Seriously though

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

There isnt a top10 alliance in the game that doesnt have a highranking player being gal protected by 1up.

Nice of you to pick out a HR one tho fishy, especially with the hear-say thats been posted about ND on these boards recently:P

LOL, I never said there wasnt. I still think its very very lame of them. Might just be me being bitter about having a crap gal.

I picked on the highest ranked non 1up member. Nothing personal about Zo0f or HR, I like the little dude. And as I've previously said, HR have done excellently this round.

[Seth Mace]

Hehe, aye you didnt but i felt it was a scenario that needed to be expanded on

[Salomo]

Originally Posted by Tis

and, after 13 rounds, you still havent the slightest idea what those things are...

ah, and the same old tactic of claiming people don`t know what they`re talking about when they reveal your strategies ;-)

btw, to revive the feeling of old times even more i am now creating an alliance called Legion. Sometimes it is also called VtS... since i have no planet and the alliance has no members yet everybody is welcome to join, but soon we will only recruit the most leet people there are :-)

oh, and if anyone is interested in leading a high profile elite alliance contact me or even better just post here that you are as of now leading Legion, i have more forum-spamming to do and can`t divert time for an alliance from that :-)


i forgot one thing: entry requirement for legion is smoking lotzs of weed and ending every paragraph with a :-)

[Forest]

:-)

[Helix]

Hypothetical Scenario :

You have a gal mate who is WP, one night you get attacked with 8 waves from WP, the next night there is an incoming on your WP gal mate, what do you do? In most cases people would be bitter and not report the incoming and not defend the gal mate. That is why 1up has Galaxy NAPs, because having good relations with the galaxy helps 1up planets, as well as the other planets. The reason why LCH/VsN/MISTU have had a hard time of taking out 1up, is because all of their largest players are under protection in 1up galaxies, and those players will not attack 1up due to fear of being taken off of 1up protection. That is a lot of firepower that is missing.

[G.K Zhukov]

Exactly Helix.

Thats how Legion/Fury worked back in the early rounds, so its not exactly a new trick.
You play on peoples gread and selfishness, and other alliances inability to force their members to attack with you (hence loosing their protection).
I call it Galaxy Pacification.

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

There isnt a top10 alliance in the game that doesnt have a highranking player being gal protected by 1up.

Nice of you to pick out a HR one tho fishy, especially with the hear-say thats been posted about ND on these boards recently:P

What are you talking about? The 1up policy, whether its designed to or not, promotes fence sitting.

If HR had a raid on a 1up target, and your high-ranking player in a 1up galaxy didnt want to hit them, what would you do?

Asking your top 10, 1up friendly player, to ignore alliance policy to save face with another alliance is fairly ridiculous.

[Helix]

Barrow, I agree that the numerous amount of people who are not attacking 1up hurts their respective alliances, and personally there are many in 1up who would like nothing better than to have all those planets become hostile, we want their roids 1up benefits whether there are planetary NAPs or not. The blame for the current situation should be placed on the players who dont have enough spine to actually fight with their alliance, not with the alliance who refuses to wage war in their own members galaxies unless provoked.

[Barrow|Pony]

Both Helix. While I can certainly understand that 1up doesn't want to deal with incomings if they dont have to - I can not understand while alliances voluntarily limit their own firepower by putting up with these 'mutual exclusions' all for the sake of having a handful of higher ranked members.

The mere potential of 1up incomings is making victory a walkover because people aren't willing to risk their lovely spots.

Thats fence sitting.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Both Helix. While I can certainly understand that 1up doesn't want to deal with incomings if they dont have to - I can not understand while alliances voluntarily limit their own firepower by putting up with these 'mutual exclusions' all for the sake of having a handful of higher ranked members.

The mere potential of 1up incomings is making victory a walkover because people aren't willing to risk their lovely spots.

Thats fence sitting.

Surely it's down to the other alliances to do something about them members then?

[Barrow|Pony]

Thats what i was trying to imply. Alliances are sacrificing their rules and principles to cater to larger members, to boost their average scores.

And people wonder why PA has plateaued again?

[Vaio]

I suppose all this galaxy napping would suggest that private galaxies are better for the game

~Vaio~

[Helix]

How would private galaxies change anything Vaio (except provide for huge dominant blocks that have no incentive to break up because they all share gals, FPM anyone?) ?

Private galaxies were tried last round, and the outcome of last round was much worse than this round, yes 1up dominated this round similarly to FPM last round, but last round there wasn't much choice as to who the victor would be, FPM was clearly dominant, and there was not enough enemies to pull together the firepower to take them down. With this round, there were plenty of chances for other alliances to perform well and defeat 1up, as shown by how long the round went with being close. The fact that 1up started to pull away is due to the ineffectiveness of 1ups enemies in defeating them, not because they were outnumbered or overpowered.

[cypher]

killing > roiding sometimes which some people always forget...

[General1]

Originally Posted by Helix

Barrow, I agree that the numerous amount of people who are not attacking 1up hurts their respective alliances, and personally there are many in 1up who would like nothing better than to have all those planets become hostile, we want their roids 1up benefits whether there are planetary NAPs or not. The blame for the current situation should be placed on the players who dont have enough spine to actually fight with their alliance, not with the alliance who refuses to wage war in their own members galaxies unless provoked.

I hate fence sitters.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Helix

How would private galaxies change anything Vaio (except provide for huge dominant blocks that have no incentive to break up because they all share gals, FPM anyone?) ?

Private galaxies were tried last round, and the outcome of last round was much worse than this round, yes 1up dominated this round similarly to FPM last round, but last round there wasn't much choice as to who the victor would be, FPM was clearly dominant, and there was not enough enemies to pull together the firepower to take them down. With this round, there were plenty of chances for other alliances to perform well and defeat 1up, as shown by how long the round went with being close. The fact that 1up started to pull away is due to the ineffectiveness of 1ups enemies in defeating them, not because they were outnumbered or overpowered.

A further problem is that with members of some alliances quite happy sitting with their thumbs up their arses safely in 1up galaxies, the effectiveness of the other alliances is limited, however this doesnt change the fact that 1up have successfully defeated the opposition this round.

~Vaio~

[Helix]

Originally Posted by Vaio

A further problem is that with members of some alliances quite happy sitting with their thumbs up their arses safely in 1up galaxies, the effectiveness of the other alliances is limited, however this doesnt change the fact that 1up have successfully defeated the opposition this round.

~Vaio~

yes vaio that is a problem, and one that unfortunately does not have to do with the galaxy setup, but more to do with those people sitting in the 1up galaxies.

[Vaio]

Which would be a problem removed with the return of private galaxies

~Vaio~

[Tis]

but then its institutionalized fense sitting, not individual :/

[LocknLoad]

Actually the only true fence sitters are Wolf Pack, when dealing with private gals, but we expect that.

[Blacknova]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Which would be a problem removed with the return of private galaxies

~Vaio~

Someone has an amazing problem with their short term memory, or is last round *that* far gone we forgot the fun that was the MPF block and associated b0rkage that was the game after about tick 300.

Nova

[lokken]

Ultimately it's up to HC's to burn the fence - nothing to do with game mechanics.

[LocknLoad]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

Someone has an amazing problem with their short term memory, or is last round *that* far gone we forgot the fun that was the MPF block and associated b0rkage that was the game after about tick 300.

Nova

First of all that was a ".5" round. A lot of good players sat out that round because it was a ".5" round. The only reason MPFW dominated that ".5" round is cause they played it seriously. It is the only way they could. If the other alliances had played it full force it would have had a much different out come.

[Barrow|Pony]

That is the lamest excuse in the history of ever.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

Someone has an amazing problem with their short term memory, or is last round *that* far gone we forgot the fun that was the MPF block and associated b0rkage that was the game after about tick 300.

Nova

thought noone in 1up played last round

tho true, both last round and this round has been classic examples of trainwrecks for the universe.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

First of all that was a ".5" round. A lot of good players sat out that round because it was a ".5" round. The only reason MPFW dominated that ".5" round is cause they played it seriously. It is the only way they could. If the other alliances had played it full force it would have had a much different out come.

lol......
firstly, a 380 planet block is too much for this game, especially when counting in that some of those allies are the most dedicated ones. Ofc ely won the round before, but it was definatly not because of their organisation and general skill..... Nothing against ely, but they could have been more organised(great ppl and such).

[LocknLoad]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

That is the lamest excuse in the history of ever.

You may think its lame but unfortunatly its fact.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

First of all that was a ".5" round. A lot of good players sat out that round because it was a ".5" round. The only reason MPFW dominated that ".5" round is cause they played it seriously. It is the only way they could. If the other alliances had played it full force it would have had a much different out come.

If Julius Caesar and Fredrick the Great played r3 of Planetarion fury and legion would not have won.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

Someone has an amazing problem with their short term memory, or is last round *that* far gone we forgot the fun that was the MPF block and associated b0rkage that was the game after about tick 300.

Nova

I didn't play last round, but I think that while that may be different than 1up on top and the following 3 alliances doing nothing but sitting round with their thumbs up their arse, the outcome is still the same.

~Vaio~

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If Julius Caesar and Fredrick the Great played r3 of Planetarion fury and legion would not have won.

Like they could do 1337speek........

~Vaio~

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Vaio

I didn't play last round, but I think that while that may be different than 1up on top and the following 3 alliances doing nothing but sitting round with their thumbs up their arse, the outcome is still the same.

~Vaio~

I think having one alliance winning alone is better than having three alliances winning together.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I think having one alliance winning alone is better than having three alliances winning together.

Specially if its your own alliance.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Specially if its your own alliance.

We've already won. I'm hardly gaining anything for 1up by having this argument.

I think the level of blocking this round was good - cooperation only occurred once it was needed, and it only failed due to lack of tactical imagination. I think that's a good model for a round to follow, regardless of who the top alliance is.

[Blacknova]

Originally Posted by Vaio

I didn't play last round, but I think that while that may be different than 1up on top and the following 3 alliances doing nothing but sitting round with their thumbs up their arse, the outcome is still the same.

~Vaio~

Then you have zero idea of what effect private galaxies had on the game last round, and are therefore unqualified to make any statement to the effect of "Private gals will solve the problem".

This round was close right up until about two weeks ago, and could still have been validly contested (until the hiccup that was a significant percentage of LCH's attack fleet going foom), last round, with private gals any resistance was pretty much over and done with by the end of the second week of the round.

I shouldn't by rights be posting here on AD , but I am obligated to rectify obvious cluelessness.

Nova

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

Then you have zero idea of what effect private galaxies had on the game last round, and are therefore unqualified to make any statement to the effect of "Private gals will solve the problem".

I put it to you that private gals has nothing to do with the problem. It arises in both random and non-random rounds. The problem is that people (HC) think about private gals in the wrong way.

I shouldn't by rights be posting here on AD , but I am obligated to rectify obvious cluelessness.

Fight da powah!

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

First of all that was a ".5" round. A lot of good players sat out that round because it was a ".5" round. The only reason MPFW dominated that ".5" round is cause they played it seriously. It is the only way they could. If the other alliances had played it full force it would have had a much different out come.

Amazing how stupid some people are nowadays

[LocknLoad]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Amazing how stupid some people are nowadays

Its stupid people that wont admit to the facts. :P

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

We've already won. I'm hardly gaining anything for 1up by having this argument.

I think the level of blocking this round was good - cooperation only occurred once it was needed, and it only failed due to lack of tactical imagination. I think that's a good model for a round to follow, regardless of who the top alliance is.

Oh, how noble of you. As a spectator, this round has been as easy to predict as r5, r7 or r9.
Round was won before ticks.
Im not blaming 1up for playing the "oh lets not block, couse then we might loose, card". I admit it was well played, but had the other HC's had any grasp on politics and strenght, they should have cooperated from the very start (fx MISTU and LCH having cooperation on target booking). Also pld for the galaxy pacification, altrough its a horribly old trick (Ive used it myself, so dont come telling me the trick doesnt exist heh).

Ofcourse you are trying to gain something from this. Just as Sid when he posted that 1up isnt going to attack inside 1up galaxies, even if targets are running low. So what is there to gain? Why is it so important to defend the selling of the "non-blocking" idea?* It's ofcourse to be able to sell something like this next round, and hoping that the others are letting themselfs get played again. The thing on the line, is victory for next round.

History repeats itselfs, the tricks used today have mostly been used several times before. Just ask those who survived the Warsaw uprising in the spring of 1944, if they recognize the tactics of Israeli incursions on the Gaza-prision, were they tie up children to armoured vechiles.

And with history repeating itself, Im would not be suprised if a) non off the HC's who let themself get played step down or does some self-critizing b) Get played next round too.

* Didnt you do that in r6 with Deus btw.. heh.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

Its stupid people that wont admit to the facts. :P

Give me one reason what's different from a .0 round and a .5 round.. there's no difference..Whoever wins .0 or .5 is what we call "shit the same".

The game is still Planetarion and the game is still played by the same people..

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Give me one reason what's different from a .0 round and a .5 round.. there's no difference..Whoever wins .0 or .5 is what we call "shit the same".

The game is still Planetarion and the game is still played by the same people..

He (and many others) fell for the Eclipse 9.5 propaganda line. Can't blame him, they were pretty good. Plus LDK coming back 'because it's a free round' gave them loads of help. Plus the creators hyped round 10 too much without being able to deliver on time. Since the name was so important, they made another 'intermediate' round to pass time. Obviously, this gave the impression that this was not a proper round, another easy to exploit fact.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Jester

Obviously, this gave the impression that this was not a proper round, another easy to exploit fact.

Indeed.. people were given the wrong impression, but still both the 0.5 rounds is counted as 'proper' rounds..

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Oh, how noble of you. As a spectator, this round has been as easy to predict as r5, r7 or r9.
Round was won before ticks.
Im not blaming 1up for playing the "oh lets not block, couse then we might loose, card". I admit it was well played, but had the other HC's had any grasp on politics and strenght, they should have cooperated from the very start (fx MISTU and LCH having cooperation on target booking). Also pld for the galaxy pacification, altrough its a horribly old trick (Ive used it myself, so dont come telling me the trick doesnt exist heh).

If it was obvious that LCH and MISTU were cooperating, then 1up would have had to cooperate with someone els. Back to the old two-block scenario, where it all comes down to political skill (which hardly improves matters for LCH and MISTU really).

Originally Posted by G.K.Zhukov

Ofcourse you are trying to gain something from this.

*shrug*

As a long-time AD poster and someone who 'cares' about the game to some extent, I like to think I am capable of posting from a neutral perspective. I genuinely believe that having no blocks led to more fluid politics and a more enjoyable game. Nobody got utterly twatted into the ground after two weeks, and the round looks likely to end with the winning side having only half of the top 50 planets. Compare to, say, r9 when Eclipse/ToT had pretty much the entire t100 between them, with nobody else getting a chance.

Quite simply, I think this kind of round is more fun. If it wouldn't require months of my life, I think I'd quite enjoy running a small alliance in this kind of round.

Originally Posted by G.K.Zhukov

Just as Sid when he posted that 1up isnt going to attack inside 1up galaxies, even if targets are running low. So what is there to gain? Why is it so important to defend the selling of the "non-blocking" idea?* It's ofcourse to be able to sell something like this next round, and hoping that the others are letting themselfs get played again. The thing on the line, is victory for next round.

I'm defending the non-blocking idea because I think it's a good idea. I totally agree that alliances should be free to cooperate against a common threat, and I expect that such cooperation will probably occur next round, regardless of who is winning. What I hope is that the cooperation won't be arranged pre-round, and won't result in old-fashioned blocks.

I think such a system would be fair and would allow for a fluid, competetive round. If you are really so determined to make sure 1up don't win, why don't you get back into the game and form an alliance yourself?

Originally Posted by G.K.Zhukov

History repeats itselfs, the tricks used today have mostly been used several times before. Just ask those who survived the Warsaw uprising in the spring of 1944, if they recognize the tactics of Israeli incursions on the Gaza-prision, were they tie up children to armoured vechiles.

And with history repeating itself, Im would not be suprised if a) non off the HC's who let themself get played step down or does some self-critizing b) Get played next round too.

* Didnt you do that in r6 with Deus btw.. heh.

I don't quite follow your reasoning. You're saying that everyone except 1up is shit, and should gang up on 1up as the only chance of winnng? If so, why should 1up bother playing? If that's not what you are suggesting, then please correct me. I really do fail to see how such a block would improve the game for anyone.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

Its stupid people that wont admit to the facts. :P

lol, that wasnt their reason..... the .5 round reason is something that someone talking too fast not controling their words just suddenly say(much like myself).

They'd won and didnt want to risk actually drop in the rankings, regardless of round. They were afraid...... Same for wp, just afraid.

then comes the other unrelevant reasons they feed to naive ppl like yourself:
-its a .5 round
-we have an agreement and are men of our words
-why should we satisfy(or even try to satisfy) 90% of the universe, not our job?
-none of the other alliances in the block has broken any agreements, so not possible to break.
-we're simply better, deal with it and take us down next round
-we share galaxies with them and a blocksplit would cause us to disband(even if a "havoclike one" just to encourage the word called _fun_)
-etc
-etc

ofc, like i said, i might just be crapping theese words to fast and they're not worth anything....

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

Then you have zero idea of what effect private galaxies had on the game last round, and are therefore unqualified to make any statement to the effect of "Private gals will solve the problem".

This round was close right up until about two weeks ago, and could still have been validly contested (until the hiccup that was a significant percentage of LCH's attack fleet going foom), last round, with private gals any resistance was pretty much over and done with by the end of the second week of the round.

I shouldn't by rights be posting here on AD , but I am obligated to rectify obvious cluelessness.

Nova

Correct, I have no idea about what happened last round, but I think from having experience of the first 9 rounds of Planetarion I might know what I am talking about, Unlike you

~Vaio~

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I think having one alliance winning alone is better than having three alliances winning together.

The other three probably don't agree

~Vaio~

[Blacknova]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Correct, I have no idea about what happened last round, but I think from having experience of the first 9 rounds of Planetarion I might know what I am talking about, Unlike you

~Vaio~

Heh... shows how much you know about me too then

I skipped a good batch of the rounds in between R4 and R10 (sth called real life got in the way at the time). 10.5 was an utter joke tho, rounds are not supposed to be decided purely based on predetermined blocks, there's no sport or challenge in that.

There's been plenty of challenge in this round, which unfortunately now the scores don't reflect, since the reality was this round was possibly one of the more competitive I've been involved in

Nova

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

If it was obvious that LCH and MISTU were cooperating, then 1up would have had to cooperate with someone els. Back to the old two-block scenario, where it all comes down to political skill (which hardly improves matters for LCH and MISTU really).

if LCH and MISTU had talked it trough before rounds started, and attacked 1up from the start, 1up would atleast had used some time getting a partner up and running (I am then assuming that 1up HC didnt have a backup plan). Thats just one exampel. By not atleast trying, your bound to fail. I will touch on this yet again, later in this post.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

As a long-time AD poster and someone who 'cares' about the game to some extent, I like to think I am capable of posting from a neutral perspective. I genuinely believe that having no blocks led to more fluid politics and a more enjoyable game. Nobody got utterly twatted into the ground after two weeks, and the round looks likely to end with the winning side having only half of the top 50 planets. Compare to, say, r9 when Eclipse/ToT had pretty much the entire t100 between them, with nobody else getting a chance.

Quite simply, I think this kind of round is more fun. If it wouldn't require months of my life, I think I'd quite enjoy running a small alliance in this kind of round.

That is indeed a interesting retorical twist Rob. Couldnt you say the same about all random rounds, with the expection of r3?. Isnt huge blocks and only members of the winning block in the top100?
Wasnt r8 a round that proved that pre-made agreements doesnt have to make for a boring round in a random universe?

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I'm defending the non-blocking idea because I think it's a good idea. I totally agree that alliances should be free to cooperate against a common threat, and I expect that such cooperation will probably occur next round, regardless of who is winning. What I hope is that the cooperation won't be arranged pre-round, and won't result in old-fashioned blocks.

I think such a system would be fair and would allow for a fluid, competetive round. If you are really so determined to make sure 1up don't win, why don't you get back into the game and form an alliance yourself?

As long as you dont have private galaxies, there is really no need for a "block" like FPM, FLTTV or wenx. Though why shouldnt three small, inexperienced alliances (Coven, Insomnia and Deadly, just to take some examples from pilkara) team together to make an impact? (Or LCH and MISTU atleast napping? Or Newdawn and HR teaming up together?) Face it, without teaming up, they wont. As much as you and 1up would like everyone to play by your rules, its not any good for the smaller boys. If you realise your alliance is inferior, you have to do something to change the battlefield to your advantage. Surely 1up could have found some partner too, but then you would have had to share the victory too

About my return to Planetarion, I seriously doubt it. I joked about signing up a free account to cov op Zhil, but when I heard freebies couldnt do that, I decided against
This weird and confusing thing called rl has a bit more to offer Im afraid (even lurking is becoming boring ).

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I don't quite follow your reasoning. You're saying that everyone except 1up is shit, and should gang up on 1up as the only chance of winnng? If so, why should 1up bother playing? If that's not what you are suggesting, then please correct me. I really do fail to see how such a block would improve the game for anyone.

I wouldnt put it that extremly, but thats the extreme essence. If your not as strong, smaller or anything like it, you need to team up to beat the big bully in the schoolyard. If they however dont want to win, they should ofcourse just follow up on 1ups suggestions for round setups
Sometimes you have to resort to asymetric warfare to win.

[Jester]

There are basically two ways to win Planetarion, being a nice guy, and being a ruthless bastard. That is, playing the metagame or the game.

The nice guy (or gal, but usually guy) starts out by inviting all his friends to his new alliance. Then they invite their friends and so on, until the Nice Guy Alliance (hereafter NGA) is pretty large. At this point they have an edge, they're unknown and have a decent memberbase. So they do what nice guys do best, they find allies. Nice guys usually ally with other nice guys, because they know ruthless bastards will screw them over. So NGA together with TOA (That Other Alliance) go forth and roid. It's still a lot of work, but the BCs and military people take care of that, because every nice guy has some dumb* friends. Members are happy, because soon the game isn't about winning, it's about owning your hated enemy (who is easy to hate, because you're in the Nice Guy Alliance, and they're not!)

The ruthless bastard, on the other hand, builds his (again, or her, but usually him) alliance based on skill (not even remotely solely, but birds of a feather help here). He'll try to insinuate himself onto other, more established alliances, and feed off their protection. Sometimes, ruthless bastards have good enough reputations that they don't need to do that, they just start an alliance and pretend to be a nice guy. But the RBA (Ruthless Bastard Alliance) isn't content to sit around wanking with the NGA and TOA, since they have better members and better military command (most likely the ruthless bastard himself is a competent BC) they have the option of 'betraying' their 'allies'.

Now, accepting that there usually isn't one top commander for any alliance, the nice guy and ruthless bastard are more alliance personalities than anything else, you'll note that most alliances are a blend.

I happen to dislike the nice guy forms of alliances. Many of them are completely incompetent, but have enough capable friends that they manage to get off on course. Plus they have their allies.

I also think that while nice guy alliances can evolve, ruthless bastard alliances can't. Ruthless bastards insist that people should be playing the game their way. And I'm not talking about 1up in this case. I'm talking in general. Every time they lose, they've done 'their best' and lost because of some unfair factor (outnumbered! cheating! even round number!). Not everyone throws as much of a hissy fit over it, but deep down, they know that they were beat by that factor they can't master: having a thousand friends.

Take note: more RBAs win at PA than NGAs do. In fact, I can count nice guy winners on one hand, and they're pretty diluted because they always had RBAs to share those victories with.

But RBAs are true to their nature, they're ruthless bastards. They want it all.

Now, a quick digression. NGAs and RBAs focus on different games. The NGA focuses on the pregame build up. Making plans, getting allies, recruiting friends. The RBA focuses on the round itself. Launching fleets, organizing counters, making tickplans, plotting their next ruthless move. RBAs also don't like a lot of the NGA metagame. I don't blame them, unlike the NGAs they have to lie and shit. Not only that, but they have to help carry the weight of the NGA alliances in their block. And they have to deal with annoying nice guys all round.

RBAs are going to win anyway.

Now do you see what this is about Zhukov? It's not 1up for victory by fooling everyone else. It's 1up for victory, playing the game they enjoy. If they wanted, they could play everyone else's game and win just as completely, if not even more so.

Thing is, they have a point. They're asking 'lets not let the game degenerate completely into a popularity contest.' They not only want to win because they've got the best tactics, the best eyes for targets, the best strategies, but they want to lose to someone who launched more fleets, tricked them more times and out maneuvered their strategies.

I don't think 1up will play any other way, it just isn't worth it. Anyone who's shared a command channel with 5-6 other alliances knows what I mean.

* Hi.

[G.K Zhukov]

Though I agree with alot of what you write regarding the "nice guy" - "Bad boy", I disagree totally with your conclusion Jester.

Defeatism doesnt bring any victories. Playing a war like your opponents wants it, is a way of handing them the victory. Remeber the first Gulf War, witch is a perfect exampel.

Dont forget what 1up is. You and me, and everyone else whos been around for a long time, can smell it. Its ofcourse Fury III (ops in #public now: Hicks, KillGhost, Tis, Zhil, Sid, Rob, all ex-fury I and some ex-fury II). The command know each other well from before, having played together for alot off rounds. Sid is still famous, and when he comes back and say "Im going to create a 1337 alliance, you can apply", its not that difficult to see that he can pick from the very best left in Planetarion.

The difference between me and you Jester, is that I advocate another solution than playing it like someone else wants you too. Ofcouse Rob and 1up doesnt think thats fair, but thats means s*** to me. Should mean s*** to everyone else too, specially LCH, Vision and MISTU command.

Now, you 1up boys (I say this since you have seem to have applied for the support team) have tried to sell this idea several times now, in more than one package. And the three persons who have refused to buy it, in any off those smart little packages, are myself, Lokken and Rumad. LCH, Vision and MISTU command however seem so silent, I bet their 6 foot down.

On the side, by the *, you suggest that me or you are one of those dumb friends?

[JonnyBGood]

One imagines, considering the fondness which jester discusses BCing with, he's talking about himself.

Defeatism doesnt bring any victories. Playing a war like your opponents wants it, is a way of handing them the victory. Remeber the first Gulf War, witch is a perfect exampel.

You do realise PA is a game right? I would tend to agree though as this round we've seen very few non-1up displays of that lovely mixture of strategical and tactical awareness that is the real key to fighting any sort of war. Frankly there seemed to be little to no intelligence applied by many alliances this round.