Planetarion Forums

Banned · 24 Jul 2003, 00:09

I bet you're scared. I bet that's why it's a BG and not an alliance. I bet you're worried that you'll lose face if people see how you run your alliance. I bet you're scared that people will try to infiltrate if you call it an alliance. I bet you don't want to deal with all the pressure that comes from being an alliance. Except you're already an alliance. <censored> is an alliance. Dragons is an alliance. Ouzo is an alliance. Gosu is an alliance.

Sure it's too much effort to go out and admit it. But standards are pretty high these days. If you don't have your own IRC server, you're a **** alliance, but you can still be a good BG. If you don't have a strict heirarchy, you're a disorganized alliance, but that doesn't make you a bad BG.

Or maybe it's the other way around. And people are putting too high standards on alliances. What is really an alliance?

I hesitate to ask more, because people might turn this into a BG vs Alliance thread. But really, I just want to know, what makes an alliance an alliance.

To me an alliance is a collection of at least 2 people that will attack together and defend eachother.

That's it. You do that, and I consider you an alliance. You don't even need IRC to work well together. Galaxies are exempted, of course, and clusters/parallels are special cases. But other than that, you don't even need a name to be a good alliance.

Edit: Removed the name 'F.E.A.R.' as they seem to think this was about them.

Heartshunter · 24 Jul 2003, 00:27

You scare me, Jester :/

LaNiCoR · 24 Jul 2003, 00:31

i'm amazed at all this fuss

ComradeRob · 24 Jul 2003, 00:32

The 'fuss' has been going on since approximately round 7.

It's a valid question, and I think Jester sums up the case quite well :\

ParraCida · 24 Jul 2003, 00:34

All this fuss about 15 semi retired people

BDB · 24 Jul 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Banned
I bet you're scared. I bet that's why it's a BG and not an alliance. I bet you're worried that you'll lose face if people see how you run your alliance. I bet you're scared that people will try to infiltrate if you call it an alliance. I bet you don't want to deal with all the pressure that comes from being an alliance. Except you're already an alliance. F.E.A.R. is an alliance. Dragons is an alliance. Ouzo is an alliance. Gosu is an alliance.

Sure it's too much effort to go out and admit it. But standards are pretty high these days. If you don't have your own IRC server, you're a **** alliance, but you can still be a good BG. If you don't have a strict heirarchy, you're a disorganized alliance, but that doesn't make you a bad BG.

Or maybe it's the other way around. And people are putting too high standards on alliances. What is really an alliance?

I hesitate to ask more, because people might turn this into a BG vs Alliance thread. But really, I just want to know, what makes an alliance an alliance.

To me an alliance is a collection of at least 2 people that will attack together and defend eachother.

That's it. You do that, and I consider you an alliance. You don't even need IRC to work well together. Galaxies are exempted, of course, and clusters/parallels are special cases. But other than that, you don't even need a name to be a good alliance.

well here u go jester DTA we are playing as an allince
SO **** OFF

xtothez · 24 Jul 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
All this fuss about 15 semi retired people

In the same way as the Alliance Vs BG thing, I'd like to challenge this 'semi-retired' thing. Does that basically mean that you can play as normal, but if you lose you have an excuse in that you are retired and 'dont care' (but of course get all the bragging rights as those who win and -officially- play seriously)?

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Banned

I hesitate to ask more, because people might turn this into a BG vs Alliance thread. But really, I just want to know, what makes an alliance an alliance.

first of all, you got a more then decent point here

and my opinion about what is or isn't an alliance depends on 1 single action.

If a group of pple defend eachother in an organized way (so not only the occasional friend defences) then to me that's an alliance.

It's the main purpose of an alliance. Together we stand stronger.

rgds Kj

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
All this fuss about 15 semi retired people

lol, maybe your ego didn't see it, but your FEAR thingy was ONE of the examples in the thread, not the red line of the conversation you know

(or Jester has to prove me wrong on that as he only knows)

rgds Kj

Heartshunter · 24 Jul 2003, 01:06

I didn't see anyone bragging, did you?
And Parra was GC of the winning gal.

I also didn't lose a minute of sleep for the past 1.5 rounds, nor did the majority of us.

But if you want to call us an alliance, so be it, I won't lose any sleep over that either, others probably are doing that already :P

Be afraid, be REALLY afraid!~!@~!@~

ParraCida · 24 Jul 2003, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by xtothez
In the same way as the Alliance Vs BG thing, I'd like to challenge this 'semi-retired' thing. Does that basically mean that you can play as normal, but if you lose you have an excuse in that you are retired and 'dont care' (but of course get all the bragging rights as those who win and -officially- play seriously)?

I'm waiting for someone to say we eat babies and mean it.

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by xtothez
In the same way as the Alliance Vs BG thing, I'd like to challenge this 'semi-retired' thing. Does that basically mean that you can play as normal, but if you lose you have an excuse in that you are retired and 'dont care' (but of course get all the bragging rights as those who win and -officially- play seriously)?

lol, one of my favourite subject. Plz do NOT ask pple from the historical retired 1:10 about it, I tried that last time heh.

rgds Kj

ComradeRob · 24 Jul 2003, 01:11

Parra, you are almost rivalling Kjel in the belief that the world revolves around you

Jester's point still stands - most of the people running BGs do so because they don't want to spend the time/effort required to run an alliance. He didn't say this was bad, but you are automatically taking it as an accusation.

Also, the debate has nothing to do with F.E.A.R. specifically, but has a lot to do with BGs in general, of which F.E.A.R. is just one. If you disagree with his point, you could try simply disagreeing with it and explaining why.

ParraCida · 24 Jul 2003, 01:15

Quote:

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Parra, you are almost rivalling Kjel in the belief that the world revolves around you

Jester's point still stands - most of the people running BGs do so because they don't want to spend the time/effort required to run an alliance. He didn't say this was bad, but you are automatically taking it as an accusation.

The debate has nothing to do with F.E.A.R. specifically, but has a lot to do with BGs in general, of which F.E.A.R. is just one.

'I bet you're scared', how is that not an accusation? He named F.E.A.R. as an example, so I had every right to reply as I did.

I think the point has been discussed over and over again already and we all agree that the nasty battlegroups are bad and stuff, and for the record: F.E.A.R. isn't even a BG

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
He named F.E.A.R. as an example, so I had every right to reply as I did.

erm no, what your words were are this:

All this fuss about 15 semi retired people

and this thread was NOT made because of you 15 semi retired pple.

and tbh, the only one using the word fuss is you, so you must be slightly concerned to say the least while this thread isn't even about FEAR thingy personally.

rgds Kj

ComradeRob · 24 Jul 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
'I bet you're scared', how is that not an accusation? He named F.E.A.R. as an example, so I had every right to reply as I did.

I think the point has been discussed over and over again already and we all agree that the nasty battlegroups are bad and stuff, and for the record: F.E.A.R. isn't even a BG

'Scared' of running an alliance and dealing with all of the **** that that involves. I don't see that as being an accusation, as I don't see that deciding to run a BG rather than an alliance as a bad thing.

As for your final statement.. nice troll

. Personally I don't care what you call yourselves, if you're registered as an alliance in R10 then you're an alliance.

Amoruso · 24 Jul 2003, 01:22

my hero !

ParraCida · 24 Jul 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by ComradeRob
'Scared' of running an alliance and dealing with all of the **** that that involves. I don't see that as being an accusation, as I don't see that deciding to run a BG rather than an alliance as a bad thing.

As for your final statement.. nice troll . Personally I don't care what you call yourselves, if you're registered as an alliance in R10 then you're an alliance.

I see it as an accusation of being an alliance or battlegroup or whatever. And my final statement is not a troll, I simply want to get this subject out of the way as fast and efficiencly possible before people actually start believing it. If I troll I add personal insults, you should know that dumbass.

xtothez · 24 Jul 2003, 01:30

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
I'm waiting for someone to say we eat babies and mean it.

Help me campaign for image tags so I can post the appropriate Mike Myers macro here.

xtothez · 24 Jul 2003, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
If I troll I add personal insults, you should know that dumbass.

£5 says he doesnt fall for it.

24 Jul 2003, 02:03

You cant be semi-retired, you either play or dont play.

Cochese · 24 Jul 2003, 02:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadnought
You cant be semi-retired, you either play or dont play.

It's an accountability issue:ninjaa:

ComradeRob · 24 Jul 2003, 03:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
I see it as an accusation of being an alliance or battlegroup or whatever.

If it's registered with PA as an alliance, then it is an alliance, and denying it is pointless. In fact, by denying that F.E.A.R. is an alliance, you seem to be reinforcing Jester's original post (this is what happens when you try to be more clever than you actually are, and start ignoring the actual topic of discussion).

I don't see why you had to take such offence at the original post tbh. You could simply have said "yes, you're right, we want to play together but we don't want all the hassle of running a large alliance". Instead, you became very defensive and acted as if the post was a personal insult against you and your "not-alliance" (this reminded me of a similar event in r4 when you sent me some rather harsh ICQ messages after I made some less than kind comments about MI

).

ParraCida · 24 Jul 2003, 03:34

Your logic is as bent as your sexual preference.

So, you say by definition in PaX we are an alliance, but by that reasoning we aren't one right now. So what are we? Care to try again?

24 Jul 2003, 03:49

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
Your logic is as bent as your sexual preference.

So, you say by definition in PaX we are an alliance, but by that reasoning we aren't one right now. So what are we? Care to try again?

T.W.A.T.S would have been a better name for your BG*

* Alliance

ComradeRob · 24 Jul 2003, 04:44

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
Your logic is as bent as your sexual preference.

So, you say by definition in PaX we are an alliance, but by that reasoning we aren't one right now. So what are we? Care to try again?

Hmm, I don't recall ever saying that you are not currently an alliance

In fact, if you read the original post (which I was supporting) you will see that Jester outlines a case for saying that any group of cooperating players (outside of a single galaxy) is an 'alliance'. We use terms like 'BG' and 'cluster alliance' to differentiate between them, but ultimately they are all alliances. What you describe your alliance as (calling it a 'BG' or even 'not an alliance') simply reflects how you wish others to see your alliance, not the basic behaviour (attack and defend together) that makes it an alliance.

In case this is too complicated, look at it like this:

Most people drive cars. Some people choose not to, but if you want to get very far then you will need a car.

Some people drive cars that they feel safe or comfortable in. Others drive high-performance sports cars. Other people drive the only car they can afford, and others drive old classic cars. I'm sure you have the imagination to see how this analogy applies to PA.

Each of the cars are very different, but they are all fundamentally cars. You get in, start the engine, and drive the car from one place to another. You might be driving a sports car, or a clapped-out Robin Reliant, it doesn't make any difference.

To extend the analogy further, you might own two cars. These cars might be very different, but they are both still cars. Just like belonging to two alliances doesn't change the fact that they are both alliances, albeit very different ones. In this analogy, your BG might be your old classic 1950s car, and your 'normal' alliance might be your modern Ford Escort. Nobody would ever describe them as being equal, but they still have the same fundamental purpose. The same applies to 'normal' alliances, BGs, or any kind of group of people who regularly attack and defend together in PA. They are not all the same, but they all have the same basic function.

Psi_K · 24 Jul 2003, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by BDB
well here u go jester DTA we are playing as an allince
SO **** OFF

And look at our standards ...
Geez, we have bob ...

djcomplex · 24 Jul 2003, 08:23

this is all bollox

Veil05 · 24 Jul 2003, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by djcomplex
this is all bollox

i love your well thought out posts.

Bongdage · 24 Jul 2003, 08:30

this thread is stupid, its a couple of people desperately trying to run us through the mud, and find anything they can to incriminate us.
i spose your right in some respects, but stop thinking so technically, and just accept that F.E.A.R. isnt an alliance in the sense that RaH or Eclipse or Olympians are, it is an alliance forced by pa, as we just want to grow old together and not play as competitively as others, and the only way to do that realistically is register ourselves as an 'alliance'.

of course anything i or any other fear member says will mean nothing to one track minds such as dreads, but i hope it will clear up something to the non-moronic people reading.

ZoRlaC · 24 Jul 2003, 08:41

We'll all see what happens to the bg's in PaX anyway...

24 Jul 2003, 08:43

erm..... whats PaX?

ZoRlaC · 24 Jul 2003, 08:43

If I'm not completely wrong, it's what spinner calls r10

24 Jul 2003, 08:46

genesis

The_Fish · 24 Jul 2003, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadnought
T.W.A.T.S would have been a better name for your BG*

* Alliance

oh no

Dread made me laugh

Bongdage · 24 Jul 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Fish
oh no

Dread made me laugh

yes but you are a moron, you think along the same lines as dread...

Cicada · 24 Jul 2003, 11:09

i'm not really understanding what all the fuss is about...

what is there to be scared about Dragon and Ouzo have been operating 'basically' as alliance the last few round, so nothing really changes expect they have less places to get defence from.

as for f.e.a.r, i won't go there, cause the issues just too retarded for words..

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Bongdage
this thread is stupid, its a couple of people desperately trying to run us through the mud, and find anything they can to incriminate us.
i spose your right in some respects, but stop thinking so technically, and just accept that F.E.A.R. isnt an alliance in the sense that RaH or Eclipse or Olympians are, it is an alliance forced by pa, as we just want to grow old together and not play as competitively as others, and the only way to do that realistically is register ourselves as an 'alliance'.

of course anything i or any other fear member says will mean nothing to one track minds such as dreads, but i hope it will clear up something to the non-moronic people reading.

my wild guess is, you didn't even bother reading rob's replies EXPLAINING why every group that attacks and defends (outside the gal) is technically AN ALLIANCE. Whether it is run differently, has less numbers and dunno what other reasons you can come up with, only makes it ANOTHER TYPE of alliances, yet still an alliance.

rgds Kj

ohhh and, thank parra for making this thread all about the FEAR thingy, as this wasn't even about them but kinda felt attacked or something, dunno.

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Cicada
i'm not really understanding what all the fuss is about...

what is there to be scared about Dragon and Ouzo have been operating 'basically' as alliance the last few round, so nothing really changes expect they have less places to get defence from.

as for f.e.a.r, i won't go there, cause the issues just too retarded for words..

the ONE making a fuss about it is your dear m8, parracida. The rest didn't.

And for the record, I believe nobody has and or will EVER be afraid of FEAR etc so don't use that as a comment to provoke us cause it's plain nonsence.

I know you pple are friends etc, but think about this: How do you think e.g. Gosu became a BG? At first it was some bunch of german pple (now 23 pple in total I believe) who all played in an alliance but had this little german community. Just like FEAR wants to keep their little community.

rgds Kj

KaneED · 24 Jul 2003, 12:02

for ****s sake stop slagging each other off.

lokken · 24 Jul 2003, 12:27

It's strange that how Jester makes one post

Then lets other people make his point for him

Kjeldoran · 24 Jul 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by lokken
It's strange that how Jester makes one post

Then lets other people make his point for him

maybe because he made a good and valid point?

rgds Kj

Silva baby · 24 Jul 2003, 13:01

i wonder
do bg's ever declare war on each other

24 Jul 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Silva baby
i wonder
do bg's ever declare war on each other

DTA declared war on Fury

PiaZava · 24 Jul 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by ParraCida
All this fuss about 15 semi retired people

I read retarded :\

Anyway, the main reason I can come up with for battlegroups refusing to be called alliances is that most 'real' alliances deny their members to be member of more than one. The battlegroups normally consist of members from cooperating alliances, but since its not too common for the alliances to share defense, the battlegroups provide an additional source of def.

CamelToe · 24 Jul 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadnought
DTA declared war on Fury

plush declared war on WP, and RaH (at the same time might I add) then the round ended.

Scouse · 24 Jul 2003, 23:40

In my opinion, an alliance is something that attacks/defends it's members, has some sort of command structure, has rules members need to abide by and actively recruits.

A battlegroup is something that acts inside of an alliance, with every member being part of the mother alliance and attacking together (the defending part comes from being in the same alliance).

So, in my opinion Dragons and Ouzo (to take 2 examples) are alliances. Eclipse and LDK (to take 2 examples) are alliances.

As Rob said, anything next round registered as a PA alliance will be an 'alliance', so we won't have to worry about these cross alliance BG's as much.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadnought
You cant be semi-retired, you either play or dont play.

Which were you doing during round 9.5 then?

Cooper · 25 Jul 2003, 00:31

well to me Alliance or BG
i dont care what makes up either one!

All i can say is, alot of credit shud be where credit is due. and frankly if a BG is better than an alliance then SO BE IT!

whats the big fuss about?

We shud all mind our own business unless we wanna attack each other really?!?

well its for you to decide, but congrats LDK anyway, and well done to everyone for another great round!

Regards

Cooper

Mistwraith · 25 Jul 2003, 01:01

To simplify totally..

an alliance attacks and defends together..

a BG attacks together only.

a defence pact organisation or whatever they used to call em.. only defends togther.

Ahriman · 25 Jul 2003, 02:45

Of course a battlegroup is an alliance; it's a convenient way to get around the '1 alliance rule' which most alliances employ, and gives freedom to the people running the BG as people don't yet have such rigid opinions on what systems/organisation should be at work in a BG.

Jester began by suggesting that these 'groups' in PA are too scared to call themselves 'alliances' because of public conceptions about what an alliance should be. So Parra, what on earth moved you to refute this while proving it in sporadic bursts of emotion? I have to say; I'm at a loss as to your strategy on this one