An Announcement and a Proposal

[Seed of Chaos]

so... is this 1up gonna trying and do what Deus did in r6?

[rnd|One]

What goes to the alliance limit being 75 and the game being all about planets (your planet) in the first place:

“Limitations are the soil from which creativity grows.” -Zeffrey Zeldman

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Seed of Chaos

so... is this 1up gonna trying and do what Deus did in r6?

No. R6 had 3 blocks - which resulted in 2 pretty one-sided 2 v 1 wars. Whereas this was a marginal improvement on a totally polarised 2 block round, we'd far prefer a round with no blocks - or failing that one where blocks form and dissolve dynamically during the round based on the current situation in the round.

[Seed of Chaos]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

No. R6 had 3 blocks - which resulted in 2 pretty one-sided 2 v 1 wars. Whereas this was a marginal improvement on a totally polarised 2 block round, we'd far prefer a round with no blocks - or failing that one where blocks form and dissolve dynamically during the round based on the current situation in the round.

Yea, but the action never really stopped in r6 cos Deus kept on switching sides to keep things interesting. What I meant was, will 1up be, like, going around helping to take down the biggest block in order to stop stagnation?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Seed of Chaos

Yea, but the action never really stopped in r6 cos Deus kept on switching sides to keep things interesting. What I meant was, will 1up be, like, going around helping to take down the biggest block in order to stop stagnation?

1up will be standing by everything Sid has proposed to the letter. We shall not be starting the round with coalitions/naps/allies of any description. Should a block form then we will do what we have to do to break it up and carry on the round on a much more level playing field.

And which round 6 did you play, big lumps of it were as boring and stagnated as any round of PA.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Seed of Chaos

Yea, but the action never really stopped in r6 cos Deus kept on switching sides to keep things interesting. What I meant was, will 1up be, like, going around helping to take down the biggest block in order to stop stagnation?

Did you miss the statement at the end where Deus admitting that it used everyone to get itself its position? There was very little else Deus could have done. A Xan/Deus cooperation was spoken about, and whilst I'm sure many will claim that was the easy way out - I think Deus knew very well what would have happened if they ahd gone with Xanadu.

The only thing Deus accomplished was to lead a third block with experienced command members. Apart from that it wasn't that exciting - it was actually quite predictable. What many people seem to forget was that Deus provided the direction for FoS - without such a direction we probably would have seen alliances from FoS merged into that of the Xanadu block for that round (Cant remember its abbrev)

All in all, what 1up proposes and intends to follow through is totally different to Deus. Deus used politics to get its position (its military was weak compared to that of Fury). It didnt once try to stop blocks.

[Seed of Chaos]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Did you miss the statement at the end where Deus admitting that it used everyone to get itself its position? There was very little else Deus could have done. A Xan/Deus cooperation was spoken about, and whilst I'm sure many will claim that was the easy way out - I think Deus knew very well what would have happened if they ahd gone with Xanadu.

The only thing Deus accomplished was to lead a third block with experienced command members. Apart from that it wasn't that exciting - it was actually quite predictable. What many people seem to forget was that Deus provided the direction for FoS - without such a direction we probably would have seen alliances from FoS merged into that of the Xanadu block for that round (Cant remember its abbrev)

All in all, what 1up proposes and intends to follow through is totally different to Deus. Deus used politics to get its position (its military was weak compared to that of Fury). It didnt once try to stop blocks.

Yeh I must have missed that part I know they didn't stop blocking, but I thought the they were anti-stagnation, not anti-blocking. It was better for the universe than, say, r5 or this round.

Well, anyway. What I mean to say is - are 1up gonna help to smash up dominating blocks when necessary and help keep the game exciting? ie not like this round.

[Seed of Chaos]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And which round 6 did you play, big lumps of it were as boring and stagnated as any round of PA.

I was in a one-man galaxy in r6 Only heard what happened politics wise in later rounds. The end result seemed to indicate a more interesting round, than, say r9, when the whole top 100 was basically eclipse/tot.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Seed of Chaos

Yeh I must have missed that part I know they didn't stop blocking, but I thought the they were anti-stagnation, not anti-blocking. It was better for the universe than, say, r5 or this round.

Well, anyway. What I mean to say is - are 1up gonna help to smash up dominating blocks when necessary and help keep the game exciting? ie not like this round.

r5 was rather boring for many people (I liked r5 for entirely personal reasons). But there wasnt 3 blocks then.

All Deus did was bring in a 'leader' for a third block. Every block has a ringleader and without one, it's pretty much screwed. Deus 'apparently' was 'anti-stagnation'. Yet in effect, it suited their purposes to do what they did - if they had delayed the war with Xanadu and carried on reducing FLTTV to atoms then Deus would have lost vs Xanadu. As it stood they KNEW FLTTV would help thm and thus politics got shifted.

r6 was certainly more interesting than r5, yet Deus had their own motives for what they did and it wasnt the entire knight in shining armour as originally thought (Although that in noway implies what they did was -bad-.)

When Deus disbanded, there wasnt any third block in r7 and thus the cycle continued again (Due to really there being no suitable alliance to lead a third block)

Also, you state r9 as another reference in response to mazz - this is wrong. r9 was actually akin to r6, yet not as noticeable due to the fact that Vvomm couldnt organize a pissup in a brewery. r6 had the originally defeated block continue fighting, whilst in r9 that didnt happen. Instead they cried for a reset and gave up. When splits happened, Vvomm never capitalized on them. There were 3 wars in r9 - more wars than r6.

As for 1up - if we let a block dominate it's round over for us isn't it? So it would be rather logical for 1up not to allow a block of alliances to gain victory quickly.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

r5 was rather boring for many people (I liked r5 for entirely personal reasons). But there wasnt 3 blocks then.

1) All Deus did was bring in a 'leader' for a third block. Every block has a ringleader and without one, it's pretty much screwed. Deus 'apparently' was 'anti-stagnation'. Yet in effect, it suited their purposes to do what they did - if they had delayed the war with Xanadu and carried on reducing FLTTV to atoms then Deus would have lost vs Xanadu. As it stood they KNEW FLTTV would help thm and thus politics got shifted.

2) r6 was certainly more interesting than r5, yet Deus had their own motives for what they did and it wasnt the entire knight in shining armour as originally thought (Although that in noway implies what they did was -bad-.)

3) When Deus disbanded, there wasnt any third block in r7 and thus the cycle continued again (Due to really there being no suitable alliance to lead a third block)

1) Our objectives were firmly success AND anti-stagnation. Why would anyone join if we weren't going to be successful? Were you to have access to our HC forums (I don't know if they still exist, or if you could be given access to them) you would notice that Deus HC were straining to ensure that we kept a constant battle going. Facts of the matter are was that Deus was formed on the basis that we were all pretty hacked off how crap r5 was; complete utter toilet, retals only given to big players who were simply looking get up the top 100 with combat being much of a no-contest. People simply assumed we were knights in shining armour, and the useless boards spammers got (t)rolling.

2) Ultimately our motives are irrelevant - we did the best we could with what we set out to achieve.

3) We disbanded because we couldn't be arsed btw - r7 planning never even got that far

As for the rest ,of our final post there are large chunks of Sqrl's post I don't endorse myself and I would have objected to it had I not been asleep for 3 days after the end of r6. I cba with details on this.

I heartily endorse blocks if they are led by people willing to view them as agreements of convenience rather than ones of long-term security HOWEVER with a universe so small they hardly seem necessary to start off with. 1up (from what I can see) are in different position to Deus in r6 because the universe is smaller, blocks are smaller and they can more or less cherry pick good, solid players. Winning without blocks is quite achieveable for them, hence why they reject them. For Deus to reject blocks in r6 would have been madness.

[Seed of Chaos]

Damn I hate getting down to nitty gritty details

I know the situation is different from round 6, but basically, as long aswe don't end up having 1 block just dominating the universe like this round, I'll be happy Although there was just 1 war in r6, at least it was an ongoing war

[QazokRouge5]

Out of pure curiousity, has there EVER been a round in which an alliance has not blocked with another? Whether officially or unofficially.

To my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong, there has not.

Therefore, why would it be feasable for them to start now?

[Gerbie]

In round 9.5 the only large blocking alliances were Dragons and LDK (at the start). Both of these alliances left. Rumours indicate they had a lot of cheaters among them (well some of their members got closed actually) and they did not like the universe as it later became harder to cheat, so they left this game. It does seem logical that 'cheating' a general non-blocking agreement and cheating in the game are likely to happen in alliances such as those that left and NOT in alliances like we have now. I know there is no guarantee, but it might be feasible.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

In round 9.5 the only large blocking alliances were Dragons and LDK (at the start). Both of these alliances left. Rumours indicate they had a lot of cheaters among them (well some of their members got closed actually) and they did not like the universe as it later became harder to cheat, so they left this game. It does seem logical that 'cheating' a general non-blocking agreement and cheating in the game are likely to happen in alliances such as those that left and NOT in alliances like we have now. I know there is no guarantee, but it might be feasible.

Wether Đragons and LDK blocked was pretty irelevant. LDK were the ones who got the huge advantage over everyone else. The other alliances blocked against them to take them down. All beit too late.

In any round like that, one alliance is going to eventually get a large advantage and other alliances are going to try and block to stop them winning. Its natural.

Just as r11 if everyone stays alone [1up] will get the advantage and people will attempt to band together to stop [1up] winning. Sadly these days alliances have too many old grudges to work with each other (as shown by this rounds coalition) so it probably wont work. Well, thats my take on it anyway.

[Gateway]

GL 1up, Especially you TomKat

May the force be with Me

[fbd]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

No. R6 had 3 blocks - which resulted in 2 pretty one-sided 2 v 1 wars. Whereas this was a marginal improvement on a totally polarised 2 block round, we'd far prefer a round with no blocks - or failing that one where blocks form and dissolve dynamically during the round based on the current situation in the round.

Can I take that to mean that if 1up were to form a block in response to others, that those involved with them can't be expected to rely on their allegiances for longer than is necessary for 1up?

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by fbd

Can I take that to mean that if 1up were to form a block in response to others, that those involved with them can't be expected to rely on their allegiances for longer than is necessary for 1up?

Any agreement would have set terms of dissolution. These would be terms that would be clear and agreed upon by all parties. As an example (intentionally unrealistic for example puposes only): This allegiance will terminate as soon as the last member of XX is driven out of the top 100 and the alliance itself is out of the top 10.

This would be a term that is not based on 1up's sole interpretation or interests, but would serve our interests in bringing about the kind of game we want to play.

That's how I'd do it anyway...

[Boogster]

I must be honest, I did not have the patience to read this thread in it's entirety.

Good luck 1up, etc. Has to be a good thing for the game.

On anti-blocking proposal: appears to me totally unrealistic. Hindsight tells me so.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by fbd

Can I take that to mean that if 1up were to form a block in response to others, that those involved with them can't be expected to rely on their allegiances for longer than is necessary for 1up?

Of course you can. This post is an attempt by Sid (and 1up command in general) to gain an edge over other alliances in political terms and to occupy the moral high-ground before the start of the upcoming round. A sensible move for a new alliance, no matter how veteran its players are.

Anyone who thinks Sid made this post in a fit of altruism is seriously deluded. Personally I view it as a statement of intent by a leader who clearly believes his hand-picked 100 can out play any other alliance on equal terms.

And they probably can.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Of course you can. This post is an attempt by Sid (and 1up command in general) to gain an edge over other alliances in political terms and to occupy the moral high-ground before the start of the upcoming round. A sensible move for a new alliance, no matter how veteran its players are.

I'm not quite sure what the 'moral high ground' in question actually is. It is neither moral nor immoral to suggest that we avoid blocks, it is a decision in which morality has no part to play.

As for the idea that alliances need the support of the PA community, I think that's untrue. 1up don't really need to win the moral high ground, or make ourselves out to be saviours of Planetarion. Far from being a sensible move, it could well be argued that we have limited our options more than necessary, if winning-at-all-costs is our aim. If we wanted to win at all costs, we could have a block ready and be half-way to winning r11 by now, before the round has even started.

Anyone who thinks Sid made this post in a fit of altruism is seriously deluded. Personally I view it as a statement of intent by a leader who clearly believes his hand-picked 100 can out play any other alliance on equal terms.

And they probably can.

It's obviously not altruism and Sid makes that clear in his original post. We do think we have a chance of beating everyone else on a level playing field. I'm sure that several other alliances believe the same about themselves.

See, this is where PA tends to go wrong. Everyone spends their time anticipating everyone else's future moves. Before long, most people think they know exactly how the next round will work out, and they will act based on their prediction. So, if you believe that 1up are going to win, it becomes easy to justify making a block, to 'level things up'. We might then believe that we can only survive by making our own block, and before long the whole vicious cycle has started up again.

Let's at least try to start the round as an open contest. If 1up are so much better than everyone else as you suggest, then it will become clear and anti-1up blocks may well form. If that happens, so be it. At least those blocks will probably be temporary alliances of convenience and not long-term blocks that could stagnate the round. And if 1up don't win, it would prove that blocks were never necessary.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Of course you can. This post is an attempt by Sid (and 1up command in general) to gain an edge over other alliances in political terms and to occupy the moral high-ground before the start of the upcoming round. A sensible move for a new alliance, no matter how veteran its players are.

Anyone who thinks Sid made this post in a fit of altruism is seriously deluded. Personally I view it as a statement of intent by a leader who clearly believes his hand-picked 100 can out play any other alliance on equal terms.

And they probably can.

So let me get this straight, Sid wants to delude the universe to go solo and 1up goes also solo, so they have an edge over the universe. While having this edge the universe, silly as it is, is unable to do something against it and so 1up wins because sid said so? Man if it was ever that easy.
Do i need to tell you that either you havent read or understood the proposal ? cause sid gave clearly ideas of when it was legit to block or group together. I.e. if one alliance pulls far away from the rest. How would this benefit 1up again ? If sid would plan to pull away ?
If it was all a setup and he would believe in a start finish victory wouldnt it be smarter to say no blocking at all under any circumstances ?

[waassaa]

Originally Posted by Razorback

If it was all a setup and he would believe in a start finish victory wouldnt it be smarter to say no blocking at all under any circumstances ?

NO
that would be a bit simplistic and you guys are smarter than that, the point the poster made is that you are taking the moral high ground, putting pressure onto alliances not to block, if they block they know they will be flamed, thus they are not willing to block. Also you are aware if your alliance gets ahead, 1 the other alliances would have been fighting each other and thats hard to get over, 2 by the time alliances have sorted thier differences, you will be too strong to stop.

Come on guys, your better than this, as you pointed out in the other thread.

[MiX]

give it up everyone in here is to thick headed to change their opinion anyways, so why bother to post?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by waassaa

NO
that would be a bit simplistic and you guys are smarter than that, the point the poster made is that you are taking the moral high ground, putting pressure onto alliances not to block, if they block they know they will be flamed, thus they are not willing to block. Also you are aware if your alliance gets ahead, 1 the other alliances would have been fighting each other and thats hard to get over, 2 by the time alliances have sorted thier differences, you will be too strong to stop.

Come on guys, your better than this, as you pointed out in the other thread.

moral highground means nothing in pa. You were part of EET and WEET both had nothing to do with morals. We won because we played the field better then the enemy. Morally it was "unfair" still it was a win. By making a proposal and breaking it we would lose any moral credibility and while you were already pointing out in other threads that some hc might already go for 1up purely out of fear they might have an advantage none of your following points applies.
Seen in previous rounds its not too hard to mobilise many alliances for the final gangbang on someone who pulled away i can only assume you might have not played for awhile and have forgotten about it or you outright lie.
Regarding your 2nd point. it wont take too long to figure out an alliance is pulling away, ingame alliance ranking be blessed. So once this step is done im sure enough warmongers are there to "crush the evil growers"

[waassaa]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Seen in previous rounds its not too hard to mobilise many alliances for the final gangbang on someone who pulled away i can only assume you might have not played for awhile and have forgotten about it or you outright lie.
Regarding your 2nd point. it wont take too long to figure out an alliance is pulling away, ingame alliance ranking be blessed. So once this step is done im sure enough warmongers are there to "crush the evil growers"

I don´t agree with you, its not easy to organise alliances to fight together if they have been fighting each other during a round, unless you have good contacts to the various Hc, in previous rounds this has been part of the block thing, with one side not maybe blocking but maintaining good contact. then forming an allie when needed, it has however rarely worked.
if you look at the game today there are few alliances that could pull off what you are suggesting, which is proberly why you are suggesting it.

I don´t want to argue this one focht, as far as i am concerned, alliances should be forced to go solo by in game coding and may the best alliance win.

if the round is solo, and 1Up wins I will be glad and happy to come on here and congradulate you.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by waassaa

I don´t agree with you, its not easy to organise alliances to fight together if they have been fighting each other during a round, unless you have good contacts to the various Hc, in previous rounds this has been part of the block thing, with one side not maybe blocking but maintaining good contact. then forming an allie when needed, it has however rarely worked.

NoS managed to do it very successfully in r4, despite being a fairly unknown alliance before the round started. It takes balls to do, but it can be done.

[waassaa]

[quote=waassaa]I don´t agree with you, its not easy to organise alliances to fight together if they have been fighting each other during a round [quote]

I don´t belive i said it couldn´t be done...

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by waassaa

I don´t agree with you, its not easy to organise alliances to fight together if they have been fighting each other during a round, unless you have good contacts to the various Hc, in previous rounds this has been part of the block thing, with one side not maybe blocking but maintaining good contact. then forming an allie when needed, it has however rarely worked.
if you look at the game today there are few alliances that could pull off what you are suggesting, which is proberly why you are suggesting it.

I don´t want to argue this one focht, as far as i am concerned, alliances should be forced to go solo by in game coding and may the best alliance win.

if the round is solo, and 1Up wins I will be glad and happy to come on here and congradulate you.

So you are saying that organising a block in a round is more difficult then organising a block before the round ?
P.S. alot of the "major" alliance hcs play this game already for more then 5 rounds and have cycled through various political relationships with other alliances so the contacts are not reallly a matter, especially if you are fighting a common enemy (usually the topdog makes no difference who he takes his roids from aslong as he can).

[Axis_WLF]

zhil is a block!

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by ComradRob

I'm not quite sure what the 'moral high ground' in question actually is. It is neither moral nor immoral to suggest that we avoid blocks, it is a decision in which morality has no part to play.

In the strictest sense of morality it probably can't be applied to any actions taken in a game, even one as important as PA .

What was meant was that I believe 1up is attempting to maneuver the universe to a place that will allow 1up to gain the ultimate (unblocked) victory. Clearly this thread is merely a very small stepping stone to be negotiated along the path of achieving this goal. Only the command of 1up know if this is true of course, but I don't see why you wouldn't aim your sights this high.

Originally Posted by ComradRob

It's obviously not altruism and Sid makes that clear in his original post. We do think we have a chance of beating everyone else on a level playing field. I'm sure that several other alliances believe the same about themselves.

If this was the case then why does every "top" alliance block every round? I believe the fear of failure, and thus the appearance of un1337ness in the eyes of the PA community, is much greater than you claim it to be.

Originally Posted by Focht

Seen in previous rounds its not too hard to mobilise many alliances for the final gangbang on someone who pulled away i can only assume you might have not played for awhile and have forgotten about it or you outright lie.
Regarding your 2nd point. it wont take too long to figure out an alliance is pulling away, ingame alliance ranking be blessed. So once this step is done im sure enough warmongers are there to "crush the evil growers"

Are you being belligerent or are you truly this dense? The last round all but ended after 3 weeks because what you suggest wasn't achievable.

Originally Posted by Axis_WLF

zhil is a block!

Zhil is my puppy. Clearly.

[DeadMan]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Nice to see you back Sid.

Your idea of no blocking is noble and I think the FAnG command has no intention to block next round. But rumours says we will, so counterblocks might be formed etc ...
I sincirely hope this doesn't happen cause the more potential roids, the better. We've had our "petty revenge" from last round so (was meant as a joke so plz don't go crazy about it).

also, you said 75 is the alliance limit? if that's the case, you state that a combined score > 100 is a block. So basicly 2 alliances can't nap or ally or they'll break the non block pact?

Nway, it's nice to start this on AD but I'd rather call a meeting or make an official thread where 1 HC of each alliance states whether he agrees to a written agreement or not.

'

I will never as long as I play PA ever believe anything someone from Fang or mistu says.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by DeadMan

'

I will never as long as I play PA ever believe anything someone from Fang or mistu says.

Don't you see me "caring" about that?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Achilles

In the strictest sense of morality it probably can't be applied to any actions taken in a game, even one as important as PA .

jest ahoy

What was meant was that I believe 1up is attempting to maneuver the universe to a place that will allow 1up to gain the ultimate (unblocked) victory. Clearly this thread is merely a very small stepping stone to be negotiated along the path of achieving this goal. Only the command of 1up know if this is true of course, but I don't see why you wouldn't aim your sights this high.

I dont know what scares me more, that you actually believe in a conspiracy to ensure the "ultimate victory" (one which is like any other in the eyes of most players anyways) or that you believe the rest of the universe is that crap that it would get their asses handed to them just by a new alliance reforming and stating they would go solo.
If that was the case why did nobody "invent" this way to ultimate victory before ? I.E Fury (same ppl many claim) or Eclipse or even Fang ? I mean if the universe is THAT crap surely it only takes a post and some balls to pull it off....

If this was the case then why does every "top" alliance block every round? I believe the fear of failure, and thus the appearance of un1337ness in the eyes of the PA community, is much greater than you claim it to be.

unleetness ? Failure ? Why do alliances still play if they cant win ? i mean wolfpack had their last "win" in r6, by your logic they must have been humiliated enough to quit by now ? Or all the new "good" alliances like Vision & ND who did formidable last round(s). They never won, by your logic they must be ashamed..... Or Fang ? 1 victory playing since r7....
There is only a handfull of "1337" alliances, after your evaluation while the rest would just like to be humiliated and live their life in failure ? I dont think you hit the nerv of this community mr.Freud
Blocks appear on 2 reasons mainly, fear the other side might be bigger/better - I.e. to counterblock something and to win the game at all costs. The 3rd but not essential intention is to fight the winners of last round or to enter the topleague of this game by beeing added as "flak" to the block. ToT and other alliances started small in the big r3-5 universe and finally made it as loyal and good partners of furgion to form their own history.

Are you being belligerent or are you truly this dense? The last round all but ended after 3 weeks because what you suggest wasn't achievable.
Zhil is my puppy. Clearly.

The last round ended for many reasons after 3 weeks. One reason beeing the universe acting completely shite and totally unprepared to stand against a 300 player block and some hc beeing cowardish enough to not regognize the right time to set an end to it. I.e. the vasalls like phratkos and WP and ND(rumored atleast so pardon me if im wrong) didnt realise they would be next bait and hoped it hits someone else and they could surf the victory in.
However this is no excuse for the rest of the universe giving Fang such an easy win. I think we both can agree on that.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

The last round ended for many reasons after 3 weeks. One reason beeing the universe acting completely shite and totally unprepared to stand against a 300 player block and some hc beeing cowardish enough to not regognize the right time to set an end to it. I.e. the vasalls like phratkos and WP and ND(rumored atleast so pardon me if im wrong) didnt realise they would be next bait and hoped it hits someone else and they could surf the victory in.
However this is no excuse for the rest of the universe giving Fang such an easy win. I think we both can agree on that.

Phraktos never was our next bait. They infact brought it on themselves by believing we had some evil plan to take them out or whatever their excuse was.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Focht

I dont know what scares me more, that you actually believe in a conspiracy to ensure the "ultimate victory" (one which is like any other in the eyes of most players anyways) or that you believe the rest of the universe is that crap that it would get their asses handed to them just by a new alliance reforming and stating they would go solo.

I'm saying there is an intent by 1up to dominate the game politically and militarily. Since winning is the purpose of playing I don't see how it would be a conspiracy. Just good play, if it works. Are you saying that 1up has made this no block proposal believing they can't win by themselves? Cause that would be pretty stupid.

Originally Posted by Focht

If that was the case why did nobody "invent" this way to ultimate victory before ? I.E Fury (same ppl many claim) or Eclipse or even Fang ? I mean if the universe is THAT crap surely it only takes a post and some balls to pull it off....

There are several things to take into account here. The first is that the universe is a lot smaller now than it was in the days of Furgion. Secondly, alliances are limited to 100 members in size now. And thirdly, yes, the universe is that crap. Last round proved that.

Originally Posted by Focht

unleetness ? Failure ? Why do alliances still play if they cant win ?

Some of us play because we think the game is fun. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Focht

i mean wolfpack had their last "win" in r6, by your logic they must have been humiliated enough to quit by now ? Or all the new "good" alliances like Vision & ND who did formidable last round(s). They never won, by your logic they must be ashamed..... Or Fang ? 1 victory playing since r7....
There is only a handfull of "1337" alliances, after your evaluation while the rest would just like to be humiliated and live their life in failure ? I dont think you hit the nerv of this community mr.Freud

I don't even know where to start here. Firstly, not every alliance in the game plays to win at all costs. So these alliances presumably don't feel they failed if they fail to achieve #1 spot. Conversely, those alliances which do play all out to win would (and should) feel they have underachieved if they fail to claim victory. Like FAnG did after their R10 defeat.

The reason they carry on playing is because they hope to do better next time. Like FAnG did after their R10 defeat.

You will notice I have used recent history to support my views, instead of refering back to rounds 4 - 8, which have no relevance on the current enviroment. Can you do the same?

Originally Posted by Focht

The last round ended for many reasons after 3 weeks. One reason beeing the universe acting completely shite and totally unprepared to stand against a 300 player block and some hc beeing cowardish enough to not regognize the right time to set an end to it. I.e. the vasalls like phratkos and WP and ND(rumored atleast so pardon me if im wrong)

I find it amusing that you are clearer on R4's politics than R10.5's. Allow me to set you straight. ND began the round napped with Phraktos and WP. After a week we ended our alliance with Phrak because the Universe page looked something like 1. FAnG 2. Phraktos 3. Wolfpack 4. Mistu. We can hardly be faulted for WP's stunning fence sitting ability in not doing the same. Our 60 members took their chances and attacked the big block, the rest of the universe fought each other like vultures over carrion until it was too late.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm saying there is an intent by 1up to dominate the game politically and militarily. Since winning is the purpose of playing I don't see how it would be a conspiracy. Just good play, if it works. Are you saying that 1up has made this no block proposal believing they can't win by themselves? Cause that would be pretty stupid.

The conspiracy starts where you try to reflect any proposal or any post into a bigger scheme of things and desperately try to forge things together like you did in your previous posts.
The attempt of going solo is old and so this proposal is not a new idea either, just the hope it might work this time with a much smaller universe.
Anything you try to add as motives for 1up to call out this proposal can be equally applied to any alliance believing in going solo.

There are several things to take into account here. The first is that the universe is a lot smaller now than it was in the days of Furgion. Secondly, alliances are limited to 100 members in size now. And thirdly, yes, the universe is that crap. Last round proved that.

Alliancesizes did infact not much level during the last couple of rounds, i.e. Eclipse started since r9 each round with less then 100 players while we finished with more (due to not kicking all inactives as there was no need to enforce any restrictions not ingame).
The last part is funny since it includes yourself, if you are crap its noones fault but your own, so dont go whine to the universe about it, play more seriously instead of hiding behind excuses and youll achieve something and "show them" but it seems to me you would rather block instead of hoping on your own qualities since its easier and doesnt need much own skill....

Some of us play because we think the game is fun. Go figure.

This is usually the excuse of those who have no chance to achieve anything and try to justify their defeats. Fact is no alliance should play PA if they dont wanna achieve something and want to play the game. IF every customer was out for the win there would be more competition, something going back to your previous point would maybe lead to the universe not beeing so utterly crap that the only solution for one or the other seems to be to block.

I don't even know where to start here. Firstly, not every alliance in the game plays to win at all costs. So these alliances presumably don't feel they failed if they fail to achieve #1 spot. Conversely, those alliances which do play all out to win would (and should) feel they have underachieved if they fail to claim victory. Like FAnG did after their R10 defeat.

This seems to be the doublemoral of the losers to me, the ones who are hopeless try to force the others to play "after our rules" and try to put pressure on them for not winning. I dont see any premier league soccer club telling its ppl "we only play for fun, let those who play for the top5 spots feel bad about not winning we dont care". Doublemoral in its finest.... Dont play if you dont want to win because if you dont care like you claim all your posts are nonsense since you wouldnt care anyways what the "topdogs" do, right ?

The reason they carry on playing is because they hope to do better next time. Like FAnG did after their R10 defeat.

Every alliance should do that imo, just accepting your fate and giving your members excuses why you are not "up there" is clearly not the way to go. This might explain why alot of ppl who try to play this game in its original form, playing to win or to compete with others, leave "your" alliance and are looking for something better.
Its time to grow out of the "old gentlemens club" attitude and to join the game for the purpose of playing and not "we cant win so we dont even try and say we only play for fun"-

You will notice I have used recent history to support my views, instead of refering back to rounds 4 - 8, which have no relevance on the current enviroment. Can you do the same?

I was refering to Fish's post where he stated he was so proud of his unblocked history, something which is infact a lie considering the information you brought up. On a sidenote by your own words, i never did care much about alliances who "just played for fun" since they were no competition for those who played the game for either winning and the competition with other players. So yes i never wanted to be totally up to date with ND's politics, and looking back, i cant say it did me personally any bad.

I find it amusing that you are clearer on R4's politics than R10.5's. Allow me to set you straight. ND began the round napped with Phraktos and WP. After a week we ended our alliance with Phrak because the Universe page looked something like 1. FAnG 2. Phraktos 3. Wolfpack 4. Mistu. We can hardly be faulted for WP's stunning fence sitting ability in not doing the same. Our 60 members took their chances and attacked the big block, the rest of the universe fought each other like vultures over carrion until it was too late.

As i said a few times, you can blame fang for not splitting up but the majority of the blame goes to the rest of the universe for not stopping them. You are no difference, considering after 1 wekk of onslaught Alot of players nowadays tend to give up.
On the otherhand i agree it was a brave move against the other block, just too late and too little. You should have seen this coming ahead of tim but i guess we all do mistakes.
On the otherhand i didnt play r10.5 myself and your politics seemed not to be impressive in this last round, judging from your successes....

[Barrow|Pony]

Yoink - realized I shouldnt combat senseless, factless, logicless bashing with more comments.

I'm sorry that ND HC isnt psychic enough for you. Maybe we can work on that with the PA MENTOR TEAM.

Or...not so much.

[Achilles]

Focht, your post is seriously misinformed and grossly bigoted. Not everyone in life (or any aspect of it) sees things in the same light as others do. Or approach thing with the same motivations and desires. Your use of derogatory terms and your sneering attitude are frankly disgraceful. And, if I may say so, very FAnG like.

Fortunately 1up's other posters on AD (Cayl, Rob, Sid - amongst others) have the common sense and intelligence required to stick to factual debate and informed opinion sharing rather than the childish drivel which is all you seem capable of.

Focht = 1up's Kjeldoran.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Focht, your post is seriously misinformed and grossly bigoted. Not everyone in life (or any aspect of it) sees things in the same light as others do. Or approach thing with the same motivations and desires. Your use of derogatory terms and your sneering attitude are frankly disgraceful. And, if I may say so, very FAnG like.

Fortunately 1up's other posters on AD (Cayl, Rob, Sid - amongst others) have the common sense and intelligence required to stick to factual debate and informed opinion sharing rather than the childish drivel which is all you seem capable of.

Focht = 1up's Kjeldoran.

now that really hurts my ego.

On the otherhand i think i hit a nerve with my evaluation of your intentions.
Beeing a sore loser is so easy if you can justify it with "playing for fun".
This game is meant to be a competition and combatgame not some lame fun hippie comune where the ppl playing the game like it should be must excuse themself infront ot those who never achieve anything.
If this hurts you, tough shit play the game and "show me" otherwise stfu.
The apathy of the fun generation is exactly what brought the misery to pa, a crowd of ppl who leech on the game to justify their "special way of fun" while beeing beaten after the gamerules.
Sitting it out in big extremes. Or do you still wonder why last round 4k players watched "having fun in their own way" while 300 ppl handed them their asses over and over ?

P.S. i dont need to post "for" 1up, the only person doing so is sid but to argue with your totally deluded views is a real fieldday for me. In my whole time playing pa ive never met someone so far out of the game as yourself. If you enjoy the community so much, why dont you play jippiegames and use irc instead of polluting these boards with your fears to get "owned" in a game you dont care about and only play to have fun, quiet contradicting.
I mean you dont go to play Counterstrike to simply act as a victim for the rest of the players or do you ?

On a last note, you call my reply missinformed, since when did someone need "information" to a) Quote your text and reply to it and b) apply his own opinion to a given discussion ?

If you find any "missinformation" feel free to point it out in detail. im eager to hear it.
Fact is you have lost it. always attack the arguments but never the discussion partner.

[Achilles]

Mate, I'm not sure if you bothered checking or if you are just stupid but I've never played a (full) round of PA w/out finishing as a Top 100 planet. Last round I was 39th and the galaxy I was GC of was the only non FMW gal to finish in the Top25.

I'm simply not arrogant enough to assume that everyone must play seriously because it would make the game better for me.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Mate, I'm not sure if you bothered checking or if you are just stupid but I've never played a (full) round of PA w/out finishing as a Top 100 planet. Last round I was 39th and the galaxy I was GC of was the only non FMW gal to finish in the Top25.

Congratz.
checked this site: http://www.caeneus.org/planetarion/
cant be that many rounds youve played "full" considering up to r9.5 there is not a single mentioning. Last round was however different, in PaX you can hardly be beaten if you follow a few simple steps, you lose some score but even beeing on the losing side allowed many players to maintain their topranks in the universe unlike the old pa where losing meant dropping in ranks like mad. (best example sid himself last round maintained quiet a good position while WP was "losing")

I'm simply not arrogant enough to assume that everyone must play seriously because it would make the game better for me.

Im arrogant enough to assume everyone who pays for this game wants to PLAY this game. Playing means participating and not just sitting around and waiting for the round to end.

[Achilles]

I'm aware of the site mate and I'm not mentioned there. You want me to cry in my cornfalkes that my brilliance isn't recognised by the greater PA community?

Also, it must be comforting to all the 1up players to know that they can win even if they're as crap as I am. I'm surprised someone clearly as 1337 as you is even bothered playing. Feel free to troll me away, but I won't be replying. Something someone said about arguing with a fool.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm aware of the site mate and I'm not mentioned there. You want me to cry in my cornfalkes that my brilliance isn't recognised by the greater PA community?

Also, it must be comforting to all the 1up players to know that they can win even if they're as crap as I am. I'm surprised someone clearly as 1337 as you is even bothered playing. Feel free to troll me away, but I won't be replying. Something someone said about arguing with a fool.

It was you gloating about his previous achievements to show off how "1337" he is. Something which apparently wasnt recognized by the historical sites.
Myself bothered to play ? actually i wasnt last round, this round seems more interesting if ppl actually try to not block, atleast its worth a try.
Apology accepted i have no issue argueing with a fool (you) you only digged your grave deeper with every post.

[Barrow|Pony]

This is hilarious.

The only point that I would single out was the mention that information was irrelevant. That was right down the pipe.

[furssie]

Oh my. Focht.


Such low-standard argument you 2 are having there.

[Fred of Bedrock]

The problem is that an illusionist never reveal alls there tricks and Sid never will show his full hand. A man that is very clever with words and a great tactician but I thinks all it's all a bunch of hogwash....... a bit like hearing how Spinner was making each round better (and spinner was the greatest moron ever to be an admin)..... whatever happens it wont spoil my memories of some good rounds and some pretty hard ones but I find it very funny how Sid can evoke such responses to this date and history says he will always do what he likes anyway.

I hope you enjoy the round but playing against hidden blocks or blocks that are only "temporary"and so aren't really blocks is quite boring and tedious.

I will come on irc every now and then but the whole concept of playing with sleight of hand doesnt appeal anymore as I have pretty much seen it all anyway.


Fury/1up........ whatever...... same driver /same destination/ same route.

[Cayl]

Personally Fred, I wouldn't be back if I thought it was the same route to the same place. Several key things have changed, and I'm in it to try something a little different and to perhaps prove my worth relative to this game one last time.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Personally Fred, I wouldn't be back if I thought it was the same route to the same place. Several key things have changed, and I'm in it to try something a little different and to perhaps prove my worth relative to this game one last time.

Just curious: what are the key things that have changed that made you come back?

[Cayl]

A hard coded way to tell who the one single alliance winner is, is a good starting point. Before you kind of had to infer from Galaxy tags and whoever was ranked in the top 10 planets, as well as general public sentiment. Ship stats are different enough to want to give it a whirl.

And in my personal life, I found myself with an abundance of free time at precisely the time Zhil said "Well Sid may be starting a new alliance in Planetarion." I took it as a sign.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Cayl

A hard coded way to tell who the one single alliance winner is, is a good starting point. Before you kind of had to infer from Galaxy tags and whoever was ranked in the top 10 planets, as well as general public sentiment. Ship stats are different enough to want to give it a whirl.

And in my personal life, I found myself with an abundance of free time at precisely the time Zhil said "Well Sid may be starting a new alliance in Planetarion." I took it as a sign.

that and you just wanted to get to know me !!!