 1up need that spot?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Everyone knew about 1up setup, some of us even came here to remind you all.
Ok I can understand if some HC:s stood by their members and thought they could beat them.

But I can’t understand why you all stood by when they slipped away further and further and none tried to do anything about it???

I believe everyone (HC) needs to question their actions/decisions etc…. cos I’m pretty sure every alliance got members who play this game to win (will they still be in your ranks now when they saw your lame action this round?).

In the “old days” everyone at least tried to make a different by making pacts etc but this round all just lay down and died…????

Once again PA have taken a path that makes people leave this game – this time with Sid who collected many of the veterans into an unbeatable force….. And a community who let it happen… without any kind of actions to stop it? Again why?

I can only salute Sid cos he once again tricked you all to submission and his ego will now get to heights that will leave us all to…..

So many people who comes here and tries to explain why this defeat came about is just pathetic, I will not mention names but for god sake run and hide yourself cos you are truly pathetic!





Oh and a side note: if 1up and LCH are that big of a enemies why are the nr:2 planet in universe a LCH planet – skill? Or doesn’t 1up need that spot?

hi mr.clueless since you asked so often and long for it ill waste my time on a reply.

Was this round worse than last round ? no.
Did playing solo hurt the #3-10 alliance more than playing in the losing block? no
Did playing solo force stagnation to a delayed point of time ? yes
Does the #2 planet get incomings ? yes

Now to the longer questions which seem not clear to you and to the longer answers.

Why does a solo round benefit the round ?
The answer is simple, the ppl complaining about it, i.e. you would have been stomped under by a huge powerblock lead by 1up and 2-3 other alliances playing for pure domination. Chances to beat 1up (and its allies) would have been smaller then they are now and stagnation, due to inactive galm8s, treachery, alliance switching and cowardice would have taken place 2-3 weeks ago. Like in all previous rounds you seem to praise.
Now you ask about 1up and if they could be beaten, yes they could have been beaten by any alliance with better quality, better leadership and better abilities. Apparently that was not possible so life with it and rest assured, atleast this round you got not stompen down by a powerblock of huge size but by a single alliance. Emberassing, isnt it ?

What makes you think, blocking would have changed anything ?
Would have 1up, faced with a 4-5 alliance block, just rolled over and died ? Hardly. Blockwar ahoy and blockwars are quickly decided like previous rounds have shown. Would it matter if 1up wins or the other block ? Not really, every round there is 1-3 winners and dozends of losers. In your case you clearly reside forever in the 2nd group.

So enlighten us a last time, why would it have mattered for the #6-10 alliances who wins the round ? Clearly it wouldnt be them, with their activity and dedication even excellent policits couldnt have helped them to get anywhere on the top., Im sure THEY enjoyed the round with a more levelfield because if the bigboys play with each other (and according to pilkara and newsscans they do) they dont concentrate to beat the crap out of the rest of the universe fulltime, but only halftime (as they are not allied and its much more fun to hit roidfat tgts).

So smarty., how about a big sip of STFU beer and life with the fact you got again outplayed and beaten down. Like every round.

On a sidenote it must drive you mad that 1up even told you right in the face they would beat your ass and the rest of the universe didnt even bother to listen to your wisdom because they all realied whatever you spout, it wont change sod all for their FUN and reading replies from all over the alliances they so far enjoyed this round most.

P.S: once your become the 2nd suntzu how about you run your own alliance and show the universe what a bunch of cowards they are. I mean its quiet easy from the position of a 4th row peon to make such bigmouth statements and to cry "told you so" but your achievement list and your "i satisified the needs of 200 players and kept them all happy and motivated" list isnt too impressive so far.

[MotoX]

Aha, you seems to be one of the ignorant ones who still thinks this game is around to please alliance officers and HC:s…. well I might tell you right away It’s not! This game is built around people who want to have fun for their money they spend….

They are not interested to spend money in a game that ends after 4 weeks…. Go figure!
If you and a couple of others needs to have your ego exploited here it’s up to you but to have stagnation and no action HC:s around doesn’t help this game survive.

(I do appreciate all the folks who do all the hard work that needs to be done in a alliance tho)

We do have had rounds that 1 side won and then everyone split up and people could continue to get their money worth… why is that such a terrible faith?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Aha, you seems to be one of the ignorant ones who still thinks this game is around to please alliance officers and HC:s…. well I might tell you right away It’s not! This game is built around people who want to have fun for their money they spend….

Ure wrong there, the game is about the players. Their hc should work in thier best interest. Fun however cant be bought, either you have it or you dont have it. It doesnt matter if you win or lose.
I personally i.e. enjoyed the rounds we lost as much as those we pwned. r4 or r6 or r8 beeing prime examples. But as stated above there is no connection between politics or success and fun because if thats the case for you, youre a bad sports who only enjoys when he owns. Especially considering that those poor 50-70% of pa players who never were in a top1 alliance would be all stupid and should stop paying if you define fun over success. Simply as they would continously fail.
There can only be 1 winner the key to "fun" is the competition and the struggle for your own ranking compared to the othes, even if you cant be the first, not everyone has this goal (eventho i personally think everyone should have).

They are not interested to spend money in a game that ends after 4 weeks…. Go figure!
If you and a couple of others needs to have your ego exploited here it’s up to you but to have stagnation and no action HC:s around doesn’t help this game survive.

You dont ? Wake up, most rounds were decided after 4 weeks some even before that, anyone who still didnt get the grip that if blocks are around, rounds end earlier (seen last round with fang-mistu-phrat domination) is a fool, like the dude who thinks there is competition till the last minute. PA is not and has never been a heartbeat game. At one point one side loses and gives up and the otherone wins, this time never falls by miracle on the tickending.

We do have had rounds that 1 side won and then everyone split up and people could continue to get their money worth… why is that such a terrible faith?

No we didnt. R6 was the only round where an alliance had the chance for a comeback and that was because of their own hard work. All other rounds were decided and the winning party split up to make some final calls before the round was over. The first beaten block and the rest of the universe were at this point usually totally oblitterated and had no say in it and couldnt care less who came out ontop of this final struggle. Prime examples r9 r9.5 r10 r10.5 r8 r7 r5 r4 r3

Especially since it becomes lately a fashion to simply give up once its appearant you have lost. Alliances nowadays simply throw earlier the towel and just call it a night on the round. See Fang or Phratkos or even VVOMM as an example. While in r4 and r6 furgion block kept on fighting todays alliances simply break apart or disband under fire. Same could be said about r9 wolfpack.
So your point to call for a blockwar is silly and "told you so" doesnt fit the general feedback ppl give about this round. As far as im aware the majority so far enjoyed the round, eventho it becomes now appearant that 1up seems to have won. Solowin, give them some credit.
Beeing jealous or just dont wanting them to win doesnt make this round less enjoyable or doesnt indicate ppl are having less fun ingame. It only shows youre a bad sport.

[Razorback]

P.s: whats the alternative, everyone and his dog allies now to bash 1up.
All alliances launch their ships and the kitchensink and after 2 weeks of hard struggling finally 1up gives up and is beaten to rank 2-4. LCH or another top4 alliance wins the round and can say "damn we showed those 100 players who outplayed us" ?
Why ?
If you leave all your personal sentiments behind, are you advertising to gangbang ppl who are successfull as the way to go? So that some lesser active, lesser successfull and lesser "skilled" players can overtake them 1 week before the round ends ?
Why would the netural player who has no more hatred towards 1up than to any other alliance want to get his fun out of that ? Whats the fun ? Is free roids fun ? I cant find an explination really to that especially not why LCH would deserve a victory in that case, or any other top5 alliance for that matter.
And i very much doubt the majority of the universe, i.e. the ppl from rank 6 downward really get their fun out of someone else winning over someone else. Cause if they do, it wouldnt matter for them in the first place to involve themself into this fight.

[rshih]

I always thought #2 planet in uni was z00f and HR......

[Tis]

dont let reality get in teh way of a good troll young rshih

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Razorback

P.s: whats the alternative, everyone and his dog allies now to bash 1up.
All alliances launch their ships and the kitchensink and after 2 weeks of hard struggling finally 1up gives up and is beaten to rank 2-4. LCH or another top4 alliance wins the round and can say "damn we showed those 100 players who outplayed us" ?
Why ?
If you leave all your personal sentiments behind, are you advertising to gangbang ppl who are successfull as the way to go? So that some lesser active, lesser successfull and lesser "skilled" players can overtake them 1 week before the round ends ?
Why would the netural player who has no more hatred towards 1up than to any other alliance want to get his fun out of that ? Whats the fun ? Is free roids fun ? I cant find an explination really to that especially not why LCH would deserve a victory in that case, or any other top5 alliance for that matter.
And i very much doubt the majority of the universe, i.e. the ppl from rank 6 downward really get their fun out of someone else winning over someone else. Cause if they do, it wouldnt matter for them in the first place to involve themself into this fight.

Yes I think that would be fun if anyone could organize that. Prevent this round from stagnating. If we can kick 1up down a bit in 2 weeks, that still gives them some time to come back again. I wouldn't mind a last minute decision. If nothing happens then this round will get dull (it already is). When I was in a 'rank 6 downward' alliance I got a lot of fun involving myself into the fight over who gets to be #1.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Especially since it becomes lately a fashion to simply give up once its appearant you have lost. Alliances nowadays simply throw earlier the towel and just call it a night on the round. See Fang or Phratkos or even VVOMM as an example.

as far as i agree with your posts i HAVE to say that not all in vvomm gave up....just 4/5 ;-)

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Especially since it becomes lately a fashion to simply give up once its appearant you have lost. Alliances nowadays simply throw earlier the towel and just call it a night on the round. See Fang or Phratkos or even VVOMM as an example. While in r4 and r6 furgion block kept on fighting todays alliances simply break apart or disband under fire.

Erm, I wouldn't call it throwing in the towel, I'd call it being realistic and not have impossible dreams and goals for this round, as it will only make the dissappointment greater in the end.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Razorback

So enlighten us a last time, why would it have mattered for the #6-10 alliances who wins the round ? Clearly it wouldnt be them, with their activity and dedication even excellent policits couldnt have helped them to get anywhere on the top., Im sure THEY enjoyed the round with a more levelfield because if the bigboys play with each other (and according to pilkara and newsscans they do) they dont concentrate to beat the crap out of the rest of the universe fulltime, but only halftime (as they are not allied and its much more fun to hit roidfat tgts).

ooooo, lemme just say, focht is incredibly stupit, smug, and gay!

1up starts in pa, take back 100 active, dedicated, skilled players from other alliances, weakening the other allies, then focht kicks the very same allies in the nuts and complains about their skill, activity and politics, gg. Did you know that #6-#10 allies recruit? NoS has recruited approx 10-20 pløayers that hasnt played before, i'm sure others are in the same situation. If you were a halfdescent alliance, you would have started with 75 harcore players and recruited 25 n00bs to help the community a bit.

Prolly everything i just posted is wrong, and yes i should prolly get a clue, but focht, youre still an idiot that cant separate your head from your arse, goodbye mr idiot.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

ooooo, lemme just say, focht is incredibly stupit, smug, and gay!

1up starts in pa, take back 100 active, dedicated, skilled players from other alliances, weakening the other allies, then focht kicks the very same allies in the nuts and complains about their skill, activity and politics, gg. Did you know that #6-#10 allies recruit? NoS has recruited approx 10-20 pløayers that hasnt played before, i'm sure others are in the same situation. If you were a halfdescent alliance, you would have started with 75 harcore players and recruited 25 n00bs to help the community a bit.

Prolly everything i just posted is wrong, and yes i should prolly get a clue, but focht, youre still an idiot that cant separate your head from your arse, goodbye mr idiot.

a) 1up doesnt consist of purely recruits from other alliances, many ppl returned for 1up from retirement
b) you cant "recruit" from other alliances itself, either the ppl leave to join something new- better or they stay, its always a 2 way street.
c) 1up had before roundstart more offers to join them then places. Hence they didnt need to headhunt or recruit, they just sorted out who applied.
d) i didnt play and dont play, nor did i get involved with 1up beyond the advisor stage (beeing asked about the loyalty or history of players, which i did not only for 1up but also occasionally for other alliances)
e) even 1up has ppl that never played before, (you can only take pax as the standard) your point ?

Thank you for your very interesting and good sorted reply drunkenviking, you make your name all honors. A drunken dumbo from the woods.

btw if you havent realised yet, you were just owned - special thanks to nos for providing a clueless idiot to my ownage. Oh and ofc my mom and everyone i know. without your help i would have never owned this guy in the way i did.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Razorback

a) 1up doesnt consist of purely recruits from other alliances, many ppl returned for 1up from retirement

where did i say purely? enlighten me smart one!

b) you cant "recruit" from other alliances itself, either the ppl leave to join something new- better or they stay, its always a 2 way street.

well, your most actives, your command and such came from other allies, if 1up "stole them" or if they came asking to join, i dont care, point is, 1up now has them. And yes you can recruit from other alliances, thats a simple matter of contacting someone asking if they want to join.

c) 1up had before roundstart more offers to join them then places. Hence they didnt need to headhunt or recruit, they just sorted out who applied.

exactly why i, me, myself(not NoS) think you didnt help the community much by taking in 100 established instead of stopping at 75-80 and reserve places for n00bs. I know it's not just 1up that did this, but you can be called the "worst in the class" with the 2 op vouch recruitment.

d) i didnt play and dont play, nor did i get involved with 1up beyond the advisor stage (beeing asked about the loyalty or history of players, which i did not only for 1up but also occasionally for other alliances)

where did i say you where? you sound like you want to remove yourself from something 1up did wrong, did they do anything wrong that you wont aknowledge yourself to?

e) even 1up has ppl that never played before, (you can only take pax as the standard) your point ?

you have ppl that didnt play any of thsses rounds?: r1-r10,5.
Yer, that means you recruited newbies in order to train them/implent them into the community....

Thank you for your very interesting and good sorted reply drunkenviking, you make your name all honors. A drunken dumbo from the woods.

I dont give a damn about my name/rep, tho its funny to see you guard yours with BS above your neck. You are, and prolly will allways be, a smug arse.

btw if you havent realised yet, you were just owned

you were just pee'd on and owned right back......you smell of it!

- special thanks to nos for providing a clueless idiot to my ownage.

You must have a penis far up your arse, where did i say my points of views were representative of NoS? NoS doesnt awnser to my soloraids, they tell their members to keep a low profile in public view, i'm just a bad member.

Oh and ofc my mom and everyone i know. without your help i would have never owned this guy in the way i did.

you cant own with BS.

I attacked you(not 1up), as the person who apears to enjoy kicking ppl thats already lying down, take your BS and shove it up yer moms arse.

excuse my bad language, feel free to report me to any mod and get my forum account closed.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

excuse my bad language, feel free to report me to any mod and get my forum account closed.

You're excused but try not to make a habit of it as it's hardly conducive to enlightened debate. If you want to insult someone at the end of your post at least put some effort into it

[Treveler]

1up did recruit newbies. They recruited a group of ppl from another game who have never played pa before. So that argument do not hold any truth to it either.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

where did i say purely? enlighten me smart one!

well, your most actives, your command and such came from other allies, if 1up "stole them" or if they came asking to join, i dont care, point is, 1up now has them. And yes you can recruit from other alliances, thats a simple matter of contacting someone asking if they want to join.

"your" doesnt fit as im not 1up. all alliances contain of players who have been part of many other alliances in the past and left for their own reasons. Even nos has this. You cant "recruit" away ppl if they dont want to join and 1up hasnt asked anyone to join, ppl purely applied on thier own wish and noone was "prepicked".

exactly why i, me, myself(not NoS) think you didnt help the community much by taking in 100 established instead of stopping at 75-80 and reserve places for n00bs. I know it's not just 1up that did this, but you can be called the "worst in the class" with the 2 op vouch recruitment.

Thats again where you are wrong, 1up did reserve places for ~20 new players who never played pax before, some of them returning vets from r3-9 some from another game (DG). So what is the difference ?
Btw 1up didnt have a 2 op vouch recruitment. It required 1op or 3 members to call you a friend to put you on the initial list. This list was proceeded (since 1up had more applicants then places) by the hc and they decided who they wanted and who not. You have to make such decisions if hardcoded alliances are limited and i think its a fair way to do so.

where did i say you where? you sound like you want to remove yourself from something 1up did wrong, did they do anything wrong that you wont aknowledge yourself to?

You constantly keep saying "you" and apply assumptions about 1up to me, which since i have nothing to do with them, good or bad, is simply wrong. I pointed that out to you and even this reply is full of those statements by you, so you seem not have learned anything.

you have ppl that didnt play any of thsses rounds?: r1-r10,5.
Yer, that means you recruited newbies in order to train them/implent them into the community....

Yes, like stated a few times above. the players from DG. As a sidenote what does a player from r1-9 have in common with the new game ? You could say the "newbies" you refer to should have had no inet in the past and havent played any clones if you compare pax with pa.
Many ppl didnt play pax at all and took their time to get back into the new game. I suppose ull agree with me that pax has as much to do with pa as any clone or any other spacegame.

Your insults mean nothing your arguments were owned and so it wont change much if you try to make refers to my sexual habits or what type of person i am. Frankly noone cares about that on here anways. Now go the special bus is waiting.

[DrunkenViking]

you had/has nothing to do with 1up now? thought you said you were an advisor of some sort?
Still question 1up recruitment policy, vets from r1-9 does know very well what's needed to do wel, complete noobs dont, same goes for ppl from clones. pa and pax arent that different, its changed, but its still planetarion.

1up is what i call "fury allstar team" consisting of the best from fury throughout the years, i wouldnt call any of those n00bs.

again, final line, i dont like you for kicking on ppl lying down, complaining about their officers/high counsils and organisation, when 1up did recruit(either they asked, or if they came all bu themself) many officers and key persons from other alliances. If yopu think you own me, or think that everyone thinks you own me, fine, but you're still a piece of shit, nothings gonna change that.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

you had/has nothing to do with 1up now? thought you said you were an advisor of some sort?

I was before the round started, stopped once the round started.

Still question 1up recruitment policy, vets from r1-9 does know very well what's needed to do wel, complete noobs dont, same goes for ppl from clones. pa and pax arent that different, its changed, but its still planetarion.

You say ppl from clones dont know what whats required to do well in pax but ppl who havent played for ages do ? That doesnt make sense. PaX is as much different to pa as i.e. the clone plantia or all the others out there.

1up is what i call "fury allstar team" consisting of the best from fury throughout the years, i wouldnt call any of those n00bs.

Shows how much you really know, i cant help it but you make over and over points which only support the initial "clueless" call. How is 1up fury related ? considering many ppl in it never were fury in the first place - like all the ppl who came from the disbanded ely or from dg or from other alliances? On a sidenote "beeing once fury" is hardly an achievement or a label. Many ppl have passed through fury during the many rounds its existed. Those ppl are now spread over all many alliances. Just take mistu as a prime example here.

again, final line, i dont like you for kicking on ppl lying down, complaining about their officers/high counsils and organisation, when 1up did recruit(either they asked, or if they came all bu themself) many officers and key persons from other alliances. If yopu think you own me, or think that everyone thinks you own me, fine, but you're still a piece of shit, nothings gonna change that.

You are a little sailormouth but that wont change the fact that ppl are free to go wherever they want. All applicants to 1up joined on their own wish and without beeing headhunted, so again you failed to give any proof for "recruiting them away" ? Should 1up turn ppl down because they were in another alliance in previous rounds ? The ppl left their alliance and joined a new one, before a round started, thats like daily business in every alliance -even in nos- so whats special here again ? You are now grabbing straws.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Razorback

You say ppl from clones dont know what whats required to do well in pax but ppl who havent played for ages do ? That doesnt make sense. PaX is as much different to pa as i.e. the clone plantia or all the others out there.

my english and sentence buildup arent that good, sorry, ment that ppl that come from clones also knows whats needed to perform. not the opposite.

Shows how much you really know, i cant help it but you make over and over points which only support the initial "clueless" call. How is 1up fury related ? considering many ppl in it never were fury in the first place - like all the ppl who came from the disbanded ely or from dg or from other alliances? On a sidenote "beeing once fury" is hardly an achievement or a label. Many ppl have passed through fury during the many rounds its existed. Those ppl are now spread over all many alliances. Just take mistu as a prime example here.

gimmie an exact number of how many in 1up that has been fury in the past, and i'll settle with that. Stop making it sound like 70% of 1up havent been fury, cause i doubt anyone would believe that.

All applicants to 1up joined on their own wish and without beeing headhunted, so again you failed to give any proof for "recruiting them away" ?

i said they could have been picked, or have come by themself, i dont care, 1up has them, cant you read?

Should 1up turn ppl down because they were in another alliance in previous rounds ? The ppl left their alliance and joined a new one, before a round started, thats like daily business in every alliance -even in nos- so whats special here again ? You are now grabbing straws.

Like i said, many of the alliances you kick for their lacking initiative or whatever can to some extent be excused by key ppl leaving for 1up(ofc not a sole reason or anything like that). Fact is that when an alliance can pick the best from the others, itas self explainatory that those alliances gets weakened. You'd only have to take 5 key members of each top10 alliance, and their ability would drop 25-50%(the figures i make up in my head, but still believe).

If you want to kick alliances ranked from #6 and down, you should get a clue. They are the ones who has to live with incs from top5 allies every day. NoS, as an example, gets 70% of the incs from top5 alliances, you stated earlier that pilkara and newsscans shows that top5 alliances are mainly battling eachother, thats BS. top5 allies dont land on eachother that often, they mostly tie up fleets. And most the roids(i'd guess around 80%) top5 alliances sit on are taken from r6 alliances and down, know this so not really any point in saying different.

Note:
i'm not complaing about the incs the smaller allies get, but the smugness and lies that you run around shouting. And for that i take my sailormouth and say that you're an arse.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

gimmie an exact number of how many in 1up that has been fury in the past, and i'll settle with that. Stop making it sound like 70% of 1up havent been fury, cause i doubt anyone would believe that.

What would numbers change for you ? you made it perfectly clear you didnt ask for numbers when you made your assumptions and "keypersons leaving their alliance for 1up" and "all of 1up are ex fury" is kinda contradicting or not ? You cant claim 1up harvested the topnotches of all alliances on one hand and say on the otherhand that 1up is only their kind.
I personally only know of about ~30 ppl who were not fury and are 1up, but as i said im not involved in the latest memberbase audit. So i invite you to ask one of the 1up hc to give you current numbers.

i said they could have been picked, or have come by themself, i dont care, 1up has them, cant you read?

1up has players like every other alliance who decided to play there, i dont see what makes it in this case special while its in other cases normal.

Like i said, many of the alliances you kick for their lacking initiative or whatever can to some extent be excused by key ppl leaving for 1up(ofc not a sole reason or anything like that). Fact is that when an alliance can pick the best from the others, itas self explainatory that those alliances gets weakened. You'd only have to take 5 key members of each top10 alliance, and their ability would drop 25-50%(the figures i make up in my head, but still believe).

First of all please tell me exact numbers to back up your statements of how many "key-players" all the top10 alliances lost and how many in those cases were "core" players and not just switching mercenaries. I.e. eclipse players who just fought for 1 round under a banner or the players fang constantly wins or loses respectively. On a different question are those ppl keyplayers ? i doubt that and further i can only recommend you restructure your alliance if 5 players make up 25-50% of your organisation and or attackpower- or overall performance.
Because frankly, without any irony, if thats the case for you, its understandable your ranking doesnt look too well.

If you want to kick alliances ranked from #6 and down, you should get a clue. They are the ones who has to live with incs from top5 allies every day. NoS, as an example, gets 70% of the incs from top5 alliances, you stated earlier that pilkara and newsscans shows that top5 alliances are mainly battling eachother, thats BS. top5 allies dont land on eachother that often, they mostly tie up fleets. And most the roids(i'd guess around 80%) top5 alliances sit on are taken from r6 alliances and down, know this so not really any point in saying different.

first of all a statistical advice, you cant claim "x %" to prove your point without giving the average amount of incomings you receive. If you only have 2 incomings and 1 is from a top5 alliance thats already 50% but for the overall matter a rather weak argument.
Top5 alliances are not batteling each other ? I recommend you talk to some Vision, Mistu, LCH and try to determine where their roids go, i mean if they are not under attack, where do they lose their roids to ?
80% of the roids are taken from rank 6-10 alliances ? lol. Check pilkara and history abit. if that was the case those guys would constantly lose roids and the top5 would constantly gain roids. Thats not the case so i think your % argument can freely be dismissed (especially with the raw amount lch lost during their struggle for the #1 rank or 1up in their worst weeks).

Note:
i'm not complaing about the incs the smaller allies get, but the smugness and lies that you run around shouting. And for that i take my saiormouth and say that you're an arse.

Lies ? i atleast can base my claims on facts and dont need to resort to make unfound utopian claims.
alliance #6-10 would have lost 523k roids if 80% of all top5 allianceroids came from them. By claiming thisthose 5 allainces must have been daily farmed around the clock on all planets, considering their average roidgrowth- score doesnt imply such a vaste amount of roidproduction. Also if the top5 alliances werent battleing each other, how coems lch - 1up gasp opened so immensely and top5 alliances have negative growth in their histories ?

[DrunkenViking]

alliances ranked #6 down do roid themself even if they loose roids to top5 allies, so your argument is fcked up, its the alliances down the ranks that still initiate roids, and those roids mainly end up at top5, I myself has had incs from top5 planets 5+ times this round, 2 of those attacks were waves with all 3 fleets(including a scanplanet launching a single ship alongside), and thats where my roids are(and my galaxy are not big, and i'm not a good target). I sit in NoS BC chan and check holstile coords towards arbiter, and the arbiter is correct, so i'm not lieing when saying most incs are top5 alliances. Giving a percentage that is close to correct for the case i'm in with NoS.
And btw, even if you've never had it that way, in many alliances the officers are very important, a loss of 2 ior 3 and 2 or 3 frequent defenders/attackers leaves the alliance with a lot less ability.

you said that 70'ish % of 1up has been fury(or 30% not fury), thats why i'd call 1up "fury allstars".

if you want numbers on alliances thats lost key ppl to 1up, have top 10 alliance hc's confirm/deny that they've lost key ppl to 1up, i doubt i'm far off. Either way, 1up hc wont list the exact numbers they have here for obvious reasons.

btw, i dont see you backing your statements with other "facts" that what you say is "facts". So till you do back up your own statements, dont tell me to back up mine.

still, sitting there acting like the winner, kicking down on smaller alliances(rank 6 and down), and claiming you've nothing to with 1up, i'd call stupidity and smugness. If any alliances should be kicked on it would be the top5(except 1up ofc) for not making a block and taking down 1up before it was too late to avoid stagnation.
Yes, you'll prolly say that the top 5 alliances did block. But i'd call what they did a mutual understanding of mainly hitting 1up, they didnt go full force to bring 1up down.

As for your example of the lch-1up fight, that doesnt paint the picture of where most the top5 alliance fleets go/went.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

And btw, even if you've never had it that way, in many alliances the officers are very important, a loss of 2 ior 3 and 2 or 3 frequent defenders/attackers leaves the alliance with a lot less ability.

Thats a sad thing but really noones fault but your own. The importance of the ppl apparently wasnt enough for them to STAY with you. They left you. There is no mysterious drive behind that.

you said that 70'ish % of 1up has been fury(or 30% not fury), thats why i'd call 1up "fury allstars".

Thats not exactly what i said, i said to my knowledge atleast 30% (which is a sizeable amount) were never fury. Considering you claim most players are stolen from other alliances this would mean all the 70% you class "fury" would have been in other alliances before.
As a sidenote, many players circled through fury in its long existance, so i ask you why does a player who played 4 rounds in Xanadu but only 1 round in fury gets labeled "fury" when he joins eclipse or 1up ? (the names are freely exchangeable as are the durations of rounds they spend in 1 or more alliances)
There is no fury status above all others so any assumptions based on what alliance ppl were in in the past are simply moot. Otherwise all mistu command would be 1up or ? considering most of them were also fury once in their past. In adastras case also nos and wp for even longer durations.

if you want numbers on alliances thats lost key ppl to 1up, have top 10 alliance hc's confirm/deny that they've lost key ppl to 1up, i doubt i'm far off. Either way, 1up hc wont list the exact numbers they have here for obvious reasons.

what is key ppl ? before you so violently use a term please specify it. Is a 200 roid planet who defends every night and never attacks a keyplayer ?`or is it the top5 planet who does always reasonably well in the top100 ? or is it the crap planet who is a very active bc - dc ? or is it the guy who has no time to play the game apart from 2h a day but rushes for newsscans and is always online when attacks land (thats his 2h window at work). So who of those are keyplayers ?
Since the majorty of players joined 1up before ticks started how can you predict who is a keyplayer ? I have seen previous round winners go totally idle, while the last scanplanet of last round plays for a top20 spot.
Furthermore consider an 100 player alliance has usually 20+ commandmembers how much is 1 officer loss worth in that ? thats 5% ? Surely something that can be replaced.

btw, i dont see you backing your statements with other "facts" that what you say is "facts". So till you do back up your own statements, dont tell me to back up mine.

not ? i gave figures and i offered you facts. Numbers. The fact 1up has spaces for "new players" the fact 1up has less furies than you think and last but not least the fact that the top5 alliances battle very well with each other. All those statements are easy to prove and to check by you, just convo a 1up hc or ask the players in question - alliances in question. Yourself.
Furthermore i demolished your highly rediculous % claims by using pure math.

still, sitting there acting like the winner, kicking down on smaller alliances(rank 6 and down), and claiming you've nothing to with 1up, i'd call stupidity and smugness. If any alliances should be kicked on it would be the top5(except 1up ofc) for not making a block and taking down 1up before it was too late to avoid stagnation.
Yes, you'll prolly say that the top 5 alliances did block. But i'd call what they did a mutual understanding of mainly hitting 1up, they didnt go full force to bring 1up down.

how is not playing with 1up stupidity ? Get a grip on reality tard.
Top 5 alliances played their round and WHY would they need to kill 1up to prove anything ?
There will always be 1 winner and whoever it is doesnt matter in the end at all. The round ends a reset comes and a new round verges with new cards. Top5 alliances got outplayed, in a solo universe. Thats nothing bad, rest assured they would have been outplayed in a block universe aswell. if not by 1up by some other alliance who has 2 buddies beating the shit out of the rest (aka last round). How that would have changed anything i personally cant see.

As for your example of the lch-1up fight, that doesnt paint the picture of where most the top5 alliance fleets go/went.

Not ? I think it did. Ask someone from lch to enlighten you about the amount of 1up incomings they had on their way down.

You keep making assumptions based on nothing but your deluded believes that "the evil" is out there. Your hatred and maybe jealousy of 1up certainly tainted your view on facts and the voices not only of biased but also of neutral players to your stand. Go convo some LCH hc and dont forget to come back and tell us the results about how much top5 incomings their receive and why they went down from their run for the topspot.

As for fleetmovements, 1up was always advocating hitting the biggest tgts and the hostile hotspots. This ofc includes whole galaxys so in a radom round its bound to happen that some of your players get hit aswell. But i personally doubt that nos (the example you brought up) was ever on 1ups dinnerlist for the night as the sole tgt. collaterale damage hits is a common thing in random rounds so thats something all fractions have to deal with.

Btw what are you whining about, in a random universe with the current amount of players its simply reality that the top5 alliances represent 60-70 % of all incomings as thats their amount of activity on the total playerfigures. To support that you could calc the amount of score gathered in the top5 compared to the rest of the universe and furthermore you could compare the activity levels and amouts of incomings. Many alliances in the top6-x area have given up, take Fang as an example, where kj admits himself only ~10 ppl still care to login or to play at this stage. While i bet the level in 1up is 90+ ppl who still care, as for other top5 alliances (eventho maybe not that hight).

[DrunkenViking]

when are you gonna listen and understand that its not hatriot towards 1up, but towatrds your smug attitude.
you talk of 1up as "we", and you praise them while kicking down on the other alliances, while still saying you're not 1up. I call that stupidity, not they you dont play. Keymembers are the ones that spend hours on hours with the sole purpous of giving something to their alliance, may it be scans, ships or BC abilities. If 5 of those ppl were BC's, you yourself seem to aknowledge that as 25% loss in command(btw, not every alliance has that many officers), and 25% loss in command is serious for most alliances when it comes to ability and morale. And yes, since fury didnt openly recruit, i believe ex-fury to be fury, even if it was 1 round or 5. You did not demolish my % with pure maths, like i said, even if top5 allies take the roids down the chain, that doesnt mean they dont roid themself. As for my planet being waved, meaning that a top5 1up planet see's me wothy of all his fleets for 24 hrs when i'm in a galaxy not really worth mentioning and with no other planets ingal getting incs, that sounds pathetic to me, considering i was at the minimum of his value limit. Also, that lch took/gave a beating for 2 weeks doesnt mean that all the top5 alliances give eachother hell all the time, as you make it sound.

final word i'll say, and bye bye planetarion.

[Razorback]

you will hardly find a post where i use the word "we" if so please quote it to prove it.

how do you determine keymembers before tickstart, are you somekind of fortuneteller who knows how much time they invest? im not so anyone leaving an alliance for another cant be a keymember for 2 reasons.
1) lack of loyalty
2) unpredictable activity in the upcoming round (remember there is this other game called RL we all have to play aswell)

You make it sound like 1up picked from all alliances purely hc and officers, which is not the case. As a result any claim "1up lowered the overall strenght of x alliance for y %" is purely your wild estimation and down to your own assumptions. You, as a nos player, cant determine how important whoever is for another alliance. So the only actual claim you can make and prove is "what damage did 1up do to nos". Simple question really, tell us? how many keyplayers did nos lose ?

Your last paragraph clearly shows you dont understand the word "random". This round is FFA- free for all- you can roid and waste your fleets on whoever you feel like it, aslong as he isnt in your alliance. So claiming "unfair" or any special treatment because you received from the topguys is moot. Simply because its perfectly legit. Youre not allied to 1up (or the top 5). youre juicy, so why should you be excluded from their targetlist ? Not to mention that some ppl might think ure a twat and hence give you incomings for simply personal reasons, not giving a damn about roids or ranking.

On a last reply, you mean that out of the 7 weeks this round runs lch received massive incomings by other top 5 alliances doesnt count for you ? Mathematically thats roughly 1/3rd of the total round....

[DrunkenViking]

you still cant read i assume.

1) lack of loyalty
2) unpredictable activity in the upcoming round (remember there is this other game called RL we all have to play aswell)

fair enough, however activity previous round can tell a lot about activity in upcoming round.

You make it sound like 1up picked from all alliances purely hc and officers, which is not the case.

i made an example with officers after you came up with the 5% officetrthingy, tried to simplify it for you so you could understand the principals.

So the only actual claim you can make and prove is "what damage did 1up do to nos". Simple question really, tell us? how many keyplayers did nos lose ?

i cant make that claim since we didnt loose anyone to 1up, i was talking about top10, wp and mistu as an example.

Your last paragraph clearly shows you dont understand the word "random". This round is FFA- free for all- you can roid and waste your fleets on whoever you feel like it, aslong as he isnt in your alliance. So claiming "unfair" or any special treatment because you received from the topguys is moot. Simply because its perfectly legit. Youre not allied to 1up (or the top 5). youre juicy, so why should you be excluded from their targetlist ? Not to mention that some ppl might think ure a twat and hence give you incomings for simply personal reasons, not giving a damn about roids or ranking.

and if you didnt understand by now, that example was put up to show where a random 1up/mistu/rock player would use all his fleets for 24 hrs, and it was an attempt to crack your credibility when you make it sound like the top alliances mostly hit eachother. I take the incomings i get, and i dont whine about it(go ask a random NoSser if they've ever heard me complain when being bashed/didnt get defence if you dont believe me), it was an example, example

On a last reply, you mean that out of the 7 weeks this round runs lch received massive incomings by other top 5 alliances doesnt count for you ? Mathematically thats roughly 1/3rd of the total round....

than for christ sake stop making it sound like its been like that all round, the last couple of weeks there has been a few attemts for big attacks, and even fewer succeeding. Nobody put their hart into it.

now awnser me this: do you enjoy kicking on the alliances ranked #6 down because you helped 1up win and are their muppet(define as you please)?

[DrunkenViking]

Now i gotta move the rest of my stuff into the car and get moving, wont be replying anymore bacause i cant, so dont run more wannabesarcastic BS questions aimed at me, ty, and goodbye.