So what happened to the "loyalty" factor?

[HobbieRogue4]

Much of what I've seen happen to this game's alliance communities since I quit in Round 7 makes me ill. It appears as though once the "three big guns" left the game, people lost touch with what they had to focus on; beating one or more of the big three - Fury, Legion, and Xanadu. The sheer power vacuum left by those three, combined with the direction the game was going with attacking becoming more difficult in Planetarion, gave way to what appears to be the rise of the battlegroup.

Round 7 saw BGs take a huge rise in popularity due to all the political in-fighting in the game, even among so-called allies. People seemed to simply feel more comfortable with relying on the people they saw day to day, rather than the 'nameless' nicknames who came and went in their own alliance. It makes sense, as several BGs, and even alliances, saw their formations from tight-knit galaxies. DTA is an example of this apparent phenomenon in PA's political direction.

Towards the end of Round 6 I had an extensive discussion with Kain_Rowd regarding loyalties to alliances and the general playing atmosphere in PA. Several examples game up, from the classic Legionesque and Furyite, Xanadu family and hirr ranch, to the more recent of Deus, Titans, and soft-spoken RaH. In all such cases, one factor seemed clear: for all intents and purposes, the average member was "there to stay."

Generally speaking, I really can't say that about most alliance communities, or any that actually remain.

Instead, we see more complex models of loyalty packages, those who comprise your basic battlegroup. While I am willing to accept that PA will continue to modify, and the community develops to meet its own needs (typically that of how easiest to 'win' with each new change done to the game), I am sincerely disturbed by the direction several BGs are going.

I've seen two stages for this fear to be shown to me: IRC and AD forums. Typically, on IRC, various BGs are spread out and joined at the hip in several channels, private and joint, all in an effort to best promote their members into key positions. And what person wouldn't? That's the point after all, to win. On AD, it's quite clear to me that BGs have become popularized by the most successful sort, that being LDK, although even that BG has evolved into a genuine alliance, and I firmly believe its members are genuinely loyal to the alliance and each other.

And yet... I really need to look no further than from the mouths and posts by various members, officers, and HCs of BGs to understand the danger these entities pose to the game. Firstly, as discussed in Parthos' thread, BGs harm alliances by creating controversy, absorbing defense, and creating one more reason to spread distrust among an alliance's members. Furthermore, the danger to the game is even greater, as we can see from the mouths of BG-types in xtothez's thread, who virtually claim the same thing: the game means nothing, friends mean everything, and that includes overlooking cheating and victimizing honest Planetarion players.

The way I'm looking at things, the typical "honest" player seems to be simply the remnants of 'loyalty-driven' alliances, which again, too few exist nowadays.

In my opinion, loyalty-driven alliances provided a very specific, if not rigid, sense of responsibility in players, especially early generation players who got to experience these alliances in their hay-day. For example, those who got to experience Sid's "doctrine of order" (so to speak) way of conducting themselves as a member of Fury, would most likely have mixed feelings one way or the other, but no doubt still gained a sense of how to play, I would guess, professionally in Planetarion. I'm not saying everyone who was in a loyalty-driven alliance was, became, or abused as a choir boy, I'm just saying that at least players, generally, knew where they stood within their alliance, and their alliance knew where they stood. Uncommonly now, but the knowing was nearly unquestioned. Loyalty.

Now it seems that on IRC I constantly hear complaints of "I wish <blank> wouldn't hang out with his/her BG all the time and actually help our alliance" or on the forums reading about how no alliance wants to take responsibility for their members' actions (typically when caught cheating), especially if that member is also involved with a similar BG.

Reading through xtothez's thread once more, I further see how BGs have eroded the thought process of so many players it seems. No longer is it 'bad' to cheat, in fact, it seems as though some BGs promote it (or so it appears each time they vocally 'support' their guilty "friends"). Additionally, it's now EVIL to "backstab"; not the evil of "we'll have a war for the next round or two and then come to a mutual understanding of the events that unfolded" but rather, a certain stigma of genuine revulsion of such a player (i.e. xtothez), and all efforts directed at shaming that person as though they could be banished from PA because the high and mighty "friends" they "backstabbed" deemed it so.

Funny enough, it's those very same qualities that BGs seek and desire that they reject by being members of an alliance and not holding the alliance above their own BG. This is especially true when involving alliance's at war; I know for a fact that many players in this game don't have the stomach for genuine alliance warfare, as most send the occasional defense, but would rather continue to "roid and build" with their BG rather than help their alliance (and subsequently the very same people who help them each day) win, in some cases, even survive.

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Perhaps these are simply the problems you get when BGs start acting like alliances.

Having their own private server with 150 people on it... all from different alliances... it seems quite obvious that a lot of conflicts of interest will emerge. Even if it's just little things like people tipping off members of their alliance about incoming that they will get, or abusing their positions to protect members of their alliance from BG attacks, it still makes it difficult for such a large group to operate when everyone in it has split loyalties.

If you had become a full alliance, and enforced a single-alliance-only rule on your members, you would not have had this problem. BGs are often blamed for reducing alliance loyalty, but the same works in reverse also.

This is so true. Taking steps to ensure loyalty to an alliance seemed so natural "back in the day" but that mentality seems to have given way to the "BGs are beneficial!" trend that has apparently grabbed so many alliances by the balls that they can no longer function at half-standard what a "medium" alliance could do 2 or 3 rounds ago. In Round 4, some members of Legion were asked to make a choice: Legion or your BG (early-day version). Dingo and Rev silently remained with NoS, while Sastul bowed out graciously in favor of Xanadu. It was respectable and professional.

Today, I wouldn't believe such a display of 'picking loyalties' if someone handed me $100 and a blowjob.

Perhaps, deep down, all of this is simply a generational gap between "old players" and "new players" as it seems priorities in Planetarion are vastly different this round than any other round I've ever played in. It's not "winning" that has changed, it's "justifying how I win" that's changed.

Reading that an Eclipse CEO denies involvement in a cheating scandal, understandable. Reading that an OuZo HC sees absolutely nothing wrong with cheating, unbelievable.

So, did the loyalty factor simply devolve into the battlegroup?

[Lanceman]

Looking at the channels where to go to for our biggest guy in-gal I see 2 alliance chans and 2-3 BG chans there, that's what gets you into Top10 nowadays it seems.
Loyalty sounds different to me, and I couldn't say where his primary loyalty would lie within, but I guess it would be one of the battlegroups.

[lokken]

Loyalty is signing up to one alliance. For one round or the greater.

BG's are as good as other alliances in my view.

[HobbieRogue4]

The game will never be without alliance "users" the people who just use an alliance to get where they want then dump it, but it must be the attitude of BGs that cuts me deepest. I can see how one would be able to compare a slogan of "loyalty above all" and "friendship above all" but really now, in an alliance, there's rules that are usually enforced regarding cheating and even disloyalty (punishment in general), and I simply don't see that level of dedication to "respectable playing" among BGs.*

*I'm aware I may be unfairly generalizing 'all' battlegroups into the same category as, say, OuZo, so apologies beforehand.

[Scouse]

People arn't fighting soley for their alliances, so their loyalty is mixed. But it's always been this way, perhaps just on a smaller scale. BG's now feel the need to promote themselves, in the past they didn't. If you really think about it there's not that many BG's about, that so blantantly abuse alliances as pure defence grabbers. You're talking about a small percentage of the game, so it's not that big a problem.

In the past people in Wolfpack (before it was an alliance) and Legion were loyal to both Wolfpack and Legion, and in fact became more loyal to Wolfpack over time and so they left Legion. Same for NoS.


Lots of people are still entirely loyal to their alliance, and when alliances stop providing internal attacks for their members you have to start pointing your fingers at the alliances.


I don't believe alliances became less loyal all of a sudden, after round 7. Like you said you in your opening paragraphy, you quit after round 7, so commenting about loyalty for round 8 and 9 doesn't exactly sound fair, in my opinion.


But your point that people with BG's are becoming less loyal, yes, you're right, they certainly are. But like I said, it's not like everyone's doing it.

[Lanceman]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
The game will never be without alliance "users" the people who just use an alliance to get where they want then dump it, but it must be the attitude of BGs that cuts me deepest. I can see how one would be able to compare a slogan of "loyalty above all" and "friendship above all" but really now, in an alliance, there's rules that are usually enforced regarding cheating and even disloyalty (punishment in general), and I simply don't see that level of dedication to "respectable playing" among BGs.*

*I'm aware I may be unfairly generalizing 'all' battlegroups into the same category as, say, OuZo, so apologies beforehand.

Yes, that's one of the most disturbing factors, this FRIENDS>* behaviour. With that you also can hide cheating, but you also basically disregard everything else (I'm exaggerating a bit here), i.e. denying to take part in alliance attacks, leaking alliance attacks... Ofc, if you are only member of a single battlegroup this doesn't apply, but the cheating problem still persists.
I think normal alliances shouldn't allow disloyalty from members, by favouring a BG they are part of (unless that BG is part of the alliance as a part of the whole structure).

[Mistwraith]

I think normal alliances shouldn't allow disloyalty from members, by favouring a BG they are part of (unless that BG is part of the alliance as a part of the whole structure).

This has been part of the HR recruitment interview for several rounds now, for us its concidered as an alliance, and being in HR and a BG is dual membership, something no alliance in my day ever stood for in a member.

I guess i'm just one of the old farts who remember when your alliance community was the thing you fought for, when loyalty and honour were as important if not more important than your roids or your score, when your universal alliance came first over your para or cluster alliance...in random rounds your galaxy as well, after all at the end of the round it was going to be the only thing that would be constant in pa, still there for the next round, the same friendly faces saying hi to u when u logged in.
This is the one thing that kept you sane and playing during a bad round, during a round when your galaxy sucked, when RL problems struck you, your universal alliance backed you up, repayed your previous loyalty ten fold.

BG's dont do this, they dont have the time or the patience to keep on someone who isnt able to attack with them every night, someone whos exams are nearing and they need to revise, Para and Cluster simply dont care beacuse at he end of the round it will be dead.
BG players may concider the universal alliances big corperate monsters. I say those people havent found their home yet, when u do find your home you know it because your loyalties shift, you dont realise it for a while..but they do.
I was so lucky to have found my home early in my pa playing life, i hope others find theirs.

[CrazyConrad]

As the player scale today is quite low and since we have played some many rounds the pa core all "know" eachother and when it comes to this situation:

"Alliance A is at was with AllianceB
Alliance A want to take out a big planet in Alliance B but several players in Alliance A refused to launch cause they were friends with the big planet in Alliance B"

I understand that ppl dont wanna attack their friends who happens to be in a different alliance but where does the line go.
Has it come so far that an alliance is only a place where you hang out with some of your friends and a place to draw defence. I dont care if my friends are in other alliances or maybe the main enemy alliance that particular round. We are (or at least should) act professional here and attacking a friend shouldnt really be an issure if your alliance orders your ships out. Its more or less ok to maybe recall on eta 1 if its a normal raid and you unluckily picked your friend. But when your alliance orders your ships to launch on a big enemy planet you should launch wheter hes your friend or not.

[Legator]

yea i agree, i didnt like this bgs ever.

especially a few i wont mention by name, i already had thoughts about that but now it may happen those bgs die anyways...or they start as full alliances.

[Banned]

Gee. People don't seem to have loyalty to their BGs at all. Loyalty didn't disappear, it shifted focus. Now people are loyal to their BGs rather than their alliances. Most BGs aren't really Attack Groups anymore (just take a look at the name 'battle'), they're more like light versions of alliances. Not that everyone feels this way. To be honest, I think it's still an evenly split field between people who are 'stuck' in their alliances and people who are BG-centered. Hell, this might even be an exaggerated problem. Being in a BG was clearly advantagous this round, so the more visibly successful (non-LDK) players are generally in BGs. That doesn't mean this group of players actually represents a majority.

[Denniz]

Originally posted by Legator
yea i agree, i didnt like this bgs ever.

Funny to hear from Vision HC.
You were WP BG that didnt had the balls to split off allready end r6, so u stayed as wp BG back then.

[Wandows]

Originally posted by Denniz
Funny to hear from Vision HC.
You were WP BG that didnt had the balls to split off allready end r6, so u stayed as wp BG back then.

funny that they actually split from WP later on...


i don't get it, cuz they were a BG, and didn't break of right away, they are bad?

imho that BS, loads of BG are here for lotsa rounds now and never dared to try alone and kept hiding behing their own alliance & BG (or more BG's).

Vision atleast took the risk when they noticed they did well, they stopped hiding behind 2 tags, so ur complain is based on nothing, claiming they have no balls is bs as they did split off showing a BG can do just as well as a normal alliance when done in the right way.


[Edit - ontopic]

Well imho its up to the alliances themselves to keep their members loyal, by allowing members to go into outside BG;s the loyalty of these members it automatically splitted between 2 parties. If alliances keep their members to theirselves and create BG's within their own alliance that problem won't occur as the members participate with their alliance alone and get what they need from that.

Atm (lower profile) alliances won't benefit from BG's as their top members will leave once they can't get from their alliance what they need, by not allowing them to have a outside alliance they have to make the choise before they start playing and can't abuse one of the 2 for their own good (in theory , of course u can go into a outside BG without the ally knowing it.. but lets assume that won't happen).

[Legator]

Originally posted by Denniz
Funny to hear from Vision HC.
You were WP BG that didnt had the balls to split off allready end r6, so u stayed as wp BG back then.

OMG denniz, before posting get a clue

we started in round 7 as 5 sister gals with all newx alliance in it, NEVER as a wp bg and we splitted in the same round from wp.


omg....

[Orlandian]

in Cluster 17 we banded together for defence ... as none came from wolfpack and at the end of the round we became Vision.

[xtothez]

Originally posted by Lanceman
Yes, that's one of the most disturbing factors, this FRIENDS>* behaviour. With that you also can hide cheating, but you also basically disregard everything else

This is disturbing for a simple reason. Saying Friends > Pa is like claiming the group is more important than the mechanism they exist for, and because of. If PA wasnt here those friends would have never met, and have very little reason to be together (before Sjor tries to claim otherwise, he can check how many people were on priv IRC between rounds (25 avg) and how many were on during rounds (70+ avg)).
I find this attitude at least a little hypocritical, if you're not coming online to spend time with your friends when PA is off, then why claim it has nothing to do with being together?

[WipeOut]

I think one of the main problems with battlegroups, is the reason for them to actually function this well. Question yourself why battlegroups have grown as inlfuencial as they are, why they were able to absorb members from different alliances and more importantly, how they managed to make their members prioritize the battlegroup over their alliance regarding attacks (and often defence).

During my time in NoS, I have seen people growing more and more attached to their battlegroup, in times where the alliance seemed unable to cater for the needs of its members by not having enough raids planned. This growing absence of loyalty, is a process gradually taking form, not something which suddenly happens over night. I think NoS made the only right option back then; to enforce the dual membership rule to include battlegroups. This immensely weakened NoS back then, but Dingo anticipated, that in the long run, NoS would re-acquire the extremely loyal member base it had had before. And he was right. I hope more alliances will take this rather drastic step in the near future.

The problem is, this step is not easily taken, as you would loose some of your 'best' members, and that is what makes alliance HCs hesitant. After all, most current alliance leaders are so extremely selfish, and repulsively arrogant, that they evaluate factors like alliance loyalty, and member welfare, to be far less important than seeing their own, or a friends' name in the top rankings.

Back in the days, it hardly ever happened that an alliance leader, or even officer was high ranked, as they simply didn't have the time to actually play the game, for being too concerned with their members. Yes, I might be a bit bitter, but comparing round 1-2-3-4 to round 5-6-7-8-9-9.5 will make any old player shivver.

Battlegroups are a desease, a virus, they infect an alliance in weak times, and like a parasite, feed of it until they deem they had enough, which will result in communities vanishing, and good alliances leaving the scene of pa, for good.

[Doorsdown]

Originally posted by WipeOut
Battlegroups are a desease, a virus, they infect an alliance in weak times, and like a parasite, feed of it until they deem they had enough, which will result in communities vanishing, and good alliances leaving the scene of pa, for good.

This is exactly what we don't want. This will leave the universe with only 1 or 2 major allaince left to have any power at all.

[wubanger]

Ministry wasn't the 1st alliance crippled and closed partly due to BG's, and I'm sure it won't be the last. maybe i come from the old school, but players should get their priorites straight and just join 1 alliance and try to do well with just a little skill and hard work instead of napping their way to success and getting insider info from m8's who tip them off about attacks on them :/ I joined a friends bg just for the record and if it was anything more than that i'd have quit long ago. To me at least, BG's are for the 'by any means necessary types' who often are not worth much as alliance members and need a bg to protect them in the first place since no decent alliance will have them. Insert your own names here, a bunch post on AD

[Zh|l]

Where should loyalties actually lie? When you say 'alliance' think about your answer and state what that 'alliance' actually is. I feel loyalties have shifted to individual or groups of people thus creating what I will term 'personal loyalties'.

In my day I was loyal to Fury. Not the command team, but the Fury ethod. The very core being of Fury is what I held my loyalty too. However it's not that easy anymore to attest to such extremes for alliance loyalty, mine obviously had a good placement with Sid since he was Fury. Many of pre Wrath Fury held the same view and loyalty to Fury as an alliance but it did boil down in belonding to one man and again that was Sid.

What we see today is toned down, filtered, watered if you want, versions of this loyalty to friends. It was happening for a long time especially when two 'groups' of friends within the same alliance conflict - an issue that Fury had repeated throughout its history.

I take the pessimistic viewpoint that alliance loyalties nolonger remain as they once were and are replaced by lots of friendship loyalties joined together to form an alliance. Something that gives credence to the entire "Eclipse is Fury" arguement is that a core amount of Eclipse that are Fury are used to loyalty between eachother. I personally believe that this has been both a life saver yet also a hinderance. (For me included.). Their 'loyalty' to Eclipse only extends to it due to the elements of ex-Fury command and the fact those who were Fury 'should be in Eclipse'. Anything less is a show of disloyalty to the old Fury.

So in conclusion, alliance loyalties do remain in a somewhat watered down form but it is all mainly about friendships now. Friendships that extend into BG's/AG's etc and can threaten the core being of an alliance loyalty. Sometimes loyalty can be a deadly threat, especially with those who nolonger believe what they held loyalty too nolonger exists (Wolfpack, Titans etc).

[Illegal]

I might be off subject here and in that case Im sorry. What happened R7 was that closing people down became a bigger weapon then actually killing them with ships. Selling out and backstabbing friends without them ever knowing was the new way to climb in ranks. This mainly due to the stagnating of the round and due to someone throwing the first rock.


Planetarion changed that round.

[Illegal]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Where should loyalties actually lie?

With friends.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Illegal
With friends.

I disagree, I believe it lies with the alliance. We see what happens when loyalties lie with friends only (i.e Battlegroups, cheating etc)

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Illegal
With friends.

i also trust my friends not to lie, cheat, and backstab.

so who would be breaking the trust first?

[Illegal]

Originally posted by Aryn
i also trust my friends not to lie, cheat, and backstab.

so who would be breaking the trust first?

Its a bloody browser based game which slowly dies. When the game dies, would you like to remember it for the friends you made or the fact that you were legit?

Oh and I know of friends of yours who have cheated.

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Illegal
Oh and I know of friends of yours who have cheated.

i wouldn't doubt it. and i've had a lot of laughs with them too...
but you asked who i've had the best laughs with, and my best laughs were with people who don't cheat.

see the difference?

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Illegal
Its a bloody browser based game which slowly dies. When the game dies, would you like to remember it for the friends you made or the fact that you were legit?

Oh and I know of friends of yours who have cheated.

It's a game. Friends in it are irrelevant. I will forever remember that I stuck to my principles in always being loyal to my alliance and being a true Fury. I am ruthless and any of my 'friends' who don't realize that shouldn't dare to try being my friend to begin with as they will only get hurt.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by WipeOut
Back in the days, it hardly ever happened that an alliance leader, or even officer was high ranked, as they simply didn't have the time to actually play the game, for being too concerned with their members.

I don't agree with that at all. Legion command was always big. But I suppose to argue that you could claim all Legion planets were big. Sid was always big, too. As were many other alliance command. I don't think anything relating to that has ever changed.

[HobbieRogue4]

It's brilliantly simple to remain loyal to an alliance entity and also remain loyal to friends. How? Simple: don't let your friendships get in the way of game elements (politics). That's the best lesson you can learn, I feel, in Planetarion. That's how I dealt with the original WP/Legion split.

The ones who say this isn't true, I feel, are the ones who are taking the game way too seriously especially if they are willing to disregard a friendship over, shall we say, 'stolen roids'? I mean come on, if someone says "you aren't my friend anymore!" because their alliance ripped you, or they, shall we say, reported you for cheating, well then FFS, you must have low self-esteem and some really ****ty friends.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Zh|l
It's a game. Friends in it are irrelevant. I will forever remember that I stuck to my principles in always being loyal to my alliance and being a true Fury. I am ruthless and any of my 'friends' who don't realize that shouldn't dare to try being my friend to begin with as they will only get hurt.

Well Zhil, they may be irrelevant game wise, but it's the backstabbing, misplaced trust part that your friends probably have the problem with.


Anyone with your atittude to this game has most likely lost a friend or two along the way. I'm not sure whether that's you fault or their's, though.

[Lupin]

Originally posted by Zh|l
I disagree, I believe it lies with the alliance. We see what happens when loyalties lie with friends only (i.e Battlegroups, cheating etc)

probably because you are an allinace HC, which means that you identify yourself with your alliance. but for 'simple' members the situation is quite more complex.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
It's brilliantly simple to remain loyal to an alliance entity and also remain loyal to friends. How? Simple: don't let your friendships get in the way of game elements (politics). That's the best lesson you can learn, I feel, in Planetarion. That's how I dealt with the original WP/Legion split.

The ones who say this isn't true, I feel, are the ones who are taking the game way too seriously especially if they are willing to disregard a friendship over, shall we say, 'stolen roids'? I mean come on, if someone says "you aren't my friend anymore!" because their alliance ripped you, or they, shall we say, reported you for cheating, well then FFS, you must have low self-esteem and some really ****ty friends.

I always have and will continue to take attacks against Fury as personal. It is a weakness with my hardline approach, one that you originally thought was a unique way of viewing the game and something you liked me for.

"Friends" who betrayed Fury ended up betraying me and thus being the cold hearted bastard I am I brushed aside. Saying that, in later rounds I found it within my heart to 'forgive' a few for their sins and found it necessary to establish friendships outside of Fury. (Lokken, Rob etc being prime examples of friendships that easily rival that of my loyalty to Fury but the big difference is that both understood my reactions to criticism about Fury and knew how to 'handle' it within my presence.)

Good example of that is when I was asked to be Deus HC. I said no and it was never mentioned or propositioned again and I paid it in return by not telling Fury command. Regardless Sid knew about it all anyway and eventually I told Sid about the offer and my decline of it as evidence of my loyalty to Fury when it was brought into question.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Scouse
Well Zhil, they may be irrelevant game wise, but it's the backstabbing, misplaced trust part that your friends probably have the problem with.


Anyone with your atittude to this game has most likely lost a friend or two along the way. I'm not sure whether that's you fault or their's, though.

Depends, I answered it abit more detailed just in response to Hobbie. Read that and then make your judgement upon my hardline approach to friendship and alliance loyalty.

For the record, the only time I backstabbed friends was when I spied on IPC. After that I never did any kind of intel work for Fury as I didn't like it. Something Sid understood and thus I was never asked to use friendships to gain Fury anything ever.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Good example of that is when I was asked to be Deus HC.

If you had accepted, I would have made fun of you.

:((((

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Lupin
probably because you are an allinace HC, which means that you identify yourself with your alliance. but for 'simple' members the situation is quite more complex.

You're wrong. My attitude existed in round 4 when I was a mere member for Fury and had nothing to do with command.

References: Lokken, McIvan. Meth.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Zh|l

For the record, the only time I backstabbed friends was when I spied on IPC. After that I never did any kind of intel work for Fury as I didn't like it. Something Sid understood and thus I was never asked to use friendships to gain Fury anything ever.

I think one or two RaH command might argue that point, regarding last round.

[Lupin]

Originally posted by Zh|l
You're wrong. My attitude existed in round 4 when I was a mere member for Fury and had nothing to do with command.

References: Lokken, McIvan. Meth.

but you did identify youself with Fury? you also could do it, although you are not in the High Command.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Scouse
I think one or two RaH command might argue that point, regarding last round.

I never used my friendship with RaH to force any decisions upon them or myself. My loyalty to Eclipse is not as solid as it was to Fury (strange don't you think?) thus when war broke out I stayed out of it utterly and sacrificed my rank of gaining new roids. I also disallowed any attacks upon RaH command in my galaxy for 'friendship' reasons and thus did everything 'in my power within reason' that I could do to protect them.

So all in all I never backstabbed RaH and RaH HC know this. Of course, I will wait to see if Petru/Avie/Volcano reaction upon this and point them to this thread for you.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Lupin
but you did identify youself with Fury? you also could do it, although you are not in the High Command.

Your arguement is what then to debate alliance loyalty? That you have to be 'special' to identify yourself as part of that alliance?

I don't see what you are getting at or how it disproves my opinion.

[lokken]

Originally posted by Zh|l
You're wrong. My attitude existed in round 4 when I was a mere member for Fury and had nothing to do with command.

References: Lokken, McIvan. Meth.

Yes.

While other Fury members (those outside command) were going inactive/pissing it up, Zhil actually bothered and tried to do something. We got together in p7 and did some damage and got us a little safe haven away from the bloodbaths that were happening in the universe. As a result, he got a promotion to executive, we got a nice permanent alliance agreement for round 5 with Fury.

In r6, Zhil's galaxy launched on mine as part of a FLVT attack on Deus. He knew his gal was hitting mine, I have no objections. His job was to be part of Fury, mine was to be Deus HC (we won that battle btw ). Zhil chose not to launch for some reason, I didn't mind either way. It was nice to be able to work with the gimp later in the round, especially considering we put an offer to Zhil to be Deus HC earlier in the round.

Quite frankly if you can't take your friends being your enemies, play in the same alliance with them, or try to avoid them totally in the game. Though if someone wants to get upset about an online game, they aren't really a friend.

[Lupin]

my point is:
if you can identify yourself with an alliance, it is much more 'easier' to be loyal to this alliance. but i think these days not many ppl can identify with any alliances..
as i belong to them (cant identify etc..) it is quite hard for me to imagine/understand that.

--->

i thought i could be possible that you are loyal to your alliance, because you can identify with it.

if the answer would be 'yes', than you might have an answer, why ppl also prefer to be in a bg

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Lupin
i thought i could be possible that you are loyal to your alliance, because you can identify with it.

if the answer would be 'yes', than you might have an answer, why ppl also prefer to be in a bg

Then it begs to question, what do some people "see" in the likes of BGs such as OuZo? If people want to identify with cheating and cheaters and supporters of cheaters, well then that's their prerogative.

[Lupin]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
Then it begs to question, what do some people "see" in the likes of BGs such as OuZo? If people want to identify with cheating and cheaters and supporters of cheaters, well then that's their prerogative.

if some individuals cheats, that doesnt mean that the whole bg cheats or the bg stands for cheating

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Lupin
if some individuals cheats, that doesnt mean that the whole bg cheats or the bg stands for cheating

but if the bg doesn't kick out proven cheaters, and defends their cheating members by hiding behind the friendship excuse.. what does that show to others?

[Lupin]

that for this bg, friendship is a very important aspect, which you can identify easy (ie "for me friendship is >*")

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Lupin
if some individuals cheats, that doesnt mean that the whole bg cheats or the bg stands for cheating

When a BG's own leadership actively and vocally supports such actions and denounces the game, etc. I disagree. The fact that no member of OuZo has stepped forward to denounce the actions of their brethren is also a key.

Ultimately, I've always been under the impression that leadership does, if not inadvertantly, represent "the whole" of the said alliance, battlegroup, or other entity.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Lupin
that for this bg, friendship is a very important aspect, which you can identify easy (ie "for me friendship is >*")

Perhaps I'm just too cold to see how this is more important.

[HobbieRogue4]

This user's mailbox is currently full, and cannot be sent any messages until it is cleaned out. An email has been sent notifying the user of this. Please try your request at a later time.

Do some cleaning Zhil. Sooner rather than later if you please. :|

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Scouse
I think one or two RaH command might argue that point, regarding last round.

They would be wrong to do so, but it's old ground and there's no need to go over it again.

Originally posted by Lupin
my point is:
if you can identify yourself with an alliance, it is much more 'easier' to be loyal to this alliance. but i think these days not many ppl can identify with any alliances..
as i belong to them (cant identify etc..) it is quite hard for me to imagine/understand that.

I think this is the most accurate explanation of the reason that many people become involved in BGs. Many of them do not feel that their alliance represents what they want, they don't feel like it's "their" alliance. Since a BG is often comprised simply of friends, it's a good way for a small community to have their own little mini-alliance, without the responsibility and stress of running a full-scale alliance. It is worth pointing out that many of these BGs do go on to form alliances, but simply the act of becoming an alliance changes the way things work. An example of this would be Madcows, which went from being a community/BG to being a full alliance. Many people simply don't want to go through that change, and will not do so unless they are forced to. In short, if they enjoy being in a BG, why change anything?

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
Do some cleaning Zhil. Sooner rather than later if you please. :|

I just deleted two old messages thus putting me to two messages total in my inbox.

[Illegal]

Originally posted by Aryn
i wouldn't doubt it. and i've had a lot of laughs with them too...
but you asked who i've had the best laughs with, and my best laughs were with people who don't cheat.

see the difference?

What I see is you constantly trying to look clever, which you obviously arent

Im not gonna list nicks of people who have cheated and I dont honestly know who your best online friends are. But if its some of those youve met in RL and had RL laughs with. then all I have to say is..














cheats...

People who have no real opinion about cheating are usually cheaters. And some of the people who flame cheating the hardest have often cheated alot themself. I have an example of a HC/Ceo in an alliance a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. He cheated badly and his whole galaxy did. Later when others used the same cheat and gained from more from it then he and his galaxy did, he condemned the cheat and said that if anyone in his alliance did this, then they would be retalled and maybe even kicked from the alliance. In the end this was all about having his galaxy end higher up, but the hypcrisy is still obvious. Many of the people who speak out against cheats have cheated themself, but are pissed off due "failing to archieve the same". The smart people who cheat just avoid these discusions and look the other way. Unless ofcourse you are Chax or someone who got lucky one round and made top 250 and feel you have to come to the forums to make a name for yourself.

Note: Chax was not amongst those who "got lucky one round" he truly had a 100% legit galaxy. I had a rather long talk with him a few rounds back where he explained all his actions. And I must say I was impressed. Chax dident allow and kind of cheating at all, not even from people he knew. How many of you can say that you have no knowledge of anyone in your galaxy ever cheating?

Account swaping is also cheating, thus knowing it and not reporting it makes you a fellow "criminal". Its easy look away if its a friend and its easy to judge if its not.