Low down underhanded behaviour

[The_Mad_Keg]

So on monday yet another F-Crew member was poached for another ally, with less than a week left to play and the 72 ticks waiting time before they can join the ally, along with the fact the ally is apparently top 5 and he cant join anyway i can only assume that this is an extremely underhanded way to try and overtake/keep ahead of us, by just coaxing ppl out of the ally towards the end of the round.

Whichever ally did this i can only assume you have no morals or ethics whatsoever and you cannot stand seeing an ally like us in the top5, you are low down underhanded scum and have no part in the social side of this game

[Benneh]

Aww tis okay

*hugs


thought you didnt care if you got t5?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Mad_Keg

So on monday yet another F-Crew member was poached for another ally, with less than a week left to play and the 72 ticks waiting time before they can join the ally, along with the fact the ally is apparently top 5 and he cant join anyway i can only assume that this is an extremely underhanded way to try and overtake/keep ahead of us, by just coaxing ppl out of the ally towards the end of the round.

Whichever ally did this i can only assume you have no morals or ethics whatsoever and you cannot stand seeing an ally like us in the top5, you are low down underhanded scum and have no part in the social side of this game

It is the job of the F-Crew HC's to make sure their members don't leave. How?
You start with setting up a good recruitment policy which basicly is the first step in filtering members. After this you do whatever is nescessary to get them to stay. Motivation and trust are 2 key factors here imo.

Nway, you can point a finger to the alliance that is poaching but let's be realistic. Every alliance does it, including Angels or 1up. Maybe not so straight forward or during a round, but all alliances do it. But maybe look at your own alliance and figure out the reason why he left. Members don't just leave for no reason (a bad and louzy reason is still a reason).

Also, the most blame should be at the member. He makes the call, nobody else. In the end it's his decision.

[Nadar]

I didn't know F-Crew cared about their rank.

But if an alliance makes your members quit F-Crew just so that said alliance gets F-Crew's rank that's indeed a sad fact. I'm maybe too naive, but I can't imagine any alliance would do whatever it takes for a rank.

[The_Fish]

Bla bla bla F-Crew are a great training alliance bla bla bla we dont care about rank bla bla bla one of our members left us for a good alliance bla bla bla.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Nadar

I didn't know F-Crew cared about their rank.

But if an alliance makes your members quit F-Crew just so that said alliance gets F-Crew's rank that's indeed a sad fact. I'm maybe too naive, but I can't imagine any alliance would do whatever it takes for a rank.

Last minute recruitment to gain ranks is as common as sending attackfleets during a round.

[JonnyBGood]

Just fleet-catch him and ruin his round. That'll show 'em. To be honest I wouldn't say it's necessarily some alliance recruiting so they can finish ahead of you, some alliances just decide that if they want someone in their alliance it's best to get him in as soon as possible (in the overall alliance scheme of things not the alliance rankings angle).

PS I don't want this to become a flaming or trolling contest, hello the_fish I am looking at you!

[The_Fish]

Ok... a more constructive reply.

The system F-Crew uses is good for the game. But it's hardly unexpected that their members leave to join alliances which are more involved in politics and wars. I can't ever remember F-Crew having a serious war or jumping in any war. Yes it sucks that its so late in the round, but tbh, is he such a loss? If he had any loyalty he'd have stayed til the end of the round, the alliance he's joining would still have taken him.

F-Crews rank is hardly a fair reflection of their members in comparison to say Angels or NewDawn anyway, so what does it matter if they end 3 or 4 or 5 etc?

[bwtmc]

It wasn't Ascendancy.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Last minute recruitment to gain ranks is as common as sending attackfleets during a round.

I'm sure you'll take that back when thinking about what happened in r10 That was slightly more extreme though.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Nadar

I'm sure you'll take that back when thinking about what happened in r10 That was slightly more extreme though.

No, it's rather common. What happened in r10 was just very extreme.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

F-Crews rank is hardly a fair reflection of their members in comparison to say Angels or NewDawn anyway, so what does it matter if they end 3 or 4 or 5 etc?

Ranks in the current system (aside from #1) mean very little when not every alliance is able to have the same amount of members. If the limit is 55 then having 10-15 members more then another alliance is decisive on the ranks.

[Kargool]

Please show us proof instead of coming with unproven statements. im bored allready.

[Chika]

Yer, if you aren't #1 who the **** cares. People forget #2. Surely #5 gets even less of a recognition.

p.s: Self recognition is for losers. (Or recognition from your parents only)

[Sjor]

would be fun to have another ranking with the value/roids scores

[wakey]

This happens to us every round and while ranking and such like isnt our driving force what makes this annoying is that every single time the very members who get poached are those whom earlier in the round were told to "piss off" as they were "too small" or "didnt have the experiance" by the other alliances. This very group of alliances however seem to generally have no problem starting to sniff around the members whom progress the best during the final two weeks of the round often going as far as telling them things like "You can do better than F-Crew", "This is a once in a lifetime chance, join now or the option wont be here after round end" ect ect.

Now alot of members whom get these offers do turn it down, instead choosing to show some loyalty but some do get swayed by the offers but when these alliances wont take them at first and then leave us to spend all round developing them only to then swoop in and try and reap the end benift its extreamly annoying.

Now I want to get one thing clear here to all the other alliances here (And im sure i speak for the HC's of the likes of ROCK, xVX, HA or any other alliance whom accepts more new/inexperianced than just "from time to time" ) We are TRAINING alliances NOT FEEDER alliance. Theres a major differnce here, a training alliances aim is to give players a chance to learn while a feeder alliances aim is simply to pass players onto another alliance. Now if you want to obtain rankings by recruiting members from elsewhere in the last week without effecting your alliance directly perhaps you should put some work in and set up a feeder alliance rather than leech off others work. And while some of you may go "why should we thats what your here for" thats not why we are here. Training alliances may not go out to win like an elite alliance does but we do have a goal to achieve as much as possible as the more you achieve during the round the higher you have to adjust your goals and we cant achieve them when we have others doing things like this. If you want some of our members then they are free to go between the rounds but everyone in the alliance deserves the pay off for the immense effort put into these people through out the round.

Ranks in the current system (aside from #1) mean very little when not every alliance is able to have the same amount of members. If the limit is 55 then having 10-15 members more then another alliance is decisive on the ranks.

I wish you would stop complaining about this. Angels are ranked so low because their members arent good enough this round and they are being elitist fools. The system allows alliances to be evened up which is good. Now if your members are good enough you can have a top 5 position with 55 members, just look at 1up but if your members arent good enough this round like Angels then you have the chance to have more members to even things up slightly. Now if Angels dont choose to take this option and their members arent good enough at the current round then its their own fault that they are struggling to hold ranks against alliances like F-Crew, VGN, Subh and TGV.

[Sjor]

Originally Posted by wakey

This happens to us every round and while ranking and such like isnt our driving force what makes this annoying is that every single time the very members who get poached are those whom earlier in the round were told to "piss off" as they were "too small" or "didnt have the experiance" by the other alliances. This very group of alliances however seem to generally have no problem starting to sniff around the members whom progress the best during the final two weeks of the round often going as far as telling them things like "You can do better than F-Crew", "This is a once in a lifetime chance, join now or the option wont be here after round end" ect ect.

Now alot of members whom get these offers do turn it down, instead choosing to show some loyalty but some do get swayed by the offers but when these alliances wont take them at first and then leave us to spend all round developing them only to then swoop in and try and reap the end benift its extreamly annoying.

Now I want to get one thing clear here to all the other alliances here (And im sure i speak for the HC's of the likes of ROCK, xVX, HA or any other alliance whom accepts more new/inexperianced than just "from time to time" ) We are TRAINING alliances NOT FEEDER alliance. Theres a major differnce here, a training alliances aim is to give players a chance to learn while a feeder alliances aim is simply to pass players onto another alliance. Now if you want to obtain rankings by recruiting members from elsewhere in the last week without effecting your alliance directly perhaps you should put some work in and set up a feeder alliance rather than leech off others work. And while some of you may go "why should we thats what your here for" thats not why we are here. Training alliances may not go out to win like an elite alliance does but we do have a goal to achieve as much as possible as the more you achieve during the round the higher you have to adjust your goals and we cant achieve them when we have others doing things like this. If you want some of our members then they are free to go between the rounds but everyone in the alliance deserves the pay off for the immense effort put into these people through out the round.



I wish you would stop complaining about this. Angels are ranked so low because their members arent good enough this round and they are being elitist fools. The system allows alliances to be evened up which is good. Now if your members are good enough you can have a top 5 position with 55 members, just look at 1up but if your members arent good enough this round like Angels then you have the chance to have more members to even things up slightly. Now if Angels dont choose to take this option and their members arent good enough at the current round then its their own fault that they are struggling to hold ranks against alliances like F-Crew, VGN, Subh and TGV.

ok first this round and the last few round changed the game a lot

take it however u want it but you play game to beat and bash otehr, to be the best and that ppl respect you.

if this round would last 3 more weeks value would become more and more important and a lot in top 10 would change

before you start bitching on angels, we are not comming to your ppl and asking them to join us. we turn back enough of ppl that want to shipjump.
also if u think that our ppl are bad why do u think so many ppl want to join us?
you think we are weak? we still stick together after having a worst round an ally can have. We have the value and the roids, wich means nothing atm but that you get mass incs from every noob ally.
we still cover a very high ammount of def calls and i think we would at least be rank 2 or 3 if the attacking and the XP would be overated (thats ofc only my opinion)

Fcrew did very well thats sure but a lot of things benefited them
also i think if pa ****inues in the way it goes now (i know it was announced that it will change) alliances become unnecesarry.

Angels are forever <3
gang bangs too

[The_Fish]

TBH wakey, if it happens every round why dont you do something to stop it? You seem to manage making ridiculously long posts about the subject every round, why not use the time to do something more constructive?

Why does your alliance never engage in wars? What do you train people for, if not war? And sometimes it's best to learn the hard way. Every person here has been on the end of a spanking and thats what makes a successful round more satisfying. If you think this is what will make people quit, they will quit anyway.

[Thex]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Ranks in the current system (aside from #1) mean very little when not every alliance is able to have the same amount of members.

To the alliances outside of T10 (maybe even T5) then rank does mean a lot. While they cannot compete with some of the bigger alliances the position at the end of the round is vitally important when they are comparing themselves to each other. Just because the T5 alliances believe all other alliances are crap, doesn't mean the people in those alliances don't care how well they do.

[furball]

From our perspective all the alliances from 3rd to 6th are in a recruiting race just as much as one for score. With so little score separating 3rd (currently Vengeance, 232 million score) from 7th (NewDawn, 225 million score), just one member can make a LOT of difference.

Every time one of the alliances outside the top 5 recruits someone, they go back into the top 5. Every time a member leaves, that alliance falls out of the top 5. Getting that high-score recruit in-tag is vital, and all HCs are trying various ploys to get them in-game (kicking members, landing on targets later, etc). It's a natural consequence that alliances are also trying to tempt members away from alliances, as unethical as it may seem.

That's not to say that we are mass-recruiting or trying to tempt members away from F-Crew. For starters, we can't accept any new members at present, and we don't intend to be able to . Moreover, trying to screw up F-Crew's round isn't something we go in for - instead, we're going to come 3rd on our own merits.

We at Vengeance wish the best of luck to F-Crew and all the other competing alliances for 3rd place. We would like to think that a sense of honour will prevail over occasions - but know that in Planetarion that you can't rely on other alliances to hold themselves to your own standards. It's a shame really.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Sjor

ok first this round and the last few round changed the game a lot

take it however u want it but you play game to beat and bash otehr, to be the best and that ppl respect you.

if this round would last 3 more weeks value would become more and more important and a lot in top 10 would change

before you start bitching on angels, we are not comming to your ppl and asking them to join us. we turn back enough of ppl that want to shipjump.
also if u think that our ppl are bad why do u think so many ppl want to join us?
you think we are weak? we still stick together after having a worst round an ally can have. We have the value and the roids, wich means nothing atm but that you get mass incs from every noob ally.
we still cover a very high ammount of def calls and i think we would at least be rank 2 or 3 if the attacking and the XP would be overated (thats ofc only my opinion)

Fcrew did very well thats sure but a lot of things benefited them
also i think if pa ****inues in the way it goes now (i know it was announced that it will change) alliances become unnecesarry.

Angels are forever <3
gang bangs too

Firstly I didnt point any fingers directly at Angels for the poaching so stop making out I did. My comments about Angels comes simply due to KJ constantly knocking people whom have more than 55 members seemingly because they are beating Angels. Angels simply arent playing the round well this round especially when it comes to their failure to take on a few extra members which the system would allow yet KJ keeps raising the "you have more members" argument. Having fewer members hasnt effected the ranking of 1up or for most of the round ND so its hardly the only factor for Angels ranking like KJ constantly tries to make out. Angels have alot of good players but as you basically admit yourself they havent met their potential this round and the HC have seemingly choosen to resign themselves to 'failing' by their standards by not taking action.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by wakey

I wish you would stop complaining about this. Angels are ranked so low because their members arent good enough this round and they are being elitist fools. The system allows alliances to be evened up which is good. Now if your members are good enough you can have a top 5 position with 55 members, just look at 1up but if your members arent good enough this round like Angels then you have the chance to have more members to even things up slightly. Now if Angels dont choose to take this option and their members arent good enough at the current round then its their own fault that they are struggling to hold ranks against alliances like F-Crew, VGN, Subh and TGV.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm complaining. Get that into your head before you start making these louzy provocative replies.

Now, I've always respected you and the work you do for the new PA players but would you kindly cut the crap and stop acting like the victime all the time?
There are some simple fact you'll need to realize, simple reality. Either you accept them or you change the setup and goals of your own alliance:

- New players will allmost never get into alliances like 1up, ND, LCH, Angels. This is pure logics because these alliances play to win and don't have the time nor energy to train new members.

- F-Crew choses to be a training alliance. If you do, then accept the simple fact that:

1: Alliances will poach your members because it's easier to poach from then then it is from equal quality alliances. If 1up approaches an F-Crew member then that member will feel flattered and surely will be easier to convince then when 1up approaches an Angels or ND member.

2: PA players are ambitious beasts. Why settle for a training alliance when you can get in a better one? This ofc not taking the whole loyalty factor into consideration.

Why do you play the victime when everyone knows this happened before and will continue to happen aslong as you are a training alliance. Compare it with sports or with companies. Players or employees will change team/company when they feel they could personally improve themselves. Ofcourse irl there's compensation for this, in PA there isn't. But you just got to live with that.

Either accept members will be poached (I wouldn't like it either) or stop being a training alliance and play for the victory. In such small memberbases it's impossible to achieve both. It's very simply, you need to make a decision.

And about Angels, I think every single Angel will and already has agreed that this round sucks for us. But we're still #2 on avg roids and #4 on avg score (of the top alliances, #5 if you count DLR aswell) ...
IF you play a bad round you need to be realistic and admit it. We're doing that. But everytime we say something about the alliancelimit rule we have pple like you screaming that we're looking for excuses for our poor performance.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Thex

To the alliances outside of T10 (maybe even T5) then rank does mean a lot. While they cannot compete with some of the bigger alliances the position at the end of the round is vitally important when they are comparing themselves to each other. Just because the T5 alliances believe all other alliances are crap, doesn't mean the people in those alliances don't care how well they do.

I agree, but you can only compare yourself with another alliance is you have the same amount of members right?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I agree, but you can only compare yourself with another alliance is you have the same amount of members right?

Don't be silly. Of course you can compare yourself with an alliance with more or less members.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by wakey

Firstly I didnt point any fingers directly at Angels for the poaching so stop making out I did. My comments about Angels comes simply due to KJ constantly knocking people whom have more than 55 members seemingly because they are beating Angels. Angels simply arent playing the round well this round especially when it comes to their failure to take on a few extra members which the system would allow yet KJ keeps raising the "you have more members" argument. Having fewer members hasnt effected the ranking of 1up or for most of the round ND so its hardly the only factor for Angels ranking like KJ constantly tries to make out. Angels have alot of good players but as you basically admit yourself they havent met their potential this round and the HC have seemingly choosen to resign themselves to 'failing' by their standards by not taking action.

Jezus ...

We don't mass recruit members because we only care about our core. What possible gain would we have in adding pple to boost our score, fully knowing we'd kick them out at the end of the round nway.

If you say one more time that I take this "we didn't have equal members" as an excuse for our poor performance then I'll just call you a liar because that's essentially what you're doing then. Stop lying plz.

All I'm saying about limit is:

1: that it sucks and should be changed again so ALL alliances can have the same amount of members, no exceptions for anyone.

2: the ranks mean shit all when some alliances have 20-30 more members. You simply cannot compare overall performances when there are such huge differences in number of members.

I can easily bring Angels into the top5 by simply recruiting members. Would that help Angels in the long run? No, so I'm not gonna do it.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Don't be silly. Of course you can compare yourself with an alliance with more or less members.

If you compare average score then yes. And even there you can't blindly compare alliances either.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

TBH wakey, if it happens every round why dont you do something to stop it? You seem to manage making ridiculously long posts about the subject every round, why not use the time to do something more constructive?

Why does your alliance never engage in wars? What do you train people for, if not war? And sometimes it's best to learn the hard way. Every person here has been on the end of a spanking and thats what makes a successful round more satisfying. If you think this is what will make people quit, they will quit anyway.

How do you do something about it though, as I said most people whom get approched turn them down and inform us of the attempt BUT the ones whom are seduced get a pretty good job done on them. For example one recently came to us saying he was leaving, he wouldnt say where he was going but eventually spilled the beans. It was an alliance whom were 6th but whom with our score loss would be 5th and this alliance in question already had over 55. We explained to him that by leaving he was unlikly to be able to take up the offer and how he would be better off staying for the round and joining the other alliance for r17 but he wouldnt have it as he had been told it was now or never. Around about 110 ticks later we received a message from him saying he was quitting the game as he had made a big mistake as he had been bashed into the ground as he couldnt get into the alliance and without an alliance his solo attacks had been very hit and miss.

As for the war thing, we have taken part in wars but over the last few rounds its simply been a case of there being no realistic wars for us to take part in. Going into a war you have no chance whatsoever of winning is just going to drive every single member away from the alliance and possible even the game. When you have an alliance with alot of inexperianced players and your looking at trying to take on an alliance with alot more experiance in their ranks your at a disadvantage immediatly. Its not a good position to start a war from and certainly isnt exactky wise to go looking for a fight with them for no reason. It isnt helped by the fact the BC's are often those whom are the most ambitious and its these whom are often swayed by poachers or decide to try their luck at more elite alliances between rounds so the very people whom you need the experiance to run the wars are often fairly inexperianced, which is also something taht affects the intel wing as well

[Kargool]

Most players that have come from F-crew to TGV (they have approached us first) have deemed activity as their main issue with F-crew and stating that thats why they have left.

I suggest you take that back to your alliance Wakey as something to consider, that while offering training in the game, the activitiy of an alliance also is more important that what ever training you can give them.

You can have a wife whom u have learned to know and stuff but as long as she's not willing to have sex, it would be a rather boring relationship.

[cura]

Originally Posted by furball

From our perspective all the alliances from 3rd to 6th are in a recruiting race just as much as one for score. With so little score separating 3rd (currently Vengeance, 232 million score) from 7th (NewDawn, 225 million score), just one member can make a LOT of difference.

I wouldn't really say ND is in a recruiting race for score, just the other day (when we dropped from 3rd to 6th) we had to choose between maintaining our reputation as a good ally to another alliance or a selfish brat of a player that had 7.2m score. We tried to please both at first but when we found out this wasn't possible we choose for the reputation and relation with our ally.
The 7.2m selfish brat of a player ended up getting stepped on his toes and left, we knew he'd do that when we made the decision that made him leave. So, no, we are not in a recruiting race for score, nor would we sell out our idea's and policy for score.

Also, we've only contacted 1 person this round for joining, and I can assure you that person wasn't F-Crew, I don't see any reason why alliances would actually go around asking F-Crew members if they wanted to join them. If a member isn't applying to us himself I'd seriously doubt his loyalty.

[Illmaticks]

Originally Posted by The_Mad_Keg

Whichever ally did this i can only assume you have no morals or ethics whatsoever and you cannot stand seeing an ally like us in the top5, you are low down underhanded scum and have no part in the social side of this game

There's really no reason to throw rocks at allies. Maybe you should focus on the player that left, as its his conscience that's currently on the line here. Alliances do what the can for their own members, rank, etc - and its not their call, nor fault, if a player decides to jump ships. They might have incited the shipjump, but they are never at fault. Only the player is. So, conclusion is, you should maybe aim your rocks entirely different and start slantering the player that jumped ships - he's the only one to blame.

(principle: every ally to itself; its a wargame y'know; all is fair in love and war)

[Sjor]

Originally Posted by wakey

Firstly I didnt point any fingers directly at Angels for the poaching so stop making out I did. My comments about Angels comes simply due to KJ constantly knocking people whom have more than 55 members seemingly because they are beating Angels. Angels simply arent playing the round well this round especially when it comes to their failure to take on a few extra members which the system would allow yet KJ keeps raising the "you have more members" argument. Having fewer members hasnt effected the ranking of 1up or for most of the round ND so its hardly the only factor for Angels ranking like KJ constantly tries to make out. Angels have alot of good players but as you basically admit yourself they havent met their potential this round and the HC have seemingly choosen to resign themselves to 'failing' by their standards by not taking action.

we all got "beat" by 39 Ascendancy people and if they wouldnt have tagged so early they would need even less.

sorry if i misunderstood but we are the only ally that is directly addressed

as KJ said we know we did bad, its not our playing style, for that reason we also didnt change our strategy and went for value and roids and not for XP. This i where most of our players will agree.

For me we didnt lost this round. the roids we lost were all hard to get ones
we fleetcatched all planets that were in our range.

We had a lot of bad moments. but we are still there

The problem what i also see is that u cant fight a real war
roids are so easy to get u cant harm ppl by playing well
u ahrm them more by having luck or using other straegies and not directly confrontating ppl. one of this strategy is removing Fcrews ppl as they cant add new ppl back. you see not all is nice about it

[furball]

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

I wouldn't really say ND is in a recruiting race for score, just the other day (when we dropped from 3rd to 6th) we had to choose between maintaining our reputation as a good ally to another alliance or a selfish brat of a player that had 7.2m score. We tried to please both at first but when we found out this wasn't possible we choose for the reputation and relation with our ally.
The 7.2m selfish brat of a player ended up getting stepped on his toes and left, we knew he'd do that when we made the decision that made him leave. So, no, we are not in a recruiting race for score, nor would we sell out our idea's and policy for score.

No problem cura, I included NewDawn more because of your score level rather than your actual nature. Personally I commend your actions with the large player and hope that we would do the same in the same situation. It's certainly interesting for people to hear the facts, and no doubt someone would love to name and shame that player in a pm to me later today .

[SteInMetz]

Wakey may i ask if you intend to keep all players, how can you fit in new ones?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Most players that have come from F-crew to TGV (they have approached us first) have deemed activity as their main issue with F-crew and stating that thats why they have left.

I suggest you take that back to your alliance Wakey as something to consider, that while offering training in the game, the activitiy of an alliance also is more important that what ever training you can give them.

You can have a wife whom u have learned to know and stuff but as long as she's not willing to have sex, it would be a rather boring relationship.

The intresting thing with such people (which we havent had this round as far as I know) is that these very people are normally some of the worst people for activity in the alliance. They assume theres an inactivity in the alliance because they themselves are not around enough to really judge it. In fact ive seen members in this group attacking our Euro Nightime HC and BC as being active for being inactive simply because the lack of activity after midnight by the complainer means they dont see them around much.

Its like they expect to have eveyone else sitting there 24/7 while they put the smallest amount of effort as possible in

[wakey]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

Wakey may i ask if you intend to keep all players, how can you fit in new ones?

Theres a difference between losing members between rounds and having them poached at the last moment of the round. We are prepared and expect to lose members between rounds and are ready to train the next bunch to replace them, but when you lose them so late in the round you cant realistically replace them and its a kick in the teeth. One of the rewards for the work put in is seeing the alliance reach the goals that are set as you go along and losing members makes achieving these goals hard and can leave you wondering why you even bother giving people a chance when your just going to find yourself screwed over by members and other alliances

[Sjor]

Originally Posted by wakey

Theres a difference between losing members between rounds and having them poached at the last moment of the round. We are prepared and expect to lose members between rounds and are ready to train the next bunch to replace them, but when you lose them so late in the round you cant realistically replace them and its a kick in the teeth. One of the rewards for the work put in is seeing the alliance reach the goals that are set as you go along and losing members makes achieving these goals hard and can leave you wondering why you even bother giving people a chance when your just going to find yourself screwed over by members and other alliances

loosing such kinda of players aint a loss tbh

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Sjor

loosing such kinda of players aint a loss tbh

True to some extent... but, we don't know why they left remember. For all we know, they had a problem with someone or something in F-crew and wanted out. Can you hold that against him or her?

I don't know who it is or what the real reasons are... Just, I can't help but think this is a bit more than "cut and dry" poaching.

[bwtmc]

A memorable moment for me was at the end of last round when my friend in ROCK was being harassed my three different ND officers (she'd never spoken to before), as she put it, about leaving rock for them.

*waves to Fish*

A few people in ROCK might remember that one.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

A memorable moment for me was at the end of last round when my friend in ROCK was being harassed my three different ND officers (she'd never spoken to before), as she put it, about leaving rock for them.

*waves to Fish*

A few people in ROCK might remember that one.

I remember her, Nora. She applied to ND a couple of weeks before the round ended, and then changed her mind about joining before the round ended. I tried to convince her to join now, she said no, i told her to pm me when the round ended. End of story.

[Alessio]

I would join F-crew for a moment if our position was more stable

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Sjor

loosing such kinda of players aint a loss tbh

It is, maybe not from a long term community pov but its still a loss. The loss comes mainly from the disheartening phycological blow you get from losing a member that you have committed the time and effort. It just feels like you have wasted so much of your time for no reason as it seem they are giving you no gratitude for what you have done. Each member that you lose in this way is another step towards you finally thinking sod it, its not worth putting the time and effort (and in a normal round often expense as in many cases these people have also had their account purchased by us for them)

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I remember her, Nora.

With a name like Nora, you just know she isn't going to be a looker.

So why would you want her in your alliance?!?!

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

It is, maybe not from a long term community pov but its still a loss. The loss comes mainly from the disheartening phycological blow you get from losing a member that you have committed the time and effort. It just feels like you have wasted so much of your time for no reason as it seem they are giving you no gratitude for what you have done. Each member that you lose in this way is another step towards you finally thinking sod it, its not worth putting the time and effort (and in a normal round often expense as in many cases these people have also had their account purchased by us for them)

Disheartening psycological effect? omg.. Is someone taking the game abit to serious or is someone taking the game abit to serious...

I hereby volunteer to lecture in the class: How to deal with shipjumpers and how to kick their viritual asses in planetarion.

While I understand that it tends to be annoying losing your members to other alliances, set an example by roiding the planet silly. It works, it makes you feel good, and makes the player think: Gee, wonder what would have happend if I had stayed.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by The_Mad_Keg

So on monday yet another F-Crew member was poached for another ally, with less than a week left to play and the 72 ticks waiting time before they can join the ally, along with the fact the ally is apparently top 5 and he cant join anyway i can only assume that this is an extremely underhanded way to try and overtake/keep ahead of us, by just coaxing ppl out of the ally towards the end of the round.

Whichever ally did this i can only assume you have no morals or ethics whatsoever and you cannot stand seeing an ally like us in the top5, you are low down underhanded scum and have no part in the social side of this game

I had no idea your mother raised you to be a whiney bitch. Way to go Mom!

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Sjor

would be fun to have another ranking with the value/roids scores

Why ? Score has been the deciding rank since the inception of PAX.

Why do you want to change it now ?

[cura]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

A memorable moment for me was at the end of last round when my friend in ROCK was being harassed my three different ND officers (she'd never spoken to before), as she put it, about leaving rock for them.

it's funny you use the word harass, I guess I was one of those officers that harassed her
the person in question applied for ND first (like fish said) and then when our IAD HC went inactive for a while we lost track of her
when I took action and asked people to contact her if they saw her they did to ask her if she was still interested
let me show how the harassment went:

ND officer: hi?
Nora: hello
ND officer: I saw you applied a while ago but due to internal stuff we lost track of you, are you still interested?

so there you have it, put me in jail! I confessed!

[bwtmc]

Three ND officers \o/

[Sjor]

Originally Posted by Desse

Why ? Score has been the deciding rank since the inception of PAX.

Why do you want to change it now ?

not change it just do a small seperate ranking of value/roids.

The round your gal won your gal and you had far more value and roids than xp
this round it just didnt count that much, or we didnt come to a stage where it counts

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Sjor

not change it just do a small seperate ranking of value/roids.

The round your gal won your gal and you had far more value and roids than xp
this round it just didnt count that much, or we didnt come to a stage where it counts

This round the scoring focus is somewhat different from previous rounds. There are several reasons for this.

I still think, that we should stick to one ranking system, which is value+XP.

And I am currently myself owning a planet focusing on value, so no hidden motives for that. I would be ranked considerably higher in a more "traditional round"

[cura]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Three ND officers \o/

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

when I took action and asked people to contact her if they saw her they did to ask her if she was still interested