What I don't get....

[Knight Theamion]

So Sid forms 1up, fun.

Then challenges you to 'go for it solo too', while all of you see that 1up has a fear ful playerbase, but also one hell of an organisation and a diplomatic corps to scare the shit out of you.

Yet you all want to fight them on your own?

Personally I'd say that the 'playerskill challenged' alliances should just gang up on 1up.

If you think 'yeah but we promised to go solo' you forget one thing, you want to win, not look good and then say 'well we could've never taken them on one on one'.

Just gangbang them, noone will blame you, except some 1up-dude crying 'yeah but it ain't fair, we went alone and so should you'. Upon which you can reply 'you went alone, your loss'.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

So Sid forms 1up, fun.

Then challenges you to 'go for it solo too', while all of you see that 1up has a fear ful playerbase, but also one hell of an organisation and a diplomatic corps to scare the shit out of you.

Yet you all want to fight them on your own?

Personally I'd say that the 'playerskill challenged' alliances should just gang up on 1up.

If you think 'yeah but we promised to go solo' you forget one thing, you want to win, not look good and then say 'well we could've never taken them on one on one'.

Just gangbang them, noone will blame you, except some 1up-dude crying 'yeah but it ain't fair, we went alone and so should you'. Upon which you can reply 'you went alone, your loss'.

Pissed about not getting in are we?

[jerome]

noone cares what you think, Mistar Theam

But the point is,m 1up may have most playerskill from PAST rounds, pax is slightly different. The round will be interesting nevertheless . It would be sad if FAnG (as an example) block whilst they claim to be on par with 1up.

Remind me to get a planet to see whats going on btw, if i cba to play :\

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Pissed about not getting in are we?

about 2 weeks ago I might have joined, and I told them that I would only play the shit game if I could be 1up, they declined, shame, but I am now not going to play, so no, I am not bitter.

[Nitros]

play to revenge then

btw, people should stop qouting the entire text if they are the first one to answere (not ment personally mate )

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

I am not bitter.

You must be just a great impressionist then.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

So Sid forms 1up, fun.

Then challenges you to 'go for it solo too', while all of you see that 1up has a fear ful playerbase, but also one hell of an organisation and a diplomatic corps to scare the shit out of you.

Yet you all want to fight them on your own?

Personally I'd say that the 'playerskill challenged' alliances should just gang up on 1up.

If you think 'yeah but we promised to go solo' you forget one thing, you want to win, not look good and then say 'well we could've never taken them on one on one'.

Just gangbang them, noone will blame you, except some 1up-dude crying 'yeah but it ain't fair, we went alone and so should you'. Upon which you can reply 'you went alone, your loss'.

FAnG is skilled, FAnG is not impressed by a bunch of celebs. FAnG respects them as a skilled and capable alliance. FAnG doesn't see the need to block just to beat 1up, we're confident we could do that on our own aswell if the situation asks for it.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

FAnG is skilled, FAnG is not impressed by a bunch of celebs. FAnG respects them as a skilled and capable alliance. FAnG doesn't see the need to block just to beat 1up, we're confident we could do that on our own aswell if the situation asks for it.

I think I speak for all of the 1up team when I say that there are several alliance of a similar level in terms of ability and structure. I shan't name them all here but each and every alliance can pose a threat to all the other alliances if the right variables are in place. By no means to 1up think they will beat anyone hands down. If we were to beat <insert alliance here> then it would be via a significant military effort and no doubt both sides would incur losses.

[hinchles]

"what i dont get ..."
is laid?

still amion after all these years you should have at least managed that

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

Then challenges you to 'go for it solo too', while all of you see that 1up has a fear ful playerbase, but also one hell of an organisation and a diplomatic corps to scare the shit out of you.

Theam, don't be a numpty.

You've made yourself look silly here, as it shows you don't know anything about 1up. We have "one hell of an organisation" do we? Then why haven't even the HC been decided, let alone the officers? The only thing we're sure about is the members in the alliance.

[Filth]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

So Sid forms 1up, fun.

Then challenges you to 'go for it solo too', while all of you see that 1up has a fear ful playerbase, but also one hell of an organisation and a diplomatic corps to scare the shit out of you.

Yet you all want to fight them on your own?

Personally I'd say that the 'playerskill challenged' alliances should just gang up on 1up.

If you think 'yeah but we promised to go solo' you forget one thing, you want to win, not look good and then say 'well we could've never taken them on one on one'.

Just gangbang them, noone will blame you, except some 1up-dude crying 'yeah but it ain't fair, we went alone and so should you'. Upon which you can reply 'you went alone, your loss'.

a) we havent seen them play yet - therefore you cant see why their organisation etc is better than any of the other top alliances
b) i prefer to have a fun round than to win and have a stagnant one - i.e actually work for victory
c) im sure you would come here complaining about the unfairness of everyone ganging up on you

in conclusion: shush

[TheACE]

maby an idea to gangbang them in the corner :P

or we can just let them rape us, that can also be fun, right?

[AzureWrath]

you're very disturbed TheACE, and this post is worse than any of wassaa's posts Theamion

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by AzureWrath

and this post is worse than any of wassaa's posts Theamion

why?

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

nah, I'll play p l a n e t i a

But this is not only to FAnG, I just wonder why you lot don't teambash them, or just secretly hit them from tick 73 till they are down and then you lot fight it out.

thing you must keep in mind....

if they loose one on one they can claim they played fair and 1on1, meaning not much disgrace.

but when those alliances DO block and loose, they'd look even more silly.

[BoredOfThis]

Theamion, would you like some cheese with that whine?

[Leshy]

Heartless is just too sexy to resist.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Theam, don't be a numpty.

You've made yourself look silly here, as it shows you don't know anything about 1up. We have "one hell of an organisation" do we? Then why haven't even the HC been decided, let alone the officers? The only thing we're sure about is the members in the alliance.

Yeah, right.

In fairness, Theamion makes a valid point.

This 'no-block' proposal is 1up's shot at winning the round. They obviously believe in their ability, whilst trying to downplay it on the forums (see above).
Opposing alliances need not pussy foot around and let your enemies dictate affairs. Clearly, 1up are not attempting to make the round as close as possible, but aiming to win.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Yeah, right.

In fairness, Theamion makes a valid point.

This 'no-block' proposal is 1up's shot at winning the round. They obviously believe in their ability, whilst trying to downplay it on the forums (see above).
Opposing alliances need not pussy foot around and let your enemies dictate affairs. Clearly, 1up are not attempting to make the round as close as possible, but aiming to win.

I think the "dilemma" we are facing is that 1up and FAnG are both inclined to go solo into the round and thus the other alliances do not have a lot of a different choice when it comes to PR stuff. I do think, however, that it is nothing morally wrong if others decide to block (even when they form blocks comparable to the size of FPM last round). As you point out every alliance is responsible for its own politics, and just beause 2 supposed-to-be-top alliances decide they want to start solo and decide politics mid-round for their own benefit they shouldn't necessarily give in to such things.
Every alliance should respect other alliances decisions and simply adapt to those, not try to dictate their decisions.

[Scorpio]

Originally Posted by Nitros

play to revenge then

Playing to get even brings out the best/worst in you. It's fun

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Pissed about not getting in are we?

lol, none ex-fury ppl even bothered to try?
I'm glad my home is warm and cozy and i never want to leave it.

[General1]

Theamion IS MY HERO

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Boogster

This 'no-block' proposal is 1up's shot at winning the round. They obviously believe in their ability, whilst trying to downplay it on the forums (see above).

Surely it'd be easier for 1up to just grab the better alliances such as FAnG (assuming FAnG would ally with them etc etc etc), and make a block to win?

[Psi_K]

As I'm now simply a peon for Mistu, I have no say in their choice, but I'm going to be a bloody annoyance if they block at the start of the round to simply twat 1up.
If ANY alliance gains a significant lead, THEN the other alliances should attempt to kill them at that point, otherwise that's just stupid imo.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

lol, none ex-fury ppl even bothered to try?
I'm glad my home is warm and cozy and i never want to leave it.

Quiet a few, like 50% of our members most likely.
On the otherhand "ex fury" alot of ppl can claim and since fury disbanded in r8 they made quiet a journey since then. suprisingly many became "nos'ers" or "fang'ers".

[Axis_WLF]

I would do whatever is legal to push my alliance to the top.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

lol, none ex-fury ppl even bothered to try?
I'm glad my home is warm and cozy and i never want to leave it.

Do us all a favour and stop wasting peoples bandwidth by posting utter rubbish on topics you know nothing about.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Surely it'd be easier for 1up to just grab the better alliances such as FAnG (assuming FAnG would ally with them etc etc etc), and make a block to win?

The point of fact is never make the same mistake twce as you look silly.

If 1up was to block it would have to pick evenly, If not you would be seen as the evhul scourge of pa and teh return of fury


I do think your political maneuvering has ben fairly impressive thus, I just wait for the wolf to jump forth from that fluffy sheep your masquerading as ;p

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Axis_WLF

I would do whatever is legal to push my alliance to the top.

Legal in a game sense or leal as in a law sense?

Also wouldyou turn a blind eye to those that WOULD do something of a nefarious nature?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I do think your political maneuvering has ben fairly impressive thus, I just wait for the wolf to jump forth from that fluffy sheep your masquerading as ;p

I love the way everyone is so distrusting of 1up. There is no ulterior motive!

We just want a fun round. Sid has won, he has made a name for himself. He didn't come back just to remind you all how top 'ard he is. He wants a fun round, as do the rest of us. Of course we'll be trying to win, but not by blocking and making it boring. If everyone is on equal ground, there'll be no more whiney posts on AD about the nasty big blockers, and about the lack of targets since everyone is so small...

We really are a fluffy cute sheep... but we can bite

[LB|away]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I love the way everyone is so distrusting of 1up. There is no ulterior motive!

We just want a fun round. Sid has won, he has made a name for himself. He didn't come back just to remind you all how top 'ard he is. He wants a fun round, as do the rest of us. Of course we'll be trying to win, but not by blocking and making it boring. If everyone is on equal ground, there'll be no more whiney posts on AD about the nasty big blockers, and about the lack of targets since everyone is so small...

We really are a fluffy cute sheep... but we can bite

I hate sheep

[Tomkat]

Baaa

[LB|away]

you are wolves hiding in sheep clothing
nuff said

[cypher]

i think i've fought fury enough back when i played viking....... and i didn't have too much trouble getting in, think it took about 6/7 lines in a pm. so yeah non fury people can get in easily.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Do us all a favour and stop wasting peoples bandwidth by posting utter rubbish on topics you know nothing about.

but then i'd have nothing to post.....
ps: if you didnt see any kind of joke in my post, nor could see anything funny in it, then maybe, just maybe, you could try to cheer up.........

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

but then i'd have nothing to post.....
ps: if you didnt see any kind of joke in my post, nor could see anything funny in it, then maybe, just maybe, you could try to cheer up.........

I guess the humour went over my head

[Axis_WLF]

Legal within all rules and boundries of the game.

[Treveler]

Its funny to see how many 1up rejects thats making anti 1up propaganda both on AD and on irc! Mucho funny indeed!

[TehVader]

I have proof of blocking!

[17:31] <[Gook]Vader> LETS BLOCK!!!!!12
[17:31] <[Gook]Vader> k?
[17:31] <[Green]Hicks> kk
[17:31] <[Gook]Vader> yay
[17:31] <[Green]Hicks> 1up/ND for eva !!11

Let's all block and rape them I say.

[The_Fish]

comedy of the week award goes to......

SOMEONE OTHER THAN VADER1!!11

[fbd]

Originally Posted by cypher

thing you must keep in mind....

if they loose one on one they can claim they played fair and 1on1, meaning not much disgrace.

So if 1up found themselves at the point of being out of the game, you'd continue to play 'fair' and not look at other options such as a 'block' (such an ineloquent and loose word) and take the wooden spoon for sportsmanship at the end of the round?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by fbd

So if 1up found themselves at the point of being out of the game, you'd continue to play 'fair' and not look at other options such as a 'block' (such an ineloquent and loose word) and take the wooden spoon for sportsmanship at the end of the round?

If we're at the point of "being out of the game" then no amount of blocking is going to get us any sort of meaningful win. I'd rather lose than be runners up as someone else's lapdogs.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

If we're at the point of "being out of the game" then no amount of blocking is going to get us any sort of meaningful win. I'd rather lose than be runners up as someone else's lapdogs.

Change the situation then. What if your alliance is at the point where the chance of 'being out of the game' is on the horizon and probably inevitable? If you could chop and change allies for a couple of weeks, forming and dissolving blocks without causing stagnation (ie not picking on the smallest first but going for a fairly decent war) then would you do it? Or would you let the victory by political and military means slip away because of sticking to your original proposal?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by fbd

Change the situation then. What if your alliance is at the point where the chance of 'being out of the game' is on the horizon and probably inevitable? If you could chop and change allies for a couple of weeks, forming and dissolving blocks without causing stagnation (ie not picking on the smallest first but going for a fairly decent war) then would you do it? Or would you let the victory by political and military means slip away because of sticking to your original proposal?

If my original proposal is accepted, then what yo usuggest wouldn't be a viable proposition to even consider - as the moment we blocked we'd get our asses handed to us by all the other alliances who'd agreed to the proposal (which would obviously include the ones who were above us in the rankings). With such a proposal in place, the top alliances are not going to allow those below them to try to gain a win by blocking. But equally the #2 alliance can target the #1 alliance to try to get 1st spot - knowing that if they don't, the #1 allaince can target them with little fear of being blocked against. And that allows those further down the alliance rankings to try to grab relatively cheap roids from wherever in an attempt to catch up.

A lack of blocks, coupled with the easier roiding in R11 (which having 5 roid classes basically guarantees) should lead to much more fluid alliance rankings. Best score gain is gained from roiding the largest targets - which will tend to belong to the leading alliance(s). If alliances attacked purely based on what targets offered the best chance of gaining score, that alone would guarantee that leading alliances got more than their fair share of inbound - without any agreements or cooperations needing to exist.

Good to see you back on the boards fbd: shame you brought your cynicism and pessimism back with you

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Good to see you back on the boards fbd: shame you brought your cynicism and pessimism back with you

heh.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

With such a proposal in place, the top alliances are not going to allow those below them to try to gain a win by blocking. But equally the #2 alliance can target the #1 alliance to try to get 1st spot - knowing that if they don't, the #1 allaince can target them with little fear of being blocked against. And that allows those further down the alliance rankings to try to grab relatively cheap roids from wherever in an attempt to catch up.

A lack of blocks, coupled with the easier roiding in R11 (which having 5 roid classes basically guarantees) should lead to much more fluid alliance rankings. Best score gain is gained from roiding the largest targets - which will tend to belong to the leading alliance(s). If alliances attacked purely based on what targets offered the best chance of gaining score, that alone would guarantee that leading alliances got more than their fair share of inbound - without any agreements or cooperations needing to exist.

Good to see you back on the boards fbd: shame you brought your cynicism and pessimism back with you

But surely as soon as one alliance gains a dominant lead, or as soon as others start falling behind then they'd seek co-operation with other alliances? What about if say a FAnG BC 'accidently' dropped the co-ords of a few 1up players into the hands of ND and slipped out with who they were hitting tonight, would that be blocking? It's unofficial co-operation but its involving more than one alliance and prompting co-ordination between the two. This whole argument is unnecessary however, as nice as the proposal may be in theory, it doesn't matter because it won't be stuck to. I can see the points that you're making but you aren't taking into account human feelings, sure your members might play for fun but for others winning is more important than anything (look at the extent of farming and cheating in PAs history, people want to win, not play 'fair').

Pessimistic, but i'm still lovely

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by fbd

But surely as soon as one alliance gains a dominant lead, or as soon as others start falling behind then they'd seek co-operation with other alliances? What about if say a FAnG BC 'accidently' dropped the co-ords of a few 1up players into the hands of ND and slipped out with who they were hitting tonight, would that be blocking? It's unofficial co-operation but its involving more than one alliance and prompting co-ordination between the two. This whole argument is unnecessary however, as nice as the proposal may be in theory, it doesn't matter because it won't be stuck to. I can see the points that you're making but you aren't taking into account human feelings, sure your members might play for fun but for others winning is more important than anything (look at the extent of farming and cheating in PAs history, people want to win, not play 'fair').

Pessimistic, but i'm still lovely

Its a argument I put forward as part f the fact that I felt that if any agreement like this was to be made it had to be agreed and supported by the ENTIRE community with eveything from the initial agreement, definitions and how the acting against a block would work.

Unfortunatey I agree with yur statement and als that is a PR exercise. Shame it has little substance really.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Its a argument I put forward as part f the fact that I felt that if any agreement like this was to be made it had to be agreed and supported by the ENTIRE community with eveything from the initial agreement, definitions and how the acting against a block would work.

Unfortunatey I agree with yur statement and als that is a PR exercise. Shame it has little substance really.

Maybe we just aren't the same hard line cynics, who still believe a decent round of PA is out there and maybe a few people would like one, as you.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Maybe we just aren't the same hard line cynics, who still believe a decent round of PA is out there and maybe a few people would like one, as you.

I'm being realistic not idealistic

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by fbd

I'm being realistic not idealistic

Then we must agree to differ