|
|
25 May 2006, 20:34
|
#301
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoX
In my mind this game is built to look/act like a war-game that allows us to send out imaginary ships out into space to kill and steel things..
|
Nope, you're wrong. Since the introduction of XP the game hasn't been about killing and stealing things - it's about accumulating score. XP isn't given for fighting wars it's given for attacking targets that can't get defence. Depending on the way xp works in a particular round it is generally either beneficial to attack targets bigger than you with horribly unbalanced fleets or ones smaller than you with fleets that overpower them. Neither of which requires any particular tactical or strategic ability - or is even much fun.
XP means any war that isn't hugely imbalanced is rarely a good thing for either of the participants: unless you have a good chance for #1 alliance it's almost always bad for your alliance's rank.
As I've said before: the fundamental flaw with PA is that there's no design behind it at the conceptual level. Many of us WISH that it were a game about building up a big planet and fighting other big planets - but it's not.
I posed a question like this before - and got few answers (and none from PA team) but here we go again:
Is the objective in Planetarion to maximise score - or is score a measure of how well you achieve some other objective? And, if the latter, what is that objective?
If PA team can't answer those questions very specifically then complaining on here about alliances not playing "the right" way is a waste of breathe. As there IS no right or wrong way - as the game wasn't designed with any way of playing in mind.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 20:37
|
#302
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 260
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
There should have been nothing implemented for alliances at all, except for (voluntary) tags for ranks.
They should have changed the game to fit the alliances, and not the rules to make the alliances fit the game.
__________________
(XelNaga) Everybody please vote for Planetarion at http://www.mpogd.com !!!! We are second, we have to get first place back!
(SethMace) omg 2nd!!!
(SethMace) we must block with 3rd to take them down!!!11
(Marneus) also the damn thing aint always right 4 + 79 = i type 81 and it kicked me back to the login again grrr
Last edited by XelNaga; 25 May 2006 at 20:44.
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 20:40
|
#303
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOL
ye so thier needs to be rules in place to stop this happening in the future,basically your saying that the pa team didnt think about what 1up were doing and you did so they didnt have any rule / feature to stop you from doing this
dont get me wrong im not saying 1up cheated or this is your fault,all im saying is thier should have been something implimented to stop this happening in the first place
|
No, I am saying that PA Team has, since the dawn of time, been taking the wrong approach to the issue of how alliances behave. Instead of discussing how to best progress the game forward with alliances and having a serious discussion about how to proceed, they try to force alliances into a shape they just don't fit into. Rules are simply tools used by PA Team to try and direct alliances into their ideal community boosting model. What I am saying is that more rules are not needed, what is needed is PA Team to take a step back (with alliances) and say "Right, ignore next round, and the round after, and the round after that. 10 rounds from now, where do we see PA being, and where do we want it to be", and when agreements are made on that, the two should work together to decide how best both can contribute to removing the discrepancies between where they see it being and where they want it to be.
If rules keep on being introduced left right and centre, I see PA in 10 rounds being a webpage where people don't need to login to know what's going to happen next. Rules should be there purely to prevent unfair advantages, not to dictate a specific style of play. We have plenty of rules, many of which are badly defined and implemented. What we need is some serious thought on how to make some serious progress proactively rather than reactively making rules every round that are unlikely to make the blndest bit of difference to the ultimate destination of the game.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 20:43
|
#304
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
If PA team can't answer those questions very specifically then complaining on here about alliances not playing "the right" way is a waste of breathe. As there IS no right or wrong way - as the game wasn't designed with any way of playing in mind.
|
Which is precisely why trying to force a certain style of play is counter productive (and further to your point, I am not sure PA Team understand fully what style of play they are trying to force, all they know is that people who are crap at the game should still be able to do well).
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 20:48
|
#305
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
Rules should be there purely to prevent unfair advantages, not to dictate a specific style of play.
|
Isn't that how they justify all the alliance limit stuff though? Support planets is surely to 'prevent unfair advantages'.
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 20:49
|
#306
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Swansea
Posts: 798
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoX
I guess you’re here to win and only to win – or are you here to look after your members and their well being to have a fun time playing this war-game.
|
its fun to win
so I would say both have been furfilled (if we win,) and if not we took a good chance to take the win anyway
__________________
In Elysium till the end.
Former [1up]
Current [Spore]
Returned under the IRC nick BenSwansea
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 20:58
|
#307
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Isn't that how they justify all the alliance limit stuff though? Support planets is surely to 'prevent unfair advantages'.
|
If the alliance limit wasn't there, support planets would never have been needed. It's a notion created purely out of alliance limits. Alliance limits dictate the way that alliances have to play; all alliances have to play with an equal number of planets unless they choose* to play with less (loosely). I would not count having 5 more members than another alliance as an unfair advantage, and considering that massive alliances were an extreme rarity before alliance limits were introduced, I don't think an argument could be made about there being a need for an alliance limit (on a fairness point, not a need for lots of alliances point).
I would class an unfair advantage as people 'cheating' in the most traditional sense (multi-ing, bots etc.). The rest is gameplay, and if there is problems with the way the game is being played, it shouldn't require rules, that is essentially punishing the players for what must surely be a fault in the game, it should require a rethink of the gameplay.
The trouble with rules is they are used to cover up flaws in design and have a habit of multiplying.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:01
|
#308
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
I would hate to see PA getting to the stage where it has an alliance called...
Lawyers
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:01
|
#309
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
I would class an unfair advantage as people 'cheating' in the most traditional sense (multi-ing, bots etc.). The rest is gameplay, and if there is problems with the way the game is being played, it shouldn't require rules, that is essentially punishing the players for what must surely be a fault in the game, it should require a rethink of the gameplay.
The trouble with rules is they are used to cover up flaws in design and have a habit of multiplying.
|
It's funny that you cite tradition to enforce the strength of design in the multying rules. I don't see any real strength of design there at all. Sid's questions cover a lot more ground than your barely consistent anti-limitation ramblings.
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:05
|
#310
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
It's funny that you cite tradition to enforce the strength of design in the multying rules.
|
I don't understand what you mean. I don't understand where I said there was any strength in the design of anything. I used the word/idea of tradition purely to define what I considered an unfair advantage in a properly thought out game. I was hoping people would be able to recognise the types of things I was referring to. I wasn't trying to make any judgement on how it was dealt with.
Have I completely misunderstood your point, or have you completely misunderstood mine?
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:08
|
#311
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by El-CuRa
I contacted you earlier in the round about an ex-ND member. To which you reacted pretty arrogant.
|
Yes, now reading the log of it I fail to see the arrogance in it, to be honest. I feel I dealt with it quite neutral. Also, to add to it, the given member of Omen has been of no trouble at all during his stay at Omen, he has prooven himself helpful and commited member to the alliance so far as it's come to my eyes. There may be shades in his past, but through the round he's been nigh a model member.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
If rules keep on being introduced left right and centre
|
Perhaps you are right on the fact that "new rules" are introduced too often; though, the rule governing support planets clearly cites it's deal, and the PA team have already stated that it would not be allowed to keep idle planets that only hoard resources outside the tag and gain benefit of them through one-hit donations. If this was allright, perhaps we could fund our scanners too without having more or less regular donations from every planet in the alliance. Whether the resources are used to scan or to build fleet, if they've been gained in a way which the PA team finds against the EULA, it's a punishable act - now we're to see whether it's okay or not.
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:17
|
#312
|
[...]
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 47
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Damn a lot of text to read!
All i got to say is; Good job 1up! Great tactics once again.
Planetarion, you got to love it
__________________
[WolfPack] [ND] [1up] [TGV] [Omen]
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:24
|
#313
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
There is one major benefit to the tag system. It's helped smaller alliances develop no end, because it limits them as to how many they can recruit and thus makes sure they only control manageable numbers.
There is more I could write on this, but workshop 2 on copyright and database rights is of more concern to me right now.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:26
|
#314
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
True Lokken, that is one benefit. An unexpected one too I suspect though.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:28
|
#315
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
I don't understand what you mean. I don't understand where I said there was any strength in the design of anything. I used the word/idea of tradition purely to define what I considered an unfair advantage in a properly thought out game. I was hoping people would be able to recognise the types of things I was referring to. I wasn't trying to make any judgement on how it was dealt with.
Have I completely misunderstood your point, or have you completely misunderstood mine?
|
There's a bit of both. Cheating is what is defined as cheating, so by your definition whatever is defined as cheating is unfair. I agree. I just didn't agree that we should let tradition dictate the rules any more than the half-assed 'design' put forth by PAteam.
However, the 'how to improve PA' discussion is the most futile of all AD discussions, so we're both wasting our time here
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:35
|
#316
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
I just didn't agree that we should let tradition dictate the rules any more than the half-assed 'design' put forth by PAteam.
|
I didn't say tradition should dictate the rules, I said the rules I consider to be necessary are the ones that could be classed as traditional. Traditional here is not a way of deciding on the rules that should be, I had already decided the ones I thought were necessary. Tradition is merely being used to illustrate the specific set I think are necessary.
Quote:
However, the 'how to improve PA' discussion is the most futile of all AD discussions, so we're both wasting our time here
|
Now that I agree on.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 21:48
|
#317
|
;D!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoo
picking our battles was a luxury we did not have this round. as they were enforced on us by ND even before round started with their "i won't let nub alliance win" policy.
|
I keep hearing about this, yet don't remember any such thing being discussed as even being considered by ND. Out of genuine interest, will someone link me to it?
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:01
|
#318
|
Your typical Troll
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 414
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
well... the way i figgure it goes as follows:
there in, pretty much, only one rule in play: "Fair play only"
everything else is overelaborate definition of scecific instances.
Rule is made when "Fair play only" rule is broken via methods previously undescribed in above-mentioned "overelaborate definitions" and, thus, required to either supersede or combine old rules, or create another elaboration of the main rule. From there on, only people to blame for complex system of rules in place are the people who abuse the system. SO. When foul play is noted, it is only natural to creat a rule that would forbid such. And i do not think there is anything wrong with this system, as it helps overall enjoyment of those average members the game targets.
We also have to realize, that, at one or another angle, everyone who bothers themselves with these boards is at least a step above average member. Hence our view on the system of rules in place would be heavely biased. (and that is why i think "suggestions" boards should be heavely advertised in PA, maybe even via Admin universe wide messeges encouraging everyone to reflect their ideas on boards. And make a guest posting option available aswell, as most people cba to register (i know i didnt for a long long time, and usualy i had my own oppinions to express...)
----------------------------------------
just to conclude this all, if you are too lazy to read through my entire post:
Reasons new rules are in effect is because we utilize loopholes in the old ones. If everyone would have played with decency and consideration to eachother, the way rules wouldnt be broked and "fair play only" rule would not need to be enforced, well... we wouldnt need rules at all, would we. But as long as people abuse current system, i will always support as many rules as humanly possible. I doubt PA team will make a ruling so farfetched that it would ruin anyone's game experience, and as such, i dont care if those rules are in place.
__________________
[Destiny] awaits, ex- [Omen]
Nothing on the top
but the bucket and the mop
And an illustrated book about birds
See alot up there
But dont be scared
who needs action, when you got words....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbg
reading this line is explicit acceptance of my superiority over you
|
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:22
|
#319
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Well there are issues that need clearing up and not with rules, but with ingame coding.
Here are my suggestions.
The Support planet rule as a start should go and be coded in in some format.
What counts towards alliance score should also change, as many people are not happy with the fact you can tag up from nowhere and end up #1.
I'd suggest as a shot in the dark that alliance score only accumulates by score increased while planets are in it, so if a 4million score planet joined, its score would count for nothing, but the amount it grew while in the alliance would. If a 4million score planet left but had been the whole round in the tag, the alliance would retain that 4million score as it was earned under its watch. Such a system would encourage people to be in a tag from start to finish. Players would obviously still move between alliances to preserve their own personal score.
Obviously these are just the tip of a very large iceberg.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:32
|
#320
|
Avenger of Calamari
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 939
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Gonna be an interesting round, that's for sure
There are two 1up guys I would love to call something along the lines of hypocrites right now (lub em dearly nonetheless ) ... For comments given to me and publically about ascendancy's stunt last round, especially as they are now endorsing this. Although, I know I'd be blasted with a "not the same situation at all" etc from sid and the rest, and as I can't defend myself while being in europe for two weeks, I'm not going to bother
Good luck to those fighting for 1st... hope to hear some crazy things when I get back {one day before round end too. woot.}
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:36
|
#321
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
So why did you bother posting then? i don't see the point in posting to say "I would make a point, but I won't, and that's the point of this post".
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:38
|
#322
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidly
Gonna be an interesting round, that's for sure
|
This round has been like scraping your eyes out and isn't going to change. Truly dire what's been served up.
Even though Ascendancy winning added a huge element of farce to last round, last round was infinitely superior because there was some top top combat going on.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:40
|
#323
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 260
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I'd suggest as a shot in the dark that alliance score only accumulates by score increased while planets are in it, so if a 4million score planet joined, its score would count for nothing, but the amount it grew while in the alliance would. If a 4million score planet left but had been the whole round in the tag, the alliance would retain that 4million score as it was earned under its watch. Such a system would encourage people to be in a tag from start to finish. Players would obviously still move between alliances to preserve their own personal score.
|
If you're going to be that restrictive, just allow tagging at the beginning of the round. And yet again, we moved one step closer to a game with no possibilities left.
What is wrong with having untagged members? You hide your real strength, but you leave them exposed. It's more a disadvantage than an advantage. The circumstances working in favor of the alliance doing it are certainly controllable by the others.
__________________
(XelNaga) Everybody please vote for Planetarion at http://www.mpogd.com !!!! We are second, we have to get first place back!
(SethMace) omg 2nd!!!
(SethMace) we must block with 3rd to take them down!!!11
(Marneus) also the damn thing aint always right 4 + 79 = i type 81 and it kicked me back to the login again grrr
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:45
|
#324
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
I don't have a problem with it. The point of what I suggested is that it gives a more 'true' picture of how the tag actually performed over a period of time if people are really upset by alliances staying out of tag and then suddenly appearing.
While I admire it's cleverness and use of tactics, it's going to get a bit boring if it goes on.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:47
|
#325
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by XelNaga
What is wrong with having untagged members? You hide your real strength, but you leave them exposed. It's more a disadvantage than an advantage. The circumstances working in favor of the alliance doing it are certainly controllable by the others.
|
you forgot that ppl playing pa are complete morons who only look at allierank and act after that
sweet isnt it?
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:50
|
#326
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 260
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Well, the issue is that it would strongely discourage anyone to change alliance, and the alliance to accept new members. Also it would make it harder to catch some ranks if you started small and got a good core of members later. Not even talking about the abuse...you make one of your biggest planets join another tag (since you won't lose his score, right?), and then bash him down to almost nothing, while he doesn't report the incoming.
I totally agree with the reasoning behind it, but I don't think it's even remotely close to something that could work in practise. The only way I see to enforce this is to lock all alliances at tick 72. Or only let members join one alliance per round.
__________________
(XelNaga) Everybody please vote for Planetarion at http://www.mpogd.com !!!! We are second, we have to get first place back!
(SethMace) omg 2nd!!!
(SethMace) we must block with 3rd to take them down!!!11
(Marneus) also the damn thing aint always right 4 + 79 = i type 81 and it kicked me back to the login again grrr
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 22:59
|
#327
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
There is one major benefit to the tag system. It's helped smaller alliances develop no end, because it limits them as to how many they can recruit and thus makes sure they only control manageable numbers.
There is more I could write on this, but workshop 2 on copyright and database rights is of more concern to me right now.
|
I dont agree tbh. Small alliances have rarely had a problem with too many members certainly not since just after p2p started. Its alliances like F-Crew whom are kind of in that middle ground where member numbers can and are often a little high for the command structure to support at the optimum and the limits really not brought that down that much as the overiding need to 'over subscribe' when taking risks on players is still present.
The benifit that the tag systems has actually had is its prevented the quality all congregating in a couple of alliance. The quality has spread out a bit more which has seen a closer compitition involving more alliance. Its also helped keep emerging players in their current alliances a little longer and slightly reduced the poaching factor
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 23:07
|
#328
|
ND for life
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 94
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
you forgot that ppl playing pa are complete morons who only look at allierank and act after that
|
Bit harsh talking about your own alliance like that.
I know that wasn't what you thought you meant but you (or someone else with some sense in your alliance) will have to admit that you were as much at fault, if not more so, than any other alliance in regards to hitting 1up. You couldn't manage to trust an alliance and in doing so threw away your chance of the winning the round.
__________________
'Soaring where angels fear to fly'
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 23:17
|
#329
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy
Bit harsh talking about your own alliance like that.
I know that wasn't what you thought you meant but you (or someone else with some sense in your alliance) will have to admit that you were as much at fault, if not more so, than any other alliance in regards to hitting 1up. You couldn't manage to trust an alliance and in doing so threw away your chance of the winning the round.
|
trust is something that works both ways m8 i have pretty good insight on what happent and not happent those day and im amazed how you guys manage to squize down the gloria over your heads and still play around
what was your true aim with your actions that night? dont get it really
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 23:17
|
#330
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I'd suggest as a shot in the dark that alliance score only accumulates by score increased while planets are in it, so if a 4million score planet joined, its score would count for nothing, but the amount it grew while in the alliance would. If a 4million score planet left but had been the whole round in the tag, the alliance would retain that 4million score as it was earned under its watch. Such a system would encourage people to be in a tag from start to finish. Players would obviously still move between alliances to preserve their own personal score.
|
I recall suggesting almost exactly the same thing a few rounds back. I'm still broadly in favour of that approach - though there are some sticky details and potential loopholes in it which need to be addressed. I was in favour of it to prevent recruiting to win - not to prevent out of tag members - but it obviously addresses both issues fairly well.
I say almost the same thing - as I wasn't (and still am not) in favour of alliances keeping any score for a member who leaves them.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
25 May 2006, 23:27
|
#331
|
ND for life
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 94
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
trust is something that works both ways m8 i have pretty good insight on what happent and not happent those day and im amazed how you guys manage to squize down the gloria over your heads and still play around
what was your true aim with your actions that night? dont get it really
|
Firstly I don't recall a single NDer posting here that we had a good round politically. How you can claim we "manage to squize down the gloria over our heads" I don't know (in fact I'm having to make a guess just working out what that means)
Secondly if you're referring to the night when you asked us to hit 1up but completely refused to do anything unless we launched 6 ticks before you then ND was playing to make sure we still had a chance in the round. If you hadn't insisted on us launching so far before you then the round would probably have turned out quite differently. However because you insisted on it ND decided it would hurt us far more than help us to hit 1up. We were already well behind Omen on score and roids and just a single night of heavy 1up incs would have reduced our chances of winning hugely.
Personally I'm still not very convinced that wanting us to launch 6 ticks before you had anything to do with a trust issue (very little anyway). I think it was a case of just making sure we got all the retals from 1up that first night.
__________________
'Soaring where angels fear to fly'
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 00:14
|
#332
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
I say almost the same thing - as I wasn't (and still am not) in favour of alliances keeping any score for a member who leaves them.
|
I can't see much wrong in that. I don't know see why the alliance should lose that score either.
I am not particularly fussed by your change all the same.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 00:24
|
#333
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy
Firstly I don't recall a single NDer posting here that we had a good round politically. How you can claim we "manage to squize down the gloria over our heads" I don't know (in fact I'm having to make a guess just working out what that means)
Secondly if you're referring to the night when you asked us to hit 1up but completely refused to do anything unless we launched 6 ticks before you then ND was playing to make sure we still had a chance in the round. If you hadn't insisted on us launching so far before you then the round would probably have turned out quite differently. However because you insisted on it ND decided it would hurt us far more than help us to hit 1up. We were already well behind Omen on score and roids and just a single night of heavy 1up incs would have reduced our chances of winning hugely.
Personally I'm still not very convinced that wanting us to launch 6 ticks before you had anything to do with a trust issue (very little anyway). I think it was a case of just making sure we got all the retals from 1up that first night.
|
that was the second time contacts was made you know and we know what happent the first time so ignoring you own actions after the first one your resoning make sense.
if not well trust you know was dent a bit :/
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 00:59
|
#334
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I can't see much wrong in that. I don't know see why the alliance should lose that score either.
I am not particularly fussed by your change all the same.
|
Well, here's one really easy answer to that.
Planet X has a huge stockpile of resources.
He's in Alliance Y.
He leaves the tag.
Alliance Y's score doesn't change.
70 ticks later he spends the resources.
Then rejoins alliance Y.
A few ticks later the new ships come out and alliance Y gets score for resources it already got score for previously.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 01:10
|
#335
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Well, here's one really easy answer to that.
Planet X has a huge stockpile of resources.
He's in Alliance Y.
He leaves the tag.
Alliance Y's score doesn't change.
70 ticks later he spends the resources.
Then rejoins alliance Y.
A few ticks later the new ships come out and alliance Y gets score for resources it already got score for previously.
|
Understood.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 01:30
|
#336
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
can just count res as score.
make no score change when u spend on ships, and no score change when u get them.
Will also lead to less stockpiling
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 01:40
|
#337
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaster
can just count res as score.
make no score change when u spend on ships, and no score change when u get them.
Will also lead to less stockpiling
|
I've suggested something similar to that as well - though in a different thread where I was ranting about PA team's inability to decide whether score or value were the main basis of PA. One of the alternatives I mentioned was taking value totally out of score. Then you'd give XP for income - equal to the value currently generated by spending it on ships. This would mean that your score never dropped if you lost ships - leading to more nice battles and less recalling at the first sign of defence.
I don't actually like that as a solution - but if PA team ever decide whether score or planet building is the basis of the game, and plump for score, then it seems the logical direction to go in. You'd then, in effect, be getting xp for holding on to roids.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 01:52
|
#338
|
SiNíng is a lifestyle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Woodenshoeland
Posts: 241
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gate
ND have so far (PT977) had 2,920 defcalls, what I would consider a 'bumpy' ride (as can be seen on sandmans), and we have not had the 7 (now 8) days of specific targetting Omen have had. These sort of above-average incoming levels are typical of an alliance with a lot of fat members and don't necessarily constitute endlessly coordinated waves of incomings over a period of weeks. Sometimes people just like the look of your roids, without some kind of 'omg destroy omen!' agenda.
|
wow Gate that's really impressive, NOT. We have about 50% of your member size and we also had around 50% of that amount of incoming. And guess what, we didn't even been part of your war!
__________________
Cloggystyle should be one of the SiNs
Now serving the DarkLords
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 02:09
|
#339
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
To all Omen ppl trying to place blame at ND/InS consider this:
What would your hc have done if it was rank3-4 and been fighting with the #2 alliance all round (though not targetting them each night).
Then when 1up tags the #2 alliance ask your alliance and some others to attack 1up, but launch 6 ticks before them caus "they can't trust you".
Anybody with an iq over 5 can accuratly predict how your hc would have responded, so don't be suprised when you got that response from ND/InS.
I'm pretty sure there's no way in hell that Omen would run flak for ND/InS, so why be so suprised that ND/InS refuse to run flak for Omen?
I have no idea what your HC were thinking when they thought that ND/InS would ever go along with that plan to hand over Omen the round without Omen having to do atleast some of the dirty work themselves.
ND/InS played politics bad? Maybe
Omen played politics bd? as bad as it gets baby
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 02:29
|
#340
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austria, Vienna
Posts: 326
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
absolutly agree with VdM here; Omen simply ****ed it up politically. they've been asked to cooperate against 1up when they weren't fully tagged up but Omen refused. why should anyone help Omen out now as u are no longer #1
__________________
eXilition
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 02:39
|
#341
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
as it is atm, its not helping Omen or flakking for Omen, its taking down 1up.
equal amounts of roids in top alliances atm cept 1up -and angels a bit lower.
Do ND and ins fear Omen so much they dont think they togetrher can take Omen down if they together somehow managed to take down 1up?
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 02:41
|
#342
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austria, Vienna
Posts: 326
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
imo Ins and ND know that they can take Omen down afterwards; though why shouldn't they finish off Omen completely now and use the last week of the round to cooperate on 1up
note: this is just my personal opinion and is not representing Insomnias opinion
__________________
eXilition
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 02:48
|
#343
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
I've suggested something similar to that as well - though in a different thread where I was ranting about PA team's inability to decide whether score or value were the main basis of PA. One of the alternatives I mentioned was taking value totally out of score. Then you'd give XP for income - equal to the value currently generated by spending it on ships. This would mean that your score never dropped if you lost ships - leading to more nice battles and less recalling at the first sign of defence.
I don't actually like that as a solution - but if PA team ever decide whether score or planet building is the basis of the game, and plump for score, then it seems the logical direction to go in. You'd then, in effect, be getting xp for holding on to roids.
|
IMO XP should be removed, and we should have only value ( old score )
But as u say, thats sadly enough not the way PA will go. Now we just have to reduce the impact done by xp
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 06:38
|
#344
|
Your typical Troll
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 414
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almeida
imo Ins and ND know that they can take Omen down afterwards; though why shouldn't they finish off Omen completely now and use the last week of the round to cooperate on 1up
note: this is just my personal opinion and is not representing Insomnias opinion
|
I agree... I had never proposed we "resolve" our differences. I just proposed we set them aside for now, and if we have some time afterwards, we shall use it to dispute the #1 place. Alot of it comes down to how well would any specific alliance, be it Omen, ND, InS or anyone else might have been involved.
Am I confident that this scenario COULD happen ? yes. Will it really happen or not, is the main question we here deciding, really. Everything else is just whining about recent past. And ffs... its still a game stop taking it as an insult to your forefathers. Afterall, overreactions from both sides, when blown out of proportions, will cloud the good tactical decisision. I feel like i am in kindergarden sometimes, with everyone pointing fingers to eachother saying "He did this and/or that".
Play this game like adults you are
__________________
[Destiny] awaits, ex- [Omen]
Nothing on the top
but the bucket and the mop
And an illustrated book about birds
See alot up there
But dont be scared
who needs action, when you got words....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbg
reading this line is explicit acceptance of my superiority over you
|
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 06:56
|
#345
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaster
as it is atm, its not helping Omen or flakking for Omen, its taking down 1up.
equal amounts of roids in top alliances atm cept 1up -and angels a bit lower.
Do ND and ins fear Omen so much they dont think they togetrher can take Omen down if they together somehow managed to take down 1up?
|
you can try and spin it any way you like, end of the day, Omen tried to pull a fast one over in ND/Insom.....the way it was described, they tried to get the other two to fade the heat then slide in a few ticks later after all (speaking in general) fleets were already committed in some manner and getoff with the Lions share of the roids with the least amount of damage. How do you ask someone for help to do a thing, then tell them you don't trust them, so you want them to take a punch for you....
if it looks like shit, and it smells like shit, it's probably shit
doesn't matter if it's after the fact or not. seems funny to me how the omen people can actually be offended after ND/Insomnia's decision was to tell Omen to piss off
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 06:59
|
#346
|
;D!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clogg
wow Gate that's really impressive, NOT. We have about 50% of your member size and we also had around 50% of that amount of incoming. And guess what, we didn't even been part of your war!
|
Red the post, rather than just jumping on one number, Cloggy.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 07:56
|
#347
|
self-entitledly superior
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 341
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk
doesn't matter if it's after the fact or not. seems funny to me how the omen people can actually be offended after ND/Insomnia's decision was to tell Omen to piss off
|
I for one can say that I'm not surprised about the reaction. Do I think the reaction is wise? No, they don't think they stand a chance for #1 so they are playing for #2 now. Do I understand why they do so? Yes.
Sometimes its good to disagree with your HC. It doesn't necessarily help tho.
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 08:05
|
#348
|
Bragpack™
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 815
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hude
I for one can say that I'm not surprised about the reaction. Do I think the reaction is wise? No, they don't think they stand a chance for #1 so they are playing for #2 now. Do I understand why they do so? Yes.
Sometimes its good to disagree with your HC. It doesn't necessarily help tho.
|
when did you became such a fine wise man!
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 08:08
|
#349
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almeida
imo Ins and ND know that they can take Omen down afterwards; though why shouldn't they finish off Omen completely now and use the last week of the round to cooperate on 1up
note: this is just my personal opinion and is not representing Insomnias opinion
|
Knowing all this, what would have been the point of ever cooperating with Insomnia and ND on 1up, as the inevitable result would have been coordinated incomings from them? Logic?
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
|
|
|
26 May 2006, 08:14
|
#350
|
self-entitledly superior
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 341
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoom
when did you became such a fine wise man!
|
The moment I entered AD! (Isn't this the place where you can pretend to be smart and blame everything on someone else?)
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:14.
| |