Blocking.

[Jonas]

Many say that blocking ruins the game. I disagree. Blocking is a very natural thing to do in wartimes. WHat ruins the game is that the blocks have no plans whatsovere what to do when they defeated the enemy block. The best thing that could happen is ofcourse either 4 equally big blocks, or none at all. Seems none is impossible(tho good move by 1up to start something), and 4 is about impossible aswell...All that is needed is some planning and discussing between the blocks...!

This is possibly the most useless post I ever made. Just had to get it out. Sorry :P

[Nadar]

I agree a bit with you there I mean, every block should have a plan when the opposite block is beaten.. It's exactly the same when me and Sethy plays Mission Risk against others. We often allies and agrees to break up allie when all other competitors are beaten (ofc I beat Sethy down in the boots after that tho)

[wakey]

tbh I kind of disagree, while your right that many have no plan on what to do after they have 'won' i do believe that much of the damage has already been done at this point and for most of the game the rounds been over for ages by this point.

I would say the problem of blocks is more how they are used. Rather than being something which people get involved in because the game at that point calls for it its something the alliances do to basically offer themselves protection early on. They shouldnt be things alliances agree on before the round to achieve this but something which would unfold as the round progresses because 2+ alliances have a common enemy and a common goal which at that moment they cant achieve on their own. Then when the goal is achieved as you say they should have plans to break up. Put simply its the long term blocks of conveniance that lack any kind of goal that are the problem and what we really need changed imho.

[Cooling]

Alliance self interest > Altruism

Unless the inter block alliances have some kind of "stagnation clause" in their agreements I dont see the theory standing up in practice.

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by wakey

tbh I kind of disagree, while your right that many have no plan on what to do after they have 'won' i do believe that much of the damage has already been done at this point and for most of the game the rounds been over for ages by this point.

That thought is what you get from rounds like r10.5 When the opposition has been beaten after 3 weeks and the enjoyable bashing attacks start to try and get some roids from the last active players in range. A situation like that indeed ruins the round for alot of ppl, both in the winning block (who can't do a thing but attack & recall again) and in the block that lost as they are fighting a pointless war since all their attacks meet massive defence (when being reported) and all they can do is try to not lose more roids.

When the winning block has a plan you might get something like r7 (or was it 6? :P) when FOS & XeTa where done fighting FLTTV they attacked eachother (yes yes... we are talking about 2 blocks working together here but it might aswell be 2 alliances) which allowed FLTTV to get back up again, since they weren't bashed to oblivian yet, they suffered alot, but weren't totally wiped out by non-stop incoming on them like what happend in r9 and r10.5. So in theory it should provide more fun for both sides and maybe even a surprising winner in one of the first beaten alliances. It should atleast keep the round interesting for everyone

[The_Fish]

I think R11 will be a much more open round in terms of politics. Even if a couple of alliances block, there are a number of opposition blocks available to fruition. And I think many alliances will be fencesitting in a good way. Stay neutral with everyone, and side against whoever needs siding against.

However, it will be far from block free.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by wakey

They shouldnt be things alliances agree on before the round to achieve this but something which would unfold as the round progresses because 2+ alliances have a common enemy and a common goal which at that moment they cant achieve on their own.

Alliances who need to block before a round do shares goals and enemies in every case.

Goals = Survival
Enemies = Everyone else

[Chika]

I agree that blocking is inevitable. But, there is a chance to keep it from being abused. In many cases though, if blocking was abused in the start of the round, there is not really much chance of any improvement later. So thats where the problem resides, early on, if we correct that portion, the round will be more enjoyable for all. (I think)

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Alliances who need to block before a round do shares goals and enemies in every case.

Goals = Survival
Enemies = Everyone else

Ok i'll give you that they have a shared goal although for the first group blocking its a little weak as a goal because its something they could acheive on their own, it becomes a bit stronger for everyone else when the first blocks formed.

However the Ememies bit I dont totally agree with, they are false Enemies created soley as a reason to justify blocking. After all before the round you dont know anything about them as its basically a clean slate, ok you might be able to guess whos going to be strong but it is just guesswork. There is simply no basis for these people to be your enemies as you dont even know if they are actually viable rivals, your true enemy could be the people your blocking with

And anyway i'm sure you actually understand what i'm getting at and your just being picky

[Cayl]

Keep your friends close... keep your enemies closer

[ronnie]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Blocking is a very natural thing to do in wartimes.

this part is very true, if u look at the major real life wars this world has seen blocking has always taken place.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Nadar

I agree a bit with you there I mean, every block should have a plan when the opposite block is beaten.. It's exactly the same when me and Sethy plays Mission Risk against others. We often allies and agrees to break up allie when all other competitors are beaten (ofc I beat Sethy down in the boots after that tho)

You mean backstabbing me when i trusted you ffs:P

I would like to declare HR war on NoS based on Nadar's treachery

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

You mean backstabbing me when i trusted you ffs:P

I would like to declare HR war on NoS based on Nadar's treachery

pfft.. we had already beaten the rest, so our NAP had to end

[Churchil5]

Blocking is akin to working as one alliance without each representative alliance losing their heritage.

It only really becomes a problem when 50% of the most active players are all in the one block... it takes the fun out of (inevitably) winning. And ofc the enjoyment for everyone else.

[lokken]

Blocking is
Loyalty to ridiculous extent is
Grudges are

Use blocks to win, NOT to survive.

I agree with lokken, you should use blocks like you were trying to win, not trying to survive. Instead of staying loyal, backstab, create rivalries, keep the alliances together and create a universe full of war, since that's the whole point of the game. You don't play Risk to finish with what you started...

[Assassin]

I half agree with this, but it isnt fun for blocking in the first place as ofc only the strong alliances allie with another strong alliance so ofc this then ends the round for alliance wanting to have fun in the game.. but yes blocking does **** up also when ppl wont fight each other at the end..

[Shoshuro]

Well sadly the term "blocking" is a strong component of PA and other similar games. If we define it as a problem then we need to think how it starts and how it should be prevented. Sometimes the leaders of alliances think that the IRC/online friendship they may have with other leaders should also be present in the game also. That means make their alliances work together for easier domination in the frantic universe.

In most cases the coop between alliances is in 2 different levels and results in the general phenomena of: The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer. In PA terms the strong alliances work together and grow together while the small alliances try to work together and go down together.

So perhaps the leaders of alliances with great influence and military power should reconsider why they created their alliance in the first place. Since in most cases people in an alliance work together to play and win on their own. So rather than focusing and making their mission true some people prefer the help from another side(s) so they can achieve their goals easier and safer. This phenomenon is also called parasitism (someone gains something from the work of another person - greek term mainly).

Another issue is false information and rumors going around for a pre-round block forming. That rumor is manipulated by other alliances and they make it a fact so they will form their block also while presenting the "rumor" as an excuse.

Till the day every alliance will enter a round on their own to compete on fair basis, alliance leaders have a lot of thinking to do.

My 0.01 pennies (studying in UK and it is really annoying all products cost xx.99 £ ) :P