[DISCUSS] "Inofficial rules for PA politics"

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I was just waiting for such a post Wandows, thanks for being the first to make it.
Actually you guys think this is just proposed by FAnG people and 1up people in order to have a chance of survival and not seeing the universe gang up on them. There is definately a way to assume this, probably I would assume the same if I were you. But maybe you want to try and see that last round for example wasn't just boring for your side only. Actually it was most times just as boring for us, and only the private galaxies actually kept the block together for that long.
Also, it wasn't just FAnG ruining the round. You cannot blame the #1 alliance for wanting to stay #1. It was the job of every alliance which is not on the #1 spot to take down the #1, but there was most of the time absolutely no opposition, not even ELV tried to put up a fight (or to get another partner into the boat to match our numbers). If you might want to find a reason for the boring round then look at yourself as well, and if you want a reason for not splitting up the block from FAnG's part, as I said: private galaxies and no need to split up something which just ensures your #1 position.

i think this is one of best bullshit i ever heard. it was freaking round 10.5 - EVERYone knows the gamedynamics by now and you guys were on top and could have changed......about the ELV part who didnt try to stand up - i cannot comment that because i quitted all politics etc and stepped back before the round started. but it wasnt just fpm (what would have been enough) it was also wp and whoever was part in the beginning and sitting in your gals. at the start of the round even fang officer/hcs asked for "friendship" because it wasnt really out that we were sitting together in elv galaxies (even if you nowadays all claim you know about our block long before)

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Legator

i think this is one of best bullshit i ever heard. it was freaking round 10.5 - EVERYone knows the gamedynamics by now and you guys were on top and could have changed......about the ELV part who didnt try to stand up - i cannot comment that because i quitted all politics etc and stepped back before the round started. but it wasnt just fpm (what would have been enough) it was also wp and whoever was part in the beginning and sitting in your gals. at the start of the round even fang officer/hcs asked for "friendship" because it wasnt really out that we were sitting together in elv galaxies (even if you nowadays all claim you know about our block long before)

funny

[Nitros]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

I have an idea......How about we play Planetarion....

[god113]

This favours hiding member-count/member-score, therefore it = bad. Alliances shouldn't be hiding from #1 spot, they should all be striving for it. Also favours mass recruitment near end.

I don't think I have to explain why it favours these things, you're all bright enough to work it out yourselves Hence why I don't like it. If you're gonna make any agreement, go to Sid's thread.

[waassaa]

This agreement would have an interesting side effect that people seem not to notice.
Alliances have always taken the easy route, as have the individual player, rather than attack a leading alliance or attack strong planets, it was always the route of easy roids that was taken (not much wrong with that).
problem with this route is it allows the #1 alliance to pull further away, and increases n00b bashing to the max.
It would be nice to see alliances taking on the fight right from the start.

The proposal heartless made, which is close (taken a step further maybe) to that of Sid's is a good one.
Every alliance would need to get thier heads around the change in politics it implies, that is all. Political fun can still be had by "using" the agreement to your own ends.

Quite refreshing to see new political agreements being discussed and hopefully being taken on board.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

I have an idea......How about we play Planetarion....

That worked ever so well last round. Every alliance HC did as they wanted last round and look how that turned out:

MPF HC's decided they wanted to work together.
WP HC's decided they didn't want to have a go at MPF in the beginning.
ND HC's took a wee while to decide they fancied a bash at MPF
ND and WP HC's decided it was ok for their members to join private gals with MPF players.

Yup - that was a real recipe for an ace round.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I have some doubts about this. Like wha would deem an alliance to be number 1 (roids/score/ships/growth).

Also what would stop this escalating. 1 is under attack from 2,3,4. whats to stop him getting support from 4,5,6,7,8 and 9?

Also unoffical is without authority. Inofficial in this sense while being old english is totally correct (Not official; not having official sanction or authority) and I would hazard a guess and say more grammatically correct than unofficial, butit is splitting hairs and dreadn00b has alread been owned by heartless so I will shut up now

rumad that dictionary has your inoffical defintion for unoffical (it also had it for inoffical) so either is fine - but unoffical sounds nicer

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Legator

i think this is one of best bullshit i ever heard. it was freaking round 10.5 - EVERYone knows the gamedynamics by now and you guys were on top and could have changed......about the ELV part who didnt try to stand up - i cannot comment that because i quitted all politics etc and stepped back before the round started. but it wasnt just fpm (what would have been enough) it was also wp and whoever was part in the beginning and sitting in your gals. at the start of the round even fang officer/hcs asked for "friendship" because it wasnt really out that we were sitting together in elv galaxies (even if you nowadays all claim you know about our block long before)

And the main intention of your post is?
I have never said it would be one sides mistake only. I did actually state that FPM were one reason for the stagnation, but I will never ever agree with anyone who claims it was FPM's mistake only.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Kal

rumad that dictionary has your inoffical defintion for unoffical (it also had it for inoffical) so either is fine - but unoffical sounds nicer

Actually inofficial seems more targetted at specifics where as unofficial seems more general (from wha I looked up anyway), so I would think inofficial is more grammatically correct while unofficial is generally more widely accepted and used.

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Actually inofficial seems more targetted at specifics where as unofficial seems more general (from wha I looked up anyway), so I would think inofficial is more grammatically correct while unofficial is generally more widely accepted and used.

Nope.

But on topic - I think that to see alliance HC's pledge their support to this proposal would be a slight deviation in their responsibilities to their alliance.

As a HC - your first obligation is to see that your alliance has a "good" round. Good can be qualified as 'high-scoring' (if your name is Focht), 'competetive', or even, yes...'fun'. If your political options and proposals are hindered by this looming threat of a killer group of old fogies banding up to destroy you, the choices are limited for making this a good round for an alliance.

While some groups may have the luxury of being able to take on 2 or 3 alliances at once, others may not be able to do it without sacrificing other important pieces of your alliance.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Nope.

But on topic - I think that to see alliance HC's pledge their support to this proposal would be a slight deviation in their responsibilities to their alliance.

As a HC - your first obligation is to see that your alliance has a "good" round. Good can be qualified as 'high-scoring' (if your name is Focht), 'competetive', or even, yes...'fun'. If your political options and proposals are hindered by this looming threat of a killer group of old fogies banding up to destroy you, the choices are limited for making this a good round for an alliance.

While some groups may have the luxury of being able to take on 2 or 3 alliances at once, others may not be able to do it without sacrificing other important pieces of your alliance.

The question is not what your goals are, in general everyone plays this game for competition. Winning is an additional gift but a boring win is as bad as losing.
Looking out for YOUR alliance first is infact the intention of this proposal seeing you have far more targets and are less likely to be targetted by "all the big guys" in response to you beeing in the loserblock.
Fun can come from many aspects of the game, may it be winning or losing its not neccessary an "or". Fun can be trying to be the top defender as much as maintaining a personal goal or saving your friends/giving your enemy a tough time even in the face of defeat. You make it sound like fun is something only booked by those who dont play the game in any way serious and just hang out in the channels not giving a damn and have o'so much fun while beeing whacked.

The question however arises why you believe "hindering political manuvering" would do your alliance any good ? Its not like this restrictions would only effect you.
Mistu, Fang etc had no restrictions and i dont see this helping you either. While i personally could see a solo round for everyone with exceptions for the smaller alliances would help the game in general.
Both proposals infact cover the idea of 2 smaller alliances teaming up to an extend to give more competition to the few big alliances. How is this restricting ? If anyone is restricted it would be the big "guns" who are seemingly in favour of those proposals.

Strangely the very same ppl who moaned last round about ppl giving up on the face of this blockstagnation onslaught are now the loudest who argue against any blocking restrictions. What fun is it exactly if half of the players give the game up before the halftime is reached while a few brave try to hold the line vs a warmaschinery which has already won. Sure pyrrus victorys and needlepike victorys might be "fun" but they dont influence the game for the rest of the players. Reading last rounds whining and moaning posts does atleast for me not imply there was much fun left once the round finally walzed over the last tick.

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Razorback

The question however arises why you believe "hindering political manuvering" would do your alliance any good ? Its not like this restrictions would only effect you.
Mistu, Fang etc had no restrictions and i dont see this helping you either. While i personally could see a solo round for everyone with exceptions for the smaller alliances would help the game in general.
Both proposals infact cover the idea of 2 smaller alliances teaming up to an extend to give more competition to the few big alliances. How is this restricting ? If anyone is restricted it would be the big "guns" who are seemingly in favour of those proposals.

Firstly, you seem to forget that ND wont be blocking. We dont block to get a numbers advantage, and havent since round 6.

Secondly, I couldnt give two shits about how the larger alliances are restricted. I simply know that when other alliances (large or small) are trying to exert their pressures on my political dealings, id rather have them mind their own business. My concerns go first and foremost to the alliance I work for. Call me crazy.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Nope.

But on topic - I think that to see alliance HC's pledge their support to this proposal would be a slight deviation in their responsibilities to their alliance.

As a HC - your first obligation is to see that your alliance has a "good" round. Good can be qualified as 'high-scoring' (if your name is Focht), 'competetive', or even, yes...'fun'. If your political options and proposals are hindered by this looming threat of a killer group of old fogies banding up to destroy you, the choices are limited for making this a good round for an alliance.

While some groups may have the luxury of being able to take on 2 or 3 alliances at once, others may not be able to do it without sacrificing other important pieces of your alliance.

The fact you are missing is that you are not the only alliance which has to take on the whole universe. Actually every alliance going solo is supposed to fight the whole universe and those suffering first will be the first to have a lot of roids. I don't see anything wrong with that to be honest, if you think Planetarion is a game where you are supposed to have an easy start-finish victory then you are plain wrong. If your people cannot fight for a whole round, then - pardon me - they simply do not deserve to win or do well.
What I have personally noticed a lot the past rounds is that throughout most rounds people didn't want to lose any roids (which is to a degree understandable) and immediately stopped playing once they lost the first few - instead of trying to get them back. In a "free-for-all" there won't be any continous hitting of certain planets, unless those planets manage to keep their asteroids somehow. And this counts for everyone, not just for ND or Vision or FAnG or 1up or whoever else.
But then again, if you and your alliance mainly consist of those sore losers which cannot face the loss of a single roid, like for example certain Phraktos command people last round, then I seriously recommend you find other people for your team.

Oh, and by the way ... don't you think it is an overall good sign when the players do try to make the game more fun (as in more competition) for everyone again?

[Barrow|Pony]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not doing a good job in explaining my thoughts on the issue.

The non-blocking proposal is a good and sound one. I am not, however, sold on the..."if you dont agree, we will band up to crush you" condition. Thats all.

[Axis_WLF]

"will be blocking"

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not doing a good job in explaining my thoughts on the issue.

The non-blocking proposal is a good and sound one. I am not, however, sold on the..."if you dont agree, we will band up to crush you" condition. Thats all.

See why I am trying to find some kind of agreement that such a situation won't even arise. Personally I'd seriously hate it if - for example - FAnG and 1up and ND would need to gang up to break up some block formed by WP / MISTU / LCH / VSN.
I'm still favouring the idea of these inofficial game rules where the community puts up some restrictions on their politics. Even if they have some flaws, but basically those flaws will always exist until something gets finally hard-coded into the game.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

The non-blocking proposal is a good and sound one. I am not, however, sold on the..."if you dont agree, we will band up to crush you" condition. Thats all.

That's it in a nutshell, this condition says, "you do this or we'll use military force to push our politics on your alliance" and that's bullshit

You want to block, block, you don't, don't... regardless of the cries and opinions in this thread or any other AD threads, each alliance is going to do as they see fit for their alliance. People are trying to shape the game before a tick has even moved.... There are many variables that are gonna effect the political and military make up of this round, it's a random galaxy. So it's gonna depend on a luck of the draw to a point, and how well each alliance uses the buddy code set up to their advantage. Cluster alliances are also going to play a part in this (which is an area of the game that I personally missed) Because defensively, it's no longer just alliance that get a -1 travel bonus, and that makes all the difference in the world.

It's going to depend on about 100 things that none of us have any way of knowing yet. Little alliances will form alliances, and probably big one's will also into the round when they see that going it alone ain't gonna get it done... It's already been said that "it isn't a block until it's 3 or more alliances" and so someone has already defined "block". Who says others won't see it as a block with only 2 alliances, thats 150-200 planets, That can make an impact as well, especially if they have their shit together......

I've got to agree with Barrow, in that, the idea may be sound, but the threats to attack those that don't comply are not only pre-mature, but basically blowing sunshine up all our asses, you will form to attack those that do not comply, if so, one alliance alone cannot successfully maintain a military attack on a "block" so they will need friends to help, other alliances, therefore, they are also blocking.

And let's now figure in the smaller alliances, the guys that had 60-75 members in 10.5, but low average scores, be it due to inexperience or lack of early organization...these are your potential sources for easy roids, so you have the resources to wage war with the bigger alliances... not to mention the battle groups out there, that will feed off the un-allied and small alliance planets... These smaller alliances will have to form friendships and likely alliances to survive. NAPs will do as we all wish to avoid, NAPs cause stagnation as well, if you NAP everyone and their dog, who are you gonna attack? That means the guy who suffers is the new player, who has no alliance, who cannot respond to the nightly bashing sessions that most certainly WILL happen, especially with these ship stats.

I believe that is, or should be this games biggest fear. Which is why I like the idea of the 10% resource/production/research bonus idea for non allied planets , up to a 2 mil score (also allowing a 1 tick travel time bonus between un allied planets)That atleast gives these new un-allied guys an opportunity to make a difference and not feel like they payed their $10. to be a farm for some alliance bashers. And also promotes newer players getting opportunities to join the bigger alliances because they do have productive planets. You want it to work with the game set up, make them sign up for the mentor program that's available to qualify for these bonuses..

THAT helps PA, that promotes new players enjoying and sticking around as a growing player base. making un-official rules for alliances just gives us all something to argue about until it starts ticking, this round no one blocks, they see the light and next round becomes another block war, isn't this how PA has worked for the first 10 rounds?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

That's it in a nutshell, this condition says, "you do this or we'll use military force to push our politics on your alliance" and that's bullshit

You want to block, block, you don't, don't... regardless of the cries and opinions in this thread or any other AD threads, each alliance is going to do as they see fit for their alliance. People are trying to shape the game before a tick has even moved.... There are many variables that are gonna effect the political and military make up of this round, it's a random galaxy. So it's gonna depend on a luck of the draw to a point, and how well each alliance uses the buddy code set up to their advantage. Cluster alliances are also going to play a part in this (which is an area of the game that I personally missed) Because defensively, it's no longer just alliance that get a -1 travel bonus, and that makes all the difference in the world.

So, for you another special explanation as well:
Every alliance does have the right to do whatever they want to do. BUT(!) the ones blocking before a round starts can actually force the rest of the universe into certain situations as well. It all depends on WHO creates a block. If 2 alliances with 75 members each want to cooperate, it is ok. If 3 alliances of 50 members want to cooperate it is fine as well. Things start to get critical once those blocks exceed certain limits. You need to set an upper limit in order to not have at some point 51% of the universe cooperating to take down 1 or 2 alliances which might in total represent 5% of the universe.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Heartless, I do see where your going with the idea, and I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, I think in a perfect world there are a lot of ideas that never work out, because 1. I have the feeling that because of all the hype and hoopla, players can't wait to take a stab at 1up, because of all the advertising, and 2. players can't wait to gorrilla pimp FaNG, just because of all the bashing they did last round...

If it comes together as you wish, cool, I'm all for it, as long as no one starts with the you don't block or we'll come after you crap..... There are alliances as a whole that people just don't like, why..because they win, and they beat up on people (that's how it's seen in the eye's of the new player/small alliance player) to do it.
And because where 1up is concerned, it's all about "WE TOOK ROIDS FROM THE CELEBS" people will gang up if neccesary to try and accomplish this, we'll see if it works out for them, stay tuned

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not doing a good job in explaining my thoughts on the issue.

The non-blocking proposal is a good and sound one. I am not, however, sold on the..."if you dont agree, we will band up to crush you" condition. Thats all.

My proposal never had a "if you dont agree, we will band up to crush you" condition. It had a "if you band up, we'll crush you" clause. The two things are different.

One of the agruments against it seems to be along the lines of "we don't want our politics dictated by anyone else, we'll do what we want". That's entirely reasonable and fine - but anyone using that argument also has to accept the other side of the coin - that everyone else can also do do what they want. In the case of 1up, what we want is to go solo, but to group with other like-minded alliances on a temporary basis to deal with anyone whose personal choice is to form a large block.

Those alliances not interested in any such deal are entirely entitled to ignore it - and they have the luxury of knowing that many top alliances won't form a permanent block and will only form a temporary one if another block forms first. So even those alliances with no interest in the agreement gain from the agreement existing (if it does) - as at least they can predict what certain other alliances' response will be and take that into account in their decision making process.

Ultimately every alliance WILL do what they want. Those who don't want such a deal MUST recognise that other alliances also have the right to decide what they want to do. We can't order other alliances to become party to any agreement - but by the same token they can't expect us not to make such an agreement just because they want to block (or whatever their reason is). Ultimately this is a wargame - and, as with every other aspect of PA game play, the battlefield will determine which political approach works, and which fails. Not being part of the agreement also carries another downside - those not party to it have no say when it comes to assessing the evidence of whether a block even exists.

Complaining about the sanctions side of any such agreement is, i think, fairly pointless. Without strong sanctions the agreement has no great value. Those not in any agreement can have no complaint if they block and then get hit en masse by those party to the agreement - after all, by not being IN the agreement they chose not to support an anti-blocking stance: so at worst they can view those in the agreement as a block - a concept they've already subscribed to - and go whine on the boards about being outnumbered (which hasn't yet saved roids or killed attacking ships to the best of my knowledge).

[Leinad]

maybe u should all quit the game if u cant accept that ppl can and will team up when they see the need for it.
U can have as much proposals as u want still it wont change the game mechanics.
There will be enough cases where a block is absolutly reasonable and needed but this could create other ones etc. so in the end it will allways come down to a 2 side fight, pretty much the same as in RL (show me a big war where 3 factions all fought each other).
If u want longer rounds and more interesting ones the only real way is to change game mechanics though i have no idea how u can get rid off the block "problem".
I never saw it as a problem and that PA is still alive after all those problems it had (and i dont mean the political ones) shows that this whole block stuff cant be as worse as some want to make it.
The only real problem is the lack of players and thus the top alliances and players soon fight each other what leads to early stagnation thats y PA worked so much better in r1-4.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Leinad

maybe u should all quit the game if u cant accept that ppl can and will team up when they see the need for it.
U can have as much proposals as u want still it wont change the game mechanics.
There will be enough cases where a block is absolutly reasonable and needed but this could create other ones etc. so in the end it will allways come down to a 2 side fight, pretty much the same as in RL (show me a big war where 3 factions all fought each other).
If u want longer rounds and more interesting ones the only real way is to change game mechanics though i have no idea how u can get rid off the block "problem".
I never saw it as a problem and that PA is still alive after all those problems it had (and i dont mean the political ones) shows that this whole block stuff cant be as worse as some want to make it.
The only real problem is the lack of players and thus the top alliances and players soon fight each other what leads to early stagnation thats y PA worked so much better in r1-4.

Firstly, nobody said the anyone "cant accept that ppl can and will team up when they see the need for it".

Secondly, there is a very good example for such a big war: The "30-year-war" (not sure if it is the correct translation, in German it is "Der 30jährige Krieg"). We even had 4 different parties if I remember correctly: Sweden, France, Germany and Spain.

Thirdly, getting rid of the "block problem" is something we are trying to achieve here. We want to avoid that blocks can become a problem - you can arrange mid-round whatever agreement you need to achieve the top spot, we just ask that you break up again as soon as you reached your aim.

And last but not least: given the point there are not enough players we need to find this kind of agreement. With a universe-size as in round 4 it wouldn't happen that easily that people want to start solo.

[Leinad]

i simply say blocks are no problem they are a political result.
U could also force everyone to play on his own that would also prevent any stagnation.
As long as there are size and "skill" difference between alliances (what will be allways the case) u need a way to balance those things or to get an advantage and that happens with naps/allies and from there on u are on the way to blocks and nothing will stop that besides being able to own the whole universe even without block.
Also new players got nothing to do with blocks or not, they will be bashed anyways, blocks are only a problem for the active players which might get bashed if their block loses and they expect to have better chances or a longer round without blocks what might be true still its naive to think it will work in the long run.
I say end rounds when they stagnate and start a new one where is the problem?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Leinad

i simply say blocks are no problem they are a political result.
U could also force everyone to play on his own that would also prevent any stagnation.
As long as there are size and "skill" difference between alliances (what will be allways the case) u need a way to balance those things or to get an advantage and that happens with naps/allies and from there on u are on the way to blocks and nothing will stop that besides being able to own the whole universe even without block.
Also new players got nothing to do with blocks or not, they will be bashed anyways, blocks are only a problem for the active players which might get bashed if their block loses and they expect to have better chances or a longer round without blocks what might be true still its naive to think it will work in the long run.
I say end rounds when they stagnate and start a new one where is the problem?

The problem is that people won't pay for a round which will randomly reset.

Oh, and given your assumption: why not simply make a signup option then where you have to decide whether you want to play with block a or with block b, and you will only be available to attack the opposing force?

Alliances were once actually established so that single planets can get help from others. Instead of forming a permanent (full round lasting) block for whatever reason you could as well just disband or leave your alliances and form a new, big one, the result will be the same with the difference that you are actually able to claim that your alliance has won. But then again, if you do need to block with 51% of the universe, Leinad, then we must have overestimated your skills

[Leinad]

Originally Posted by Heartless

The problem is that people won't pay for a round which will randomly reset.

Oh, and given your assumption: why not simply make a signup option then where you have to decide whether you want to play with block a or with block b, and you will only be available to attack the opposing force?

Alliances were once actually established so that single planets can get help from others. Instead of forming a permanent (full round lasting) block for whatever reason you could as well just disband or leave your alliances and form a new, big one, the result will be the same with the difference that you are actually able to claim that your alliance has won. But then again, if you do need to block with 51% of the universe, Leinad, then we must have overestimated your skills

There wont be random resets but if a round is decided after 4 weeks then end it, simple as that (and make next round free).

The last comment is just redicilous and got nothing to do with me (my last PA round was r7) or any alliance, there was never a block which had 50% of the universe in it, maybe 50% of the active players but thats a difference.
Also if all those ppl agree to be part of the block and accept what happens then i ask me y ppl allways complain about it.
The problem arent blocks, the problem are alliance leaders without balls, which dont split their block or dont want to change politics for an interesting round.
What u want are ingame rules for alliances which limit their abilities and can make things even worse like y should everyone take down #1 alliance and how is this going to work, the round winner is the alliance which was to the right time #1?
Politics are a major part of PA cause there isnt really much skill needed besides having time.
Ppl should get some balls and post less on boards cause creating rules for how alliances should behave cant be the way to go.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Leinad

i simply say blocks are no problem they are a political result.

An anti-block agreement would also be a political result - and hence, presumably, no problem. Politics isn't just deciding who you'll ally with or attack (or at least it doesn't have to be that). Ultimately we'll all do our politics the way we want to - and live with the results of our attempts.

[Leinad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

An anti-block agreement would also be a political result - and hence, presumably, no problem. Politics isn't just deciding who you'll ally with or attack (or at least it doesn't have to be that). Ultimately we'll all do our politics the way we want to - and live with the results of our attempts.

ur anti-block agreement is simply a "no politics" rule and no political result, its a result of bored ppl which try to change game mechanics.
What else is there left to decide than who is ur enemy and who ur friend, maybe how u fencesit the best?
Maybe it will be good if we get a round without blocks but just to see that this wont be the new pa gaming paradise everyone seems to be looking for.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Leinad

ur anti-block agreement is simply a "no politics" rule and no political result, its a result of bored ppl which try to change game mechanics.
What else is there left to decide than who is ur enemy and who ur friend, maybe how u fencesit the best?
Maybe it will be good if we get a round without blocks but just to see that this wont be the new pa gaming paradise everyone seems to be looking for.

I'm pretty sure this is just a troll, but on the off-chance you're just ignorant I'll respond. An anti-blocking agreement is in no way, shape or form a change to game mechanics - it's politics pure and simple. Game Mechanics are those thingsb uilt into the game design, coding and rules which restrict or allow the actions available to players. Politics is the means by which players (or groupings of players) negotiate to their mutual (or non-mutual) benefit to decide on their own (or one another's) courses of actions.

Any negotiation between players and/or alliances is politics. How you can claim otherwise astounds me (which is I why I suspect you're just trolling).

Even with such an agreement, politics DOES still exist (even ignoring the fact that such an agreement is itself pure politics). You still decide who you attack, whether to attack one alliance in particular, etc. Alliance also still have the option of forming a block if they so desire.

From the perspective of those alliances not interested in joining any agreement there is only ONE difference between the existence of such an agreement, and all the alliances party to such an agreement having formed a block:

They don't HAVE to fight the block - so they're not compelled to get wasted by a large block. They can, of course, opt to do so by forming a block which isn't big enough to take on all the others at once. This means that they could, for example, choose to wage war vs an alliance their own size in a universe not dominated by an unstoppable winning block.

Such an agreement gives those party to it the opportunity to try their luck solo. Those not party to it have an extra political choice they otherwise wouldn't have - the choice of whether they want a big block war or not.

You claim such an agreement removes political options - you're 100% wrong. In a typical round, once sides are chosen, NOONE gets to choose their friends/enemies. Where's the politics in a situation like that? Where two fixed sides are made, and there's minimal political change unless (at the earliest) one side are so badly damaged they no have the military might to negotiate politically at any level of equality with members of the winning side.

Such an agreement gives political options, not removes them. And it is in no way an attempt to change game mechanics - only those running the game can do that.

Oh, and in such a situation NOONE can fence-sit. To fence-sit there has to be a clear division of sides - which wouldn't be the case.

[Gerbie]

I pretty much agree with most of your post, but this

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Oh, and in such a situation NOONE can fence-sit. To fence-sit there has to be a clear division of sides - which wouldn't be the case.

is just so untrue. Just make sure you don't attack any of the big alliances you have in your galaxy and you won't get attacked by them. I call that fencesitting. And since this is a random round this option is open to a lot of players.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

I pretty much agree with most of your post, but this

is just so untrue. Just make sure you don't attack any of the big alliances you have in your galaxy and you won't get attacked by them. I call that fencesitting. And since this is a random round this option is open to a lot of players.

Ah, I was unclear there. I was referring to alliances being unable to fence-sit. Obviously individual players can still fence-sit.

[Gerbie]

That makes sense indd. However I still disagree a bit. If alliances can be certain there won't be any dominating force they have their hands free to roid easy targets and make sure they don't upset any other strong alliance.

The big alliances (or their members) usually avoid hitting each other in such situations: no need to upset the other while there's plenty of easy roids around. The argument would be: I'm not going to even try roid that 1up/FAnG/VsN/Wp/ToF guy: his alliance will easily defend against me.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

That makes sense indd. However I still disagree a bit. If alliances can be certain there won't be any dominating force they have their hands free to roid easy targets and make sure they don't upset any other strong alliance.

The big alliances (or their members) usually avoid hitting each other in such situations: no need to upset the other while there's plenty of easy roids around. The argument would be: I'm not going to even try roid that 1up/FAnG/VsN/Wp/ToF guy: his alliance will easily defend against me.

Now, isn't it funny that nobody knows which planet coordinate belongs to which alliance? We do NOT know what planet is what alliance unless we have very good (almost god-like or admin tool) intel from every alliance on every alliance, thus most alliances won't know for quite some time whom they hit.

Then again, with everyone participating in the agreement and thus wanting to go for the #1 spot: those alliances would WANT to weaken each other as soon as possible, in order that no alliance will gain a too huge lead too soon. I mean, as long as people are small, fleet-wise, it is easy to take their roids. at tick 72 for example 1up isn't really better than MISTU. Nor will FAnG be better than ND. Or Vision than WP... and so on.

[Leinad]

cant be bothered to reply but we will c how things are going to work out, especially with ur proposal.

[gzambo]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

An anti-block agreement would also be a political result - and hence, presumably, no problem. Politics isn't just deciding who you'll ally with or attack (or at least it doesn't have to be that). Ultimately we'll all do our politics the way we want to - and live with the results of our attempts.

so would it be safe to assume that given your previous panache for political manouvers that you will have a plan B to give your alliance instant allies if other alliances block in this round
(not a dig at you or 1up im just curious)

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by gzambo

so would it be safe to assume that given your previous panache for political manouvers that you will have a plan B to give your alliance instant allies if other alliances block in this round
(not a dig at you or 1up im just curious)

That's openly stated as part of the proposal: if someone else blocks, then those committed to going solo form a temporary block to deal with the blockers.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I am very aware of the flaws of this proposal, but in the end those flaws come down to all alliance HC's and there willingness of making this an enjoyable game again. There is also the possibility of secret agendas at every alliance thus it does come down to everyones honesty. I mean face it: If we should have secret agreements again somewhere or having revenge thoughts dictating some alliances politics, then we are just on the way to have another block-dominated round in round 12, and have in no way a different round than before.

But I sense a "change" in the mentality of quite a few of the older and newer major alliances as they more and more notice as well that the joy of this game is fading more and more when the game mechanics will go on and on as before. Oh, and if the joy for everyone will rise again because there are no die-hard-cooperations any more, we might even face more players again, which would mean more roids, more competition and even more political options again.



Inofficial is also correct, troll

Bringing the fun back to PA is a good thing.
And bringing back the fun to PA is what we want to see for our members.
As we noticed during the beta we greatly enjoyed our independence in PA and wish to continue this during r11.
So that’s why we []LCH[] are joining the club of alliances that are going solo.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Heartless

First of all I do hope nobody will want to flame this thread to hell but instead give it a serious thought and then a nice reply.

I think since we have seen most major alliances starting solo in order to increase the fun part of the game, we should also find ways to increase the fun during the round, so this thread has the intention to come up with some kind of "gentlemen's agreement" if you want to call it that way.

Everyone agrees that during the round it is ok to form cooperations in order to take down the leading alliance. This does, however, rise the question at which point an alliance will be considered as "down". I think as soon as one alliance is out of the top 3 or top 5 alliance ranking it should be considered as down and thus cooperations with the new #1, as far as they are/were included, have to end immediately.
There are several reasons for it:
1) Taking an alliance out of top 3/5 will mean that they will have to fight a bit more to get back into the race for the #1 spot, but won't take them out of game business completely.
2) Taking an alliance out of top 3/5 should also ensure that we won't have any long-term blocks and increase the chance to win for everyone as the new #1 cannot sit for a too long time on the place at the sun.
3) Excluding the new #1 from all cooperations would mean that there are indeed no long-term blocks to be formed, thus more action and in the end more fun for everyone as nobody will seriously get bashed to hell.

I would like to have everyone else giving this a thought and I do as well know that it would come down to irrelevant things like "honour" or "reputation" to stick to it. But if we are all more or less deciding to start solo for the fun then we should also come up with some inofficial agreements between the alliance HC's to ensure the fun during the round. After all, having fun doesn't exclude the chance to win.

NAH. This way, you will never know who the best alliance is. lets say 7 alliances are in on this. If one gets #1 then he has to fight 600 people. Not really skill imho. It will simply be, whatever alliance was a close #2 with 75 ticks left will win. And #2 fighting with 600 other people definitley doesn't crown them the best. I honestly feel that people are trying to find a loophole, and trying to get pre-cooperation from other alliances. Say a certain alliance omgpwns the rest of universe, certain cowards want assurance that rest of uni will help them. In a nut shell. If an alliance is #1, and entire uni is needed to take them down, thats pretty gay. Also, since there will always be an alliance in the #1 spot, there will always be cooperation between the other 6 or 7 alliances. So there will be no fighting between the lower alliances. So, the alliance that lags around #3, is not really that good, but had no real incomings the entire round, helps to take down top 2 ally's then bam, this mediocre alliance wins. Really wouldn't be a 1337 finish, and definitley not worthy of being crowned the best.

[LB|away]

Originally Posted by Chika

NAH. This way, you will never know who the best alliance is. lets say 7 alliances are in on this. If one gets #1 then he has to fight 600 people. Not really skill imho. It will simply be, whatever alliance was a close #2 with 75 ticks left will win. And #2 fighting with 600 other people definitley doesn't crown them the best. I honestly feel that people are trying to find a loophole, and trying to get pre-cooperation from other alliances. Say a certain alliance omgpwns the rest of universe, certain cowards want assurance that rest of uni will help them. In a nut shell. If an alliance is #1, and entire uni is needed to take them down, thats pretty gay. Also, since there will always be an alliance in the #1 spot, there will always be cooperation between the other 6 or 7 alliances. So there will be no fighting between the lower alliances. So, the alliance that lags around #3, is not really that good, but had no real incomings the entire round, helps to take down top 2 ally's then bam, this mediocre alliance wins. Really wouldn't be a 1337 finish, and definitley not worthy of being crowned the best.

yep idd
like I said.... when FAnG is #1 people have the right to team up with 5 others and kill FAnG....
I dont like it either

[Chika]

Originally Posted by LB|away

yep idd
like I said.... when FAnG is #1 people have the right to team up with 5 others and kill FAnG....
I dont like it either

idd

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by Chika

NAH. This way, you will never know who the best alliance is. lets say 7 alliances are in on this. If one gets #1 then he has to fight 600 people. Not really skill imho. It will simply be, whatever alliance was a close #2 with 75 ticks left will win. And #2 fighting with 600 other people definitley doesn't crown them the best. I honestly feel that people are trying to find a loophole, and trying to get pre-cooperation from other alliances. Say a certain alliance omgpwns the rest of universe, certain cowards want assurance that rest of uni will help them. In a nut shell. If an alliance is #1, and entire uni is needed to take them down, thats pretty gay. Also, since there will always be an alliance in the #1 spot, there will always be cooperation between the other 6 or 7 alliances. So there will be no fighting between the lower alliances. So, the alliance that lags around #3, is not really that good, but had no real incomings the entire round, helps to take down top 2 ally's then bam, this mediocre alliance wins. Really wouldn't be a 1337 finish, and definitley not worthy of being crowned the best.

so what you are basically saying that blocks are only counted as number of members regardless of what total score they hold? that i just plain bullshit. If the #1 alliance for example has 100 mil score and the runner up 70 and down the rankings etc etc.. That will never be a fair fight, simply because #2 could never get the fleet power together to fight #1 in a decent way. Which in turn would mean, if like you say no one is allowed to attack #1 while at war with #2 (except for random hits), there will be a stagnated battle in favour of the #1 alliance... now ofcourse thats fun and all.....

And tbh, having skill or whatever has nothing to do with claiming #1 position, its been numerous times where the #1 alliance hasn´t proved to be more skillfull then a other. For example the NARWEET vs VVOMM war (yes block.. does that matter.. no). NARWEET won.. but they proved they had skill? not at all, its not really skillfull to kill a block which you can cover comepletely ( minus 1 or 2 lucky gals every night/day). In the end however.. ET won vs EW, which was a reasonably fair fight, their skill was tested by having the large numbers in EW and the larger score/value in ET.

alliance membercounts isn´t all that matters, nor will a all neutral round be a show of skil, as no alliance will be fully tested if everyone plays fair. It will just be "look us roiding those noobs teh fastest and hardest... hahahahahahha"

[TheACE]

the idea is good Heartless, but i am not sure if every1 will keep theses prommisses

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Wandows

so what you are basically saying that blocks are only counted as number of members regardless of what total score they hold? that i just plain bullshit. If the #1 alliance for example has 100 mil score and the runner up 70 and down the rankings etc etc.. That will never be a fair fight, simply because #2 could never get the fleet power together to fight #1 in a decent way. Which in turn would mean, if like you say no one is allowed to attack #1 while at war with #2 (except for random hits), there will be a stagnated battle in favour of the #1 alliance... now ofcourse thats fun and all.....

And tbh, having skill or whatever has nothing to do with claiming #1 position, its been numerous times where the #1 alliance hasn´t proved to be more skillfull then a other. For example the NARWEET vs VVOMM war (yes block.. does that matter.. no). NARWEET won.. but they proved they had skill? not at all, its not really skillfull to kill a block which you can cover comepletely ( minus 1 or 2 lucky gals every night/day). In the end however.. ET won vs EW, which was a reasonably fair fight, their skill was tested by having the large numbers in EW and the larger score/value in ET.

alliance membercounts isn´t all that matters, nor will a all neutral round be a show of skil, as no alliance will be fully tested if everyone plays fair. It will just be "look us roiding those noobs teh fastest and hardest... hahahahahahha"

ummmm what i am saying is what I said, I love to quote myself. Let me narrow down my entire post to this one statement I made and I quote (hehe) "I honestly feel that people are trying to find a loophole, and trying to get pre-cooperation from other alliances. Say a certain alliance omgpwns the rest of universe, certain cowards want assurance that rest of uni will help them." Thats what I think. I won't add to many other statements now. I want you to focus on that one, because it seems you missed it.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Chika

ummmm what i am saying is what I said, I love to quote myself. Let me narrow down my entire post to this one statement I made and I quote (hehe) "I honestly feel that people are trying to find a loophole, and trying to get pre-cooperation from other alliances. Say a certain alliance omgpwns the rest of universe, certain cowards want assurance that rest of uni will help them." Thats what I think. I won't add to many other statements now. I want you to focus on that one, because it seems you missed it.

Who cares about that? I'm sure there's plenty of decent alliances that would be willing to team up in order to take down an alliance/block that makes the game unbalanced. That's what can make a round interesting.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Who cares about that? I'm sure there's plenty of decent alliances that would be willing to team up in order to take down an alliance/block that makes the game unbalanced. That's what can make a round interesting.

ummmmm, well maybe.....no.

You go Dukey.
The past hour or two I've been reading AD (cus I'm a realy sad person) and you just sumarized my entire experiene of AD.
I'm gonna go jogging now since I just realized I should stop reading this stuff.

Don't mean this against this thread necesarily. Think the no-blocking thingy is great just have a hard time seeing it actually happen.

*edit* wow lot's a people posted while I was reading.

[Splashsun]

well simple thing to sort this problem out (wonder why not suggested already) is to say "no blocks >200 planets = ~2 whole allys" gentlemen agree on that, and there will be fun and battle all round long. good luck in r11.