Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Alliance Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   round 35 politics (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=198445)

izverg 8 Jan 2010 21:36

round 35 politics
 
since there will be no fortress gals, wich many alliances said fortress gals caused big blocks, can we see this round no blocks forming ?
I really mean whoever will become top1, will we see no 5-6ally block forming against it this time? or it will be happen once again as previous rounds

Mzyxptlk 8 Jan 2010 22:36

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by izverg (Post 3187170)
since there will be no fortress gals

Says who?

CBA 9 Jan 2010 03:16

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by izverg (Post 3187170)
since there will be no fortress gals

lol?

Greg 9 Jan 2010 05:54

Re: round 35 politics
 
Fortress gals wont disappear unless exling does,which wont happen.
Blocks always occur when a massive force needs to be stopped that one against germany worked in the 40s,,hmm could england russia and USA stop apprime?

booji 9 Jan 2010 11:40

Re: round 35 politics
 
I cant see the lack of fortress gals meaning that there will not be blocks. If an alliance is winning there is still the same incentive to team up with a few others to take it down, it may mean that it is slightly easier to do so meaning the block war does not last so long.

The one thing it will mean is that we are unlikely to see blocks against alliances that are back in 4th or 5th but who are likely to climb up. There will be more opportunity to knock them down once they reach the top so less need to attack them preemptively - not that blocks were ever very good at identifying threats before they occur anyway.

Kafir 9 Jan 2010 22:42

Re: round 35 politics
 
nature of this game has shown that there's been blocks and can't see why this round would be different. Blocks are unfair, but still they always seem to appear no matter what ally the fight against. I hope this round the block will go after Asc and App like it did last round. The round will tell...

Mzyxptlk 9 Jan 2010 22:47

Re: round 35 politics
 
"Blocks are unfair, so I hope they'll happen to someone else."

Nice attitude. :)

Kafir 9 Jan 2010 23:24

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3187238)
"Blocks are unfair, so I hope they'll happen to someone else."

Nice attitude. :)

Ofcourse! :D I've been saying that blocks are bads but as they always seem to form, then it's better if it's formed against my enemies then against me.

Wishmaster 9 Jan 2010 23:58

Re: round 35 politics
 
I cant see how apprime can manage to NOT win this round!
They got the gathered forces of excessum this round! From pt1 even.

Kafir 10 Jan 2010 09:50

Re: round 35 politics
 
Everytime there has been block formed we have seen lots of whinings from the members in the alliance who fight against the block, but not too many 'blocks are bad' -messages from people who are involved in the current block. And because the block targetted alliance(s) changes at times there's players who have been in both sides of the block but still only whine when being playing against the block. So, aren't those players also showing attitude that they have problems with formng a block only when it's against them?

[B5]Londo 10 Jan 2010 10:04

Re: round 35 politics
 
Blocks are not something that are made to pick on one particular alliance; they take a great deal of effort to make and maintain and they only ever appear in order to stop a single ally running away with the round.
The old pre-PAX formation of blocks pre-round then playing for victory long term in them does not really happen. Blocks normally only last as long as is needed to stop the ally they oppose; who usually prolong it with a counter block.
I guess what im saying that blocks are a good thing and irreplaceable if u want to have any choice of avoiding r28 or r29 type total dominance by a single ally.
And ofc ppl moan, its a pa players nature but really the moaning is either, because the block is working (Good) or to show how great they themselves are by highlighting the numerical superiority of the opponents.
And fortresses are really a different issue; blocks were here first.

Mzyxptlk 10 Jan 2010 11:31

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wishmaster (Post 3187241)
I cant see how apprime can manage to NOT win this round!
They got the gathered forces of excessum this round! From pt1 even.

From tick 1, until tick 300? :)

JonnyBGood 10 Jan 2010 14:17

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo (Post 3187250)
I guess what im saying that blocks are a good thing and irreplaceable if u want to have any choice of avoiding r28 or r29 type total dominance by a single ally.

This only really happens if there is an alliance which is a lot better than its competition out there though. We had a number of rounds, 20, 22, 27 which didn't result in any alliance dominating the round despite the absence of a prolonged block. In a round like this one if Euphoria are as good as Apprime there's no reason for a block to develop until that situation is resolved. Like Ascendancy versus Apprime in r33.

[B5]Londo 10 Jan 2010 15:21

Re: round 35 politics
 
I was certainly not advocating blocks as something that should be aimed at; i was simply trying to counter the opinion that seemed to prevail in this thread that they were necessarily a bad thing.
I clearly stated they were an instrument for stopping allies running away with the round, by implication being overly dominating, which is rare enough.
Quite frankly the game is more fun either without blocks or with them being fluid, allies moving in and out situation changing day by day. Too often the battle lines harden into a long boring and acrimonious slog.
However I have no confidence Euphoria are anything like as good as Apprime given the latter has taken the best of Asc. (Tho not playing last round makes my knowledge of the comparative strengths very unreliable indeed)

Wishmaster 11 Jan 2010 02:54

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3187251)
From tick 1, until tick 300? :)

:(
not sure if I should laugh or cry.
cry I think! :(

Wishmaster 11 Jan 2010 02:55

Re: round 35 politics
 
btw. Great work guys. This round there wont be any fortress gals at all! :p

snoops^ 11 Jan 2010 04:30

Re: round 35 politics
 
Zik fortresses ftw

Mista 11 Jan 2010 05:40

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3187255)
This only really happens if there is an alliance which is a lot better than its competition out there though. We had a number of rounds, 20, 22, 27 which didn't result in any alliance dominating the round despite the absence of a prolonged block. In a round like this one if Euphoria are as good as Apprime there's no reason for a block to develop until that situation is resolved. Like Ascendancy versus Apprime in r33.

Referencing last rounds performance where App had major incs for prolonged periods (and previous rounds as well) and took the hits quite effeciently, versus Euph who have never been tested in such a way, I think its a stetch to assume the question "if Euphoria are as good as App". Not to mention the differences in the core groups and playing style for each. It's not that hard to understand how other allies besides Euph might forsee App running away with it sooner rather than later if their value growth isn't stunted early and prolonged.

JonnyBGood 11 Jan 2010 06:11

Re: round 35 politics
 
Er I wasn't actually implying that Euphoria are as good as apprime. It was a hypothetical, hence the "if" and I have no idea what you mean by "assuming the question". I'm not assuming anything, I have no real idea how good exactly euphoria are. My post was just to say that if two alliances are as good as each other then blocks don't need to develop in order for a relatively balanced round to result. I felt, perhaps incorrectly that londo viewed blocks as something that every round required in order to prevent the #1 alliance from dominating totally and was merely looking to offer evidence that events can transpire differently. That said it looks relatively even so far so maybe we can avoid building blocks and writing off the #1 alliance as shit for another few ticks...

[B5]Londo 11 Jan 2010 10:22

Re: round 35 politics
 
If two allies are quite close in strength; or even if there is a great disparity but the smaller ally is very determined, thus tieing down the bigger ally, there is idd no reason why blocks should form.
Indeed most allies usually see their best interests in evading the war and thus blocks if at all possible - this was certainly true in the mid to late 20's (rounds not years) and may have contributed to the stomping great asc wins. Ppl seem to have now become accustomed to the idea that Asc (or now App) will win by a great margin with apparent ease and this makes blocks more likely since ppl will be less willing to wait and see if euph really can take on app since blocking too late was a problem against asc.... thus a block may not be necessary but may form anyway simply for fear it will be necessary, as can be shown that (I believe) DLR and Euph are already allied, which given DLR was the ally that had before last round held out of wars or on the fringes if it could exemplifies the change Im trying to point out.

Gio2k 14 Jan 2010 14:13

Re: round 35 politics
 
so, how long before Apprime gets bashed for the first time this round? We should have a parallel game to place bets on such things :D

Gabriel 14 Jan 2010 14:31

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg (Post 3187208)
hmm could england russia and USA stop apprime?

Only if oil suddenly spurted out of lith soil


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kafir (Post 3187237)
I hope this round the block will go after Asc and App like it did last round. The round will tell...

Why asc? they're no threat to anyone except your daughters!

eltsin 14 Jan 2010 16:59

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabriel (Post 3187425)
Why asc? they're no threat to anyone except your daughters!

You forgot the mums!

Wishmaster 14 Jan 2010 17:34

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gio2k (Post 3187423)
so, how long before Apprime gets bashed for the first time this round? We should have a parallel game to place bets on such things :D

looks to me that euph are doing a fairly good job atm.
Why would any other alliances join in? 1v1 as it is, is ideal for all others.

Mzyxptlk 14 Jan 2010 18:04

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabriel (Post 3187425)
Why asc? they're no threat to anyone except your sons!


Kafir 14 Jan 2010 18:15

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wishmaster (Post 3187430)
looks to me that euph are doing a fairly good job atm.
Why would any other alliances join in? 1v1 as it is, is ideal for all others.

I was just gonna write "Okey, Euph has failed in battle against App. Can we form the block now, plz?":banana::devil:

Kargool 14 Jan 2010 18:58

Re: round 35 politics
 
Alki says Euph have lost the war against App. Ergo it must be true and we can all start R36 now.

Mzyxptlk 14 Jan 2010 19:22

Re: round 35 politics
 
Alki hasn't posted here.

Mek 17 Jan 2010 14:22

Re: round 35 politics
 
im surprised there hasn't been more posting and bitching on this thread :p

Anyone willing to speak about how the Euph/App war is going? :)

JonnyBGood 17 Jan 2010 23:20

Re: round 35 politics
 
It meanders. I for one am hoping for some more action tonight though!

_Kila_ 18 Jan 2010 00:11

Re: round 35 politics
 
what happened to ascendancy?

lokken 18 Jan 2010 00:14

Re: round 35 politics
 
A quick look at sandmans tells me Conspiracy for the win what with their 70 million point lead.

JonnyBGood 18 Jan 2010 00:19

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_ (Post 3187556)
what happened to ascendancy?

I left before last round started. Theamion stepped up to run the alliance. I think you can fill in the blanks yourself.

Influence 18 Jan 2010 01:19

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek (Post 3187547)
im surprised there hasn't been more posting and bitching on this thread :p

Anyone willing to speak about how the Euph/App war is going? :)

Well it seems euph is hardly making an effort out of attacking app. i suppose fat smaller alliances are easier and more rewarding, as long as those allies don't hit back that is.

Mek 18 Jan 2010 03:02

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3187561)
I left before last round started. Theamion stepped up to run the alliance. I think you can fill in the blanks yourself.


i suppose we can read between the line to grasp your opinion on both ascendancy's performance last round and Theams performance as HC last round?

Mek 18 Jan 2010 03:02

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3187553)
It meanders. I for one am hoping for some more action tonight though!

you hoping for some kind of euph response?

JonnyBGood 18 Jan 2010 03:24

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek (Post 3187570)
i suppose we can read between the line to grasp your opinion on both ascendancy's performance last round and Theams performance as HC last round?

Actually I was really just making a joke to kila given that he was in ascendancy in r30/31 and remembers how much abuse we used to give theamion! Being totally truthful I didn't think ascendancy's performance last round was up to the standards we'd set in some previous rounds. I thought theam, and anyone who was in charge in asc last round, did a perfectly fine job. I thought they were the second best alliance and they finished second. They didn't get killed/farmed into the ground and they had plenty of high ranking planets/gals. I don't think you'd call it a great round and it was certainly an unadventurous one but no, I wouldn't describe it as terrible or something like that.

Quote:

you hoping for some kind of euph response?
I lolled at the idea of euphoria responding on their own but yeah, pretty much.

Knight Theamion 18 Jan 2010 09:25

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3187572)
Actually I was really just making a joke to kila given that he was in ascendancy in r30/31 and remembers how much abuse we used to give theamion! Being totally truthful I didn't think ascendancy's performance last round was up to the standards we'd set in some previous rounds. I thought theam, and anyone who was in charge in asc last round, did a perfectly fine job. I thought they were the second best alliance and they finished second. They didn't get killed/farmed into the ground and they had plenty of high ranking planets/gals. I don't think you'd call it a great round and it was certainly an unadventurous one but no, I wouldn't describe it as terrible or something like that.

I lolled at the idea of euphoria responding on their own but yeah, pretty much.

Although I like it that you back Ascendancy in public yo, I still think we (I) was shit as how we (I?) ran things. Although I could only run things as others let me (and to be honest, there were more of us running things) we did not do a 'fine' job. We made errors and we know that.

JonnyBGood 18 Jan 2010 12:02

Re: round 35 politics
 
I'm not standing up for you in public you fool. That's my opinion on last round. And fine, to me, means more like tolerable, rather than great.

_Kila_ 18 Jan 2010 14:15

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3187561)
I left before last round started. Theamion stepped up to run the alliance. I think you can fill in the blanks yourself.

but then theam left along with everyone else? man this shit confuses me, who can I latestart for?

[B5]Londo 18 Jan 2010 17:37

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_ (Post 3187601)
but then theam left along with everyone else? man this shit confuses me, who can I latestart for?

JBG 'left' between r33 and r34; Theam 'left' between r34 and r35 with quite a few others, both are ofc still in #ascendancy.

Mzyxptlk 18 Jan 2010 17:51

Re: round 35 politics
 
JBG actually left, he was not in Ascendancy nor in #ascendancy during that time.

Kargool 18 Jan 2010 17:57

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken (Post 3187558)
A quick look at sandmans tells me Conspiracy for the win what with their 70 million point lead.

A massive effort to bring down Conspiracy to the level of others were done by the fantastic alliance PATSA.

Allthough rumours has it that they were the ones to blame for CT getting such a headstart, but atleast they moved forcefully in to correct the errors of their ways.

gzambo 18 Jan 2010 19:34

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_ (Post 3187601)
but then theam left along with everyone else? man this shit confuses me, who can I latestart for?

your confused .spare a thought for those of us that play with him . i wouldnt bother signing up late or otherwise this rd has been shit so far and i dont think it's gonna get better

[B5]Londo 18 Jan 2010 21:59

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3187619)
JBG actually left, he was not in Ascendancy nor in #ascendancy during that time.

I did say are with the intention of signifying the current situation not that of last round. It is a round 35 politics thread.

Mzyxptlk 18 Jan 2010 22:43

Re: round 35 politics
 
But you also said 'left', which makes it seem like he didn't really leave.

Knight Theamion 18 Jan 2010 22:48

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3187594)
I'm not standing up for you in public you fool. That's my opinion on last round. And fine, to me, means more like tolerable, rather than great.

In that case I think 'bearable' would suffice.

[B5]Londo 18 Jan 2010 23:05

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3187636)
But you also said 'left', which makes it seem like he didn't really leave.

I guess theam's should have had the 'inverted commas' and JBG's not but that seemed to me to only confuse things even more.
And since we are splitting hairs: Theam, I dont think bearable makes ur role sound any better than tolerable.

Mek 19 Jan 2010 00:01

Re: round 35 politics
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gzambo (Post 3187628)
your confused .spare a thought for those of us that play with him . i wouldnt bother signing up late or otherwise this rd has been shit so far and i dont think it's gonna get better

how would you make the round more interesting gzambo?

ellonweb 19 Jan 2010 00:59

Re: round 35 politics
 
I think Theam and Reese did a decent job last round, they made mistakes with politics in the latter stages of the round from lack of experience, but they were competent (I wasn't around enough to gauge how good) in every other aspect and didn't do anything actively bad.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:42.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018