Blocking a valid tactic in response to exponential growth and activity?

[Rumad]

OK here is my 2 penneh's worth.

So much has been made of the evils of blocking and very little to the conditions in which blocking is used.

This round for me 1up had a far to easier time and by he time the opponents did get resistance co-ordinated it was too little too late.

Now I am sure some will respond about the evils of blocking and some will say that blocking is great, but in reality its neither. The real issue is the conditions in which blocking are used.

In previous rounds blocks have been made up befre the round started and for stability alliances shared galaxies to encourage the partnershp to stay to together. Also alliances tend to misuse partnerships to give added security and support and in some ways limit loosing.

I think any joint co-operation this round has been vastly under utilised and in some ways dictated by the fear factor of beng caught out co operating.

However should we nt so much complaining about blocking but raher tryng to redefine the way in which alliances use that relationship?

For me the truth always was that you needed ither to limit the amount of partners or ensure that the relationships were used as a temporary arrangement to ensure that one aliance or group of alliances do not pull away from the rest.

Also this would encourage alliance members to continue playing. But how do we get there? I dont have any big mystical ball or any full on I have all the solutions to the problems, I just think that blocking has been villanised far too much recently and more emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions in which it is acceptable and ways to encourage gameplay.

[Yaroslav]

I always thought that fluid politics would help this game a lot. Changing of allies, attacking old friends, breaking naps, all those things shouldnt be that unpopular as every ally in this game should aim for #1, and if you arent able to make it by player skill you should try doing it by other ways. But since blocks seem to be written in stone (break a block or a nap and you will be hated for 5 rounds), the only way of having a "good" round is having no blocks.

[Seth Mace]

You can tell your stance on this issue has become refined over the many, many posts uve made on the subject rumad and i agree with everything you've said. It's just a shame you didnt have a solution to these issues at the end of your post;P

I think a lot of alliances have been reluctant to block, or publically block incase they risked universal lashback. But im sure a lot didnt just because they wanted to achieve something through their own merits.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Rumad

OK here is my 2 penneh's worth.

So much has been made of the evils of blocking and very little to the conditions in which blocking is used.

This round for me 1up had a far to easier time and by he time the opponents did get resistance co-ordinated it was too little too late.

I'm already getting fed up of saying this, but since you don't seem to listen, here it is:

The failure of the other alliances (LCH in particular) was a failure of tactics. They did cooperate to a certain extent - even simple agreement to avoid each other and focus attacks on 1up would have been enough if it had been accompanied by even a half-decent plan of attack.

The simple fact is that alliances need to raise their game in the tactical department. Where in the old days there used to be recognisable figures leading the military departments of each alliance, nowadays this role seems to be almost forgotten. Alliances might have some kind of 'head BC' at sub-HC level, with the HC themselves concerned only with politics (as well as internal admin matters).

This results in a lot of alliances which might be good at politics, but don't seem to be developing the kind of "general" figures who can command their forces effectively. Possibly the reason for this is that it's bloody hard work, and requires sitting at a computer night after night coordinating countless waves of incoming on a wide variety of carefully-selected targets, employing varied tactics to do so.

Quite frankly I was shocked by the failure of some of the other alliances to raise their game once real fighting started. Instead of changing tactics, they carried on using plain roiding tactics. That might be enough in a block round, when you know the deck is already stacked in your favour, but in a non-block round you actually have to put some thought into your tactics.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to brag or boast about 1up's military ability. I'm not even suggesting that the other alliances don't have the people required to coordinate attacks effectively. My impression (and it is only an impression) is that most alliances don't have a HC-level person in charge of attack strategy, leaving the work to some kind of head BC, who does all of the work but has none of the influence or ability to get things done. Combine this with often divided and fractious HCs, and it's easy to imagine how these alliances fail to get their tactics right in time.

I'm not disagreeing that more could have been done to stop 1up, but I think you're blaming the wrong thing.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Now I am sure some will respond about the evils of blocking and some will say that blocking is great, but in reality its neither. The real issue is the conditions in which blocking are used.

In previous rounds blocks have been made up befre the round started and for stability alliances shared galaxies to encourage the partnershp to stay to together. Also alliances tend to misuse partnerships to give added security and support and in some ways limit loosing.

Both of which are points in the argument against blocks...

Originally Posted by Rumad

I think any joint co-operation this round has been vastly under utilised and in some ways dictated by the fear factor of beng caught out co operating.

Perhaps so, but what's wrong with that? Every action should have a reaction, and anyone "caught" blocking would expect to be targetted as a result. The first block to form will almost certainly become the most powerful force in the game (based on total score/roids, total membership count etc.). The alliances in the block would also be signalling the possibility that they may stay together for the remainder of the round, making them a threat to everyone else. At the very least, there is the risk of provoking a counter-block.

All of these are legitimate risks that any HC would have to consider. The HC has to make a judgement about whether it's worth the risk - and in many cases it might well be. At least they have a choice, rather than being locked into blocks whether they like it or not (because everyone else has blocks already).

Originally Posted by Rumad

However should we nt so much complaining about blocking but raher tryng to redefine the way in which alliances use that relationship?

For me the truth always was that you needed ither to limit the amount of partners or ensure that the relationships were used as a temporary arrangement to ensure that one aliance or group of alliances do not pull away from the rest.

A fine plan in theory, but it has some pitfalls. The first and most obvious is that it's really difficult for blocks to split up in practice. I assume you are proposing that blocks should form in response to a common threat. However, there is no incentive for the block to split until that common threat has been completely destroyed, in fact until all common threats have been destroyed. No block is going to split if it's obvious that by doing so they place themselves at great risk of losing, at a time when they still have natural "predators" waiting to attack them should the block split.

Blocks are safety in numbers. The only time they're not needed is when it's "safe" to disband the block - after everyone else has been defeated. The only logical consequence of this is the old-fashioned block race, to see who can get the most people on their side. Once the initial war is won, the block can slowly be split down until maybe 2-3 (or perhaps even just one) alliance is left holding the roids. Most alliances don't end up any better off than they would have done without the block.

Furthermore, blocks erode an alliance's independence, and are generally less fun for command members to take part in. I really haven't missed the endless joint command channels, bitching about friendly fire or arbiter updates, or having to watch 3/4 of the good targets booked by the other alliances in my block. Playing without blocks is just far more fun for an alliance's command and members.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Also this would encourage alliance members to continue playing.

Playing beyond what point? Yes, I like your idea of perpetual war, but I think there does come a point during each round when people simply need a break, when the military officers are all burned out, and activity starts to fall. I don't think we could sustain 3 months of Planetarion with 2-4k planets, and a 100-member alliance limit. The burnout rate would be too high, and we'd probably see alliances merging just to keep running.

These days, PA rounds are vicious close-quarters combat between a very small number of combatants. In the days when PA players were like wolves hunting in packs, 3, 4 or even 6-month rounds may have been feasible. Nowadays, PA players are like cats fighting in a bag, and 2 months is probably as much as most people can take.

Originally Posted by Rumad

But how do we get there? I dont have any big mystical ball or any full on I have all the solutions to the problems, I just think that blocking has been villanised far too much recently and more emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions in which it is acceptable and ways to encourage gameplay.

Blocking doesn't encourage gameplay. It encourages more blocking, and it encourages political conniving ahead of military strategy. Most block rounds have stagnated much before the "natural" point at which attacks become unprofitable. And, in all honesty, I think most alliances would prefer that, if they have to lose, they lose by being out-fought by more creative opponents than being out-blocked, or being kicked and roided from a block they helped to victory.

I'm not saying that blocking should never be used, merely that it should be a last resort for alliances, if all other efforts to stop the leading alliance have failed. But, before going down the blocking road, alliances should first look at their tactics and military organisation. This is where the true room for improvement lies, and where such an improvement would not carry all of the negative consequences of blocking.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I'm already getting fed up of saying this, but since you don't seem to listen, here it is:

1) The failure of the other alliances (LCH in particular) was a failure of tactics. They did cooperate to a certain extent - even simple agreement to avoid each other and focus attacks on 1up would have been enough if it had been accompanied by even a half-decent plan of attack.

The simple fact is that alliances need to raise their game in the tactical department. Where in the old days there used to be recognisable figures leading the military departments of each alliance, nowadays this role seems to be almost forgotten. Alliances might have some kind of 'head BC' at sub-HC level, with the HC themselves concerned only with politics (as well as internal admin matters).

This results in a lot of alliances which might be good at politics, but don't seem to be developing the kind of "general" figures who can command their forces effectively. Possibly the reason for this is that it's bloody hard work, and requires sitting at a computer night after night coordinating countless waves of incoming on a wide variety of carefully-selected targets, employing varied tactics to do so.

Quite frankly I was shocked by the failure of some of the other alliances to raise their game once real fighting started. Instead of changing tactics, they carried on using plain roiding tactics. That might be enough in a block round, when you know the deck is already stacked in your favour, but in a non-block round you actually have to put some thought into your tactics.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to brag or boast about 1up's military ability. I'm not even suggesting that the other alliances don't have the people required to coordinate attacks effectively. My impression (and it is only an impression) is that most alliances don't have a HC-level person in charge of attack strategy, leaving the work to some kind of head BC, who does all of the work but has none of the influence or ability to get things done. Combine this with often divided and fractious HCs, and it's easy to imagine how these alliances fail to get their tactics right in time.

I'm not disagreeing that more could have been done to stop 1up, but I think you're blaming the wrong thing.

2) Both of which are points in the argument against blocks...



3) Perhaps so, but what's wrong with that? Every action should have a reaction, and anyone "caught" blocking would expect to be targetted as a result. The first block to form will almost certainly become the most powerful force in the game (based on total score/roids, total membership count etc.). The alliances in the block would also be signalling the possibility that they may stay together for the remainder of the round, making them a threat to everyone else. At the very least, there is the risk of provoking a counter-block.

All of these are legitimate risks that any HC would have to consider. The HC has to make a judgement about whether it's worth the risk - and in many cases it might well be. At least they have a choice, rather than being locked into blocks whether they like it or not (because everyone else has blocks already).


4) A fine plan in theory, but it has some pitfalls. The first and most obvious is that it's really difficult for blocks to split up in practice. I assume you are proposing that blocks should form in response to a common threat. However, there is no incentive for the block to split until that common threat has been completely destroyed, in fact until all common threats have been destroyed. No block is going to split if it's obvious that by doing so they place themselves at great risk of losing, at a time when they still have natural "predators" waiting to attack them should the block split.

Blocks are safety in numbers. The only time they're not needed is when it's "safe" to disband the block - after everyone else has been defeated. The only logical consequence of this is the old-fashioned block race, to see who can get the most people on their side. Once the initial war is won, the block can slowly be split down until maybe 2-3 (or perhaps even just one) alliance is left holding the roids. Most alliances don't end up any better off than they would have done without the block.

Furthermore, blocks erode an alliance's independence, and are generally less fun for command members to take part in. I really haven't missed the endless joint command channels, bitching about friendly fire or arbiter updates, or having to watch 3/4 of the good targets booked by the other alliances in my block. Playing without blocks is just far more fun for an alliance's command and members.

5) Playing beyond what point? Yes, I like your idea of perpetual war, but I think there does come a point during each round when people simply need a break, when the military officers are all burned out, and activity starts to fall. I don't think we could sustain 3 months of Planetarion with 2-4k planets, and a 100-member alliance limit. The burnout rate would be too high, and we'd probably see alliances merging just to keep running.

These days, PA rounds are vicious close-quarters combat between a very small number of combatants. In the days when PA players were like wolves hunting in packs, 3, 4 or even 6-month rounds may have been feasible. Nowadays, PA players are like cats fighting in a bag, and 2 months is probably as much as most people can take.

6) Blocking doesn't encourage gameplay. It encourages more blocking, and it encourages political conniving ahead of military strategy. Most block rounds have stagnated much before the "natural" point at which attacks become unprofitable. And, in all honesty, I think most alliances would prefer that, if they have to lose, they lose by being out-fought by more creative opponents than being out-blocked, or being kicked and roided from a block they helped to victory.

I'm not saying that blocking should never be used, merely that it should be a last resort for alliances, if all other efforts to stop the leading alliance have failed. But, before going down the blocking road, alliances should first look at their tactics and military organisation. This is where the true room for improvement lies, and where such an improvement would not carry all of the negative consequences of blocking.

1) I agree that there wre tactical and strategic mistakes this round. However its all oo asy to sa they were not atctically or srategically aware enough. I understand your arguments and mazz's (hi mazz) about how and what happened were failings, but at te end of the day thats all well and fine and if the alliances go hrough the round again they would simply make other mistakes.

Without wanting to give you guys a bigger head then you already have, but 1up simply has the experince and the awareness and skill that most other alliances cannot compare. when there is a skill and acivity void its simply not feasible for alliances to compete on a 1 on 1 basis.

Surely Lch and Vision did well, but they had a better start then most alliances and they still could not compete. What does that tell you?

Simply when tactics and skill fail mass blocking is an alternative subject to thse political ties only being used for one purpose and then deblocking.

2) They could be construed as against blocking and yes they were used as one of the points when 1up decided to actively campaign for "no blocks", but the reality is that to much focus has been put on points like that and not on the actual conditions to make the use of in round blocking acceptable.

3) for pre round blocking with the intention of tagnating th game I agree, but in game blocking to lowr a threat or to encourage activity in other alliances I do not see a problem with. The problem is that while blocking in the previous rounds was wrong he pndulum has swung to far giving a counter opinion which is almost as bad as blocking for an entire round. The truth is somewhere in between were alliances should have reasonable use of politics to allow them a entry point to begin fighting again. Take FAnG as an example - they ied early (possibly due to the intense pressure they wee under and spreading themselves too thin with enemies), but they should have had a opportunity to regroup and get back into the war. Unfortunately that was never the case. Allliances know that once they are based down to a certain extent members give up and defence dry's up. While that isnt your fault perhaps if players saw tha there was a chance of reentering the fray that they would be encouraged to stay active rather than dissapearing mid round. Its something that needs redressing and one of the simpler ways is that if those players can assist with a ar and redress some of the balance.

4) The trouble always was that peoples attitudes needed addressing. Part of that si showing what is agreeable and what isn't.

There will always be issues of whether alliances are misusing blocks, but in truth alliances could use blocking sensibly party by game policing by players, this is what happened this round and if used correctly you would find that alliances became more sensible in there approach.

However, alliances interest in a smaller uinverse is to discourage inflexible blocking. think this round has proved that no blocking can occur so I think there is every possibility flexible blocking could succeed.

5) Possibly you are right. Perhaps alliances would have burned out officers but how is that different from any other round? The best officers create extra pressure for themselves and they take it personally if players lose roids, because to be a dc you have to have that sort of commitment.

I don't believe other officer types would burn out since the nature of there roles are far less pressurised.

Every round I have palyed I have seen players need to take a break from there duties. Its the nature of the beast and in my opinion its a good hc that acknowledges that will happen and rests them.

I dont perceive what you sa to be true or valid. Just another reason why it can't be successful without giving it a chance or looking at it objectively. Perpetual wars for a round would increase activity which is what is needed if we are to get the balance right. Not for the few but for everyone.

6) Traditionally blokcing has been vr much viewed in the way you describe. The "first" resort and the last resort. The trouble is the first resort is far too easy and means a round stagnates far too early and the other blocking is used in most cases when the round is already over and lost. You never get a balance with using it like that.

Why not use blocking as short term agreements? Why not encourage those that block for too long that everyone will attack them for all they are worth?

The reality is that by making agreements and by playing the politics it adds richness and fun to a round not detracts - thats why many like the politics and think of the fun of ever changing agreemens will haev with your targetting! It doesn't encourage more blocking just encourages ways back for people.

I think there is every chance that dynamic blocking could and would work, but when a round dies most players become social players and then alliances like yourself complains irrationally about how mean and nasty things like vacation mode are.

The real question is is blocking evil? I don't think its that bad if it means alliances have a chance to fight fairly and encourage members who fall by the side get a chance to get back nto the game.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Rumad

1) I agree that there wre tactical and strategic mistakes this round. However its all oo asy to sa they were not atctically or srategically aware enough. I understand your arguments and mazz's (hi mazz) about how and what happened were failings, but at te end of the day thats all well and fine and if the alliances go hrough the round again they would simply make other mistakes.

Without wanting to give you guys a bigger head then you already have, but 1up simply has the experince and the awareness and skill that most other alliances cannot compare. when there is a skill and acivity void its simply not feasible for alliances to compete on a 1 on 1 basis.

Surely Lch and Vision did well, but they had a better start then most alliances and they still could not compete. What does that tell you?

Since LCH actually managed to take the #1 spot for a while, it tells me they had no lack of active and skilled players. They just didn't use their fleets effectively once the war started.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Simply when tactics and skill fail mass blocking is an alternative subject to thse political ties only being used for one purpose and then deblocking.

This also means "if you can't win by skill, just make a huge block instead". That might sound like a nice plan now, when 1up are winning, but what about when it's your alliance winning?

You are also assuming that it is practically possible to create a block and then split it again, before that block has distorted the round. The mere existence of a block would create incentives for others to counter-block. Let's say alliance A is currently winning. Alliances B and C block against A. Where does this leave alliance D? No matter which side wins, D is still screwed. So D should probably join a block too! After all, they want to compete like everyone else, don't they? Before long, you have the old two-block scenario back again.

Originally Posted by Rumad

2) They could be construed as against blocking and yes they were used as one of the points when 1up decided to actively campaign for "no blocks", but the reality is that to much focus has been put on points like that and not on the actual conditions to make the use of in round blocking acceptable.

I don't think it's possible to eliminate the negative sides of blocking. Unless public promises were made regarding the ending of the block, and conditions for the block ending were also agreed and made public, nobody would believe that the block would split. The leads to counter-blocks, which then makes it inevitable that the first block will stay together anyway.

Originally Posted by Rumad

3) for pre round blocking with the intention of tagnating th game I agree, but in game blocking to lowr a threat or to encourage activity in other alliances I do not see a problem with.

You talk about lowering a threat, but in reality any block will continue until it has destroyed its target completely - I can't think of any block which split before it was sure that its enemy was hurt beyond recovery. Promises that the block will split later sound all well and good at the start, but no HC is going to take a decision to risk their alliance's rank by splitting a successful block. When the status quo is the best way to survive, there's very little incentive to change things.

Originally Posted by Rumad

The problem is that while blocking in the previous rounds was wrong he pndulum has swung to far giving a counter opinion which is almost as bad as blocking for an entire round. The truth is somewhere in between were alliances should have reasonable use of politics to allow them a entry point to begin fighting again.

I agree, but I still don't think "blocking" is required for this. A few PMs between the HCs of the various alliances are all that is required to coordinate things.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Take FAnG as an example - they ied early (possibly due to the intense pressure they wee under and spreading themselves too thin with enemies), but they should have had a opportunity to regroup and get back into the war. Unfortunately that was never the case. Allliances know that once they are based down to a certain extent members give up and defence dry's up. While that isnt your fault perhaps if players saw tha there was a chance of reentering the fray that they would be encouraged to stay active rather than dissapearing mid round. Its something that needs redressing and one of the simpler ways is that if those players can assist with a ar and redress some of the balance.

FAnG's internal problems don't apply to every alliance though. There were plenty of alliances which managed to carry on fighting a lot longer than FAnG did.

There was nothing to prevent FAnG from cooperating with others if they wanted to, but was it really in their interests to attack 1up? FAnG had fallen quite a way down the rankings and weren't actively targetted by 1up at that point. Why should they have helped LCH to win?

This is a difference between no-block rounds and block rounds. In a block round, if one block wins then everyone else is fked - there's 300+ people all able to roid the rest of the universe without risk.

Without blocks, a single alliance can get to #1, but they can't feasibly attack everyone else at once. 1up's attacks are mostly focussed on LCH, Vision and Mistu, and most other alliances are not at risk of coordinated 1up incoming. Therefore it's easy to see why LCH/Vsn/Mistu have an incentive to block, but I can't see where FAnG fit into this picture.

Originally Posted by Rumad

4) The trouble always was that peoples attitudes needed addressing. Part of that si showing what is agreeable and what isn't.

There will always be issues of whether alliances are misusing blocks, but in truth alliances could use blocking sensibly party by game policing by players, this is what happened this round and if used correctly you would find that alliances became more sensible in there approach.

In-game policing by players? What are you smoking, and can I please have some?

Originally Posted by Rumad

However, alliances interest in a smaller uinverse is to discourage inflexible blocking. think this round has proved that no blocking can occur so I think there is every possibility flexible blocking could succeed.

Flexible blocking requires alliances to behave against their own self-interest - not just avoiding a course of action, but actively taking a course of action that may harm their members' ranks.

Originally Posted by Rumad

5) Possibly you are right. Perhaps alliances would have burned out officers but how is that different from any other round? The best officers create extra pressure for themselves and they take it personally if players lose roids, because to be a dc you have to have that sort of commitment.

I don't believe other officer types would burn out since the nature of there roles are far less pressurised.

Every round I have palyed I have seen players need to take a break from there duties. Its the nature of the beast and in my opinion its a good hc that acknowledges that will happen and rests them.

I dont perceive what you sa to be true or valid. Just another reason why it can't be successful without giving it a chance or looking at it objectively. Perpetual wars for a round would increase activity which is what is needed if we are to get the balance right. Not for the few but for everyone.

Perpetual war? When was the last time you commanded an alliance's attacks? I seem to remember you coordinating some of Legion's stuff in r4, and running JoV until r6 (I think?). I'm afaid to say that wars these days are much more focussed affairs than they used to be. It's not enough to just put up a list of hostile galaxies and let your own galaxies/BGs do the rest.

After barely a week of war between 1up and LCH/Vision, there were some on the LCH/Vision side who were already complaining of burnout and lack of officers to run defences. For Mistu it has been a problem all round (partly due to their smaller memberbase).

As for FAnG, they pretty much gave up after a couple of weeks, and you expect these same alliances to fight, at full war level, for 3 months?

Originally Posted by Rumad

6) Traditionally blokcing has been vr much viewed in the way you describe. The "first" resort and the last resort. The trouble is the first resort is far too easy and means a round stagnates far too early and the other blocking is used in most cases when the round is already over and lost. You never get a balance with using it like that.

Why not use blocking as short term agreements? Why not encourage those that block for too long that everyone will attack them for all they are worth?

The reality is that by making agreements and by playing the politics it adds richness and fun to a round not detracts - thats why many like the politics and think of the fun of ever changing agreemens will haev with your targetting! It doesn't encourage more blocking just encourages ways back for people.

I think there is every chance that dynamic blocking could and would work, but when a round dies most players become social players and then alliances like yourself complains irrationally about how mean and nasty things like vacation mode are.

The real question is is blocking evil? I don't think its that bad if it means alliances have a chance to fight fairly and encourage members who fall by the side get a chance to get back nto the game.

I agree, in a perfect world short-term blocks would be desirable. However, in the real world any step towards blocking would lead to a snowball effect. I tihnk it's better that alliances try to stay solo, work on improving their tactics, and try to out-think and out-fight their opponents before trying to out-block them.

[[i2k]Xy]

We Need More People Like Teh Dingo!

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Since LCH actually managed to take the #1 spot for a while, it tells me they had no lack of active and skilled players. They just didn't use their fleets effectively once the war started.

Outgrowing and being able to cope under pressure are two different things. For a while FAnG was bigger than most allainces but as soon as they received heavy pressure they fell by thw wayside. Unfortunately until an alliance has beded down properl only those alliances with real skilled officers and good members can survive.

You have those players mainly this round. The trouble is while LCH has a good few excellent players (and many of the FAnG defectors from legion) they don't have the quality which you possess in depth. The same is true of many of the alliances and this is partially due t the way in which the member ba\se has decreased.

The apt remark from abve s when the war started they never used there fleets properly - this could be alliance organisation and tactics or it could b that they have too many mercenary bar stewards.

AT some point a mediocre alliance will fail becuase in a relentless warring situation they simply don't have the activity or the experience to cope. Its fine saying they were winning at one point, but at that given point in time they were not under pressure.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

This also means "if you can't win by skill, just make a huge block instead". That might sound like a nice plan now, when 1up are winning, but what about when it's your alliance winning?

You are also assuming that it is practically possible to create a block and then split it again, before that block has distorted the round. The mere existence of a block would create incentives for others to counter-block. Let's say alliance A is currently winning. Alliances B and C block against A. Where does this leave alliance D? No matter which side wins, D is still screwed. So D should probably join a block too! After all, they want to compete like everyone else, don't they? Before long, you have the old two-block scenario back again.

I know you have a vested interest here as the winning alliance. Yes I would hate it if I was the winning alliance, but I also understand that such a tactic is valid and reasonable if my allinace was winning substantially. I would also concentrate on the bounce back probability and ensure that losses weren't as material as they could be. But thats me and what I have done with my fellow hc's in previous alliances.

I also know that if we continue along the same path more players will leave as hey have done already. Thats part of te nature f how PA gets to people in these later rounds and how futile people feel it has become.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I don't think it's possible to eliminate the negative sides of blocking. Unless public promises were made regarding the ending of the block, and conditions for the block ending were also agreed and made public, nobody would believe that the block would split. The leads to counter-blocks, which then makes it inevitable that the first block will stay together anyway.

You cannot eliminate blocking negatives as ther will be always negatives, but what you can do is eliminate the misuse and abuse of blocking.

The trouble is you are still looking at it from "that happened so this will happen" perspective. If 1up ad taken that attitude before round stat then surely we would still have block wars? things can change if people want them too.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

You talk about lowering a threat, but in reality any block will continue until it has destroyed its target completely - I can't think of any block which split before it was sure that its enemy was hurt beyond recovery. Promises that the block will split later sound all well and good at the start, but no HC is going to take a decision to risk their alliance's rank by splitting a successful block. When the status quo is the best way to survive, there's very little incentive to change things.

Again you talk from a historic perspective because thats how blocks were used. Surely you have t cause some damage, but the need to "crush" your opponents are long long ago. You just need enough competitive edge so I would say knocking 20% of score from an alliance is enough bearing in mind if you do intend to play with politics you cannot be seen as the bully.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I agree, but I still don't think "blocking" is required for this. A few PMs between the HCs of the various alliances are all that is required to coordinate things.

co ordinate or blocking. I think its much of a muchness don't you?

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

FAnG's internal problems don't apply to every alliance though. There were plenty of alliances which managed to carry on fighting a lot longer than FAnG did.

There was nothing to prevent FAnG from cooperating with others if they wanted to, but was it really in their interests to attack 1up? FAnG had fallen quite a way down the rankings and weren't actively targetted by 1up at that point. Why should they have helped LCH to win?

This is a difference between no-block rounds and block rounds. In a block round, if one block wins then everyone else is fked - there's 300+ people all able to roid the rest of the universe without risk.

Without blocks, a single alliance can get to #1, but they can't feasibly attack everyone else at once. 1up's attacks are mostly focussed on LCH, Vision and Mistu, and most other alliances are not at risk of coordinated 1up incoming. Therefore it's easy to see why LCH/Vsn/Mistu have an incentive to block, but I can't see where FAnG fit into this picture.

FAnG was last rounds winning alliance. It lost a fair few members to you this round, but it still had the stigma of being the winner. If it was going to stand any chance it had to pick allainces it wanted to attack and you were prime target.

The trouble was not with the plan but with the execution and the bullishness they believed they could rip you guys apart. FAnG only had happen to it earlier that other alliances had happen, but to a lesser extent because the round was more bedded down.

I am sure FAnG could have also ended up as a stable nearl ran, but you needed some opposition early on.

FAnG may have had a chance should they have being able to bounce back early enough. Trouble is when ppl die they lose heart and there is efefctively nothing to play for. I am sure they could have (and I am sure they did) assist alliances but by that time there activity had wained and many had given up apart from trying to better the few planets that were still playing.

That happens to all beaten alliances if they are beaten early enough or hammered enough.

The problem is that you have the experience and the skill in depth which few other alliances can compete with.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

In-game policing by players? What are you smoking, and can I please have some?

You did it this round it was the evil block will get twatted concept. Worked thsi round I am sure it could work in other rounds also

As for what weed am i smoking - I don't anymore

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Flexible blocking requires alliances to behave against their own self-interest - not just avoiding a course of action, but actively taking a course of action that may harm their members' ranks.

No not true at all. In fact alliance blocks breaking up in a ephemeral political environment would HELP there alliances. Alliances don't want to pee off any alliance too much in such a small universe unless its absolutely needed. By nt hammering them you actually help your politicking in the current round and in the future rounds.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Perpetual war? When was the last time you commanded an alliance's attacks? I seem to remember you coordinating some of Legion's stuff in r4, and running JoV until r6 (I think?). I'm afaid to say that wars these days are much more focussed affairs than they used to be. It's not enough to just put up a list of hostile galaxies and let your own galaxies/BGs do the rest.

After barely a week of war between 1up and LCH/Vision, there were some on the LCH/Vision side who were already complaining of burnout and lack of officers to run defences. For Mistu it has been a problem all round (partly due to their smaller memberbase).

As for FAnG, they pretty much gave up after a couple of weeks, and you expect these same alliances to fight, at full war level, for 3 months?

Last Time I commanded alliance and BG attacks was 9.5.

You say they are more focussed but attacks always required focus. The examples you state are purely because your alliance has a strength in depth no other alliance has. Surely yu can see that by ripping these guys apart and pressuring them 1 by 1 you would in some style and comfort. The only way to redress that is by using short term blocking and on a more efective level than was used this round.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I agree, in a perfect world short-term blocks would be desirable. However, in the real world any step towards blocking would lead to a snowball effect. I tihnk it's better that alliances try to stay solo, work on improving their tactics, and try to out-think and out-fight their opponents before trying to out-block them.

Lets get to it then and not try and hide behind a smokescreen

[Off topic]
I will answer any replies tommorow as I am going home from work now. On a side note fr any one thast interested we found out today that we are expecting a mini me (A little boy). Its a scary thought but I will have a son in early december \o/ [/offtopic]

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by [i2k]Xy

We Need More People Like Teh Dingo!

We just need HC's willing to have a bit of fun.

No one mentioned aussie perverts with a god complex

(though dingo is kinda kewl )

[Axis_WLF]

The best advise is: When your enemy posts a plan for the upcoming round and asks for all to accept it or follow it JUST SAY NO heh.

[-=Zyth=-]

Whats this? 'Oh no we got it wrong, next round will be different!'

Somehow I'm not shocked. And neither do I think that the blocks of next round will solve the problems of messages from HC like 'Yeah m8, we know that planet (who is not in our block) took 1k roids off you this morning, but he's in our top gal, so we wont do a retall on him or XXX (block ally) alliance will get the top gal, and we dont want that now do we...' gal politics idiocy and the always delightful 'RECALL YOUR FLEET FROM THE PRE-ARANGED BC CONTROLLED RETALL ON THE GUY WHO SLAGGED YOUR PLANET YESTERDAY COS HE HAS JUST JOINED ALLIANCE XXX AND IF YOU DO NOT WE WILL KICK YOU OUT COS WE ARE WUSSES AND WOULD RATHER BEND OVER FOR THE BLOCK THAN DO THE RIGHT THING'

Although the latter isnt an issue this round the former is becoming one.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Axis_WLF

The best advise is: When your enemy posts a plan for the upcoming round and asks for all to accept it or follow it JUST SAY NO heh.

Dont tell the bloody n00bs who run alliances these days Axis!

[Cayl]

We didn't twist any arms, we offered a chance to try a new style of play.

We said "We want to play our way, you're welcome to join us. If you don't want to play our way, we'll play it your way (and block)."

It came close to that point, (you may remember Sid's post), but ultimately even after Vision, LCH and Mistu basically blocked up, we were able to continue playing our preferred style, alone.

[lokken]

Blocking is the only valid tactic when there is a superior enemy around, as the other option involves rolling over, because you can't improve sufficiently quickly to avoid getting beat.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Cayl

We didn't twist any arms, we offered a chance to try a new style of play.

We said "We want to play our way, you're welcome to join us. If you don't want to play our way, we'll play it your way (and block)."

It came close to that point, (you may remember Sid's post), but ultimately even after Vision, LCH and Mistu basically blocked up, we were able to continue playing our preferred style, alone.

You may not have twisted arms, but you had the best chances of winning from a blockless round. Ironically is that you stated "after" they blocked you still won, but the reality is that your napping of individual planets in galaxies you control and effectively stopping the enemies prior to them blocking made blocking a mute point (I think the old adage is a ship will look for any port in a storm and the alliances had already been in a storm).

1up managed to create a swell of bad feeling towards blocking which resulted in a sort of witch hunt mentality. It worked well, but the reality is that blocking should have been used more effectively in a short term nature to stop you pulling away earlier. You surely proved that you are the best alliance of the round but where is this round different to previous? If you have 1 alliance which wins by 100 miles or 3 alliances which wins by 100 miles you still end in stagnation. I think the way in which blocks are used needs to change to add fun and excitement into the game and I think this is where I opened the post - to try and find a way in which blocking can exist and work for the community.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by lokken

Blocking is the only valid tactic when there is a superior enemy around, as the other option involves rolling over, because you can't improve sufficiently quickly to avoid getting beat.

I agree completely. Also by placing alliances under significant pressure you can take some pressure off yourself.

Round 4 Legion was under heavy pressure, the tactic I used was launching massive attacks to soak up ships. It meant that night after night we had little incomming and saved us defensively. I think sometimes a god offence can d so much more than grinding out defences.

However you need the fleets around to help you do that.

I can see politics where you NAP is alliances and avid hitting each other and as you and your block grows you will become the better targets. The shrewd alliances will stat picking off there own allies to add fun and get more roids and rotate who they are allied too.

It adds a whle new level to politics if alliances can and do take up the challenge.

I am sure there are other things we can do to assist a dynamic environment, but i remember a time when people said a blockless round could not occur and it has. Perhaps all we need is same sort of atitude adjustment again.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by -=Zyth=-

Whats this? 'Oh no we got it wrong, next round will be different!'

Somehow I'm not shocked. And neither do I think that the blocks of next round will solve the problems of messages from HC like 'Yeah m8, we know that planet (who is not in our block) took 1k roids off you this morning, but he's in our top gal, so we wont do a retall on him or XXX (block ally) alliance will get the top gal, and we dont want that now do we...' gal politics idiocy and the always delightful 'RECALL YOUR FLEET FROM THE PRE-ARANGED BC CONTROLLED RETALL ON THE GUY WHO SLAGGED YOUR PLANET YESTERDAY COS HE HAS JUST JOINED ALLIANCE XXX AND IF YOU DO NOT WE WILL KICK YOU OUT COS WE ARE WUSSES AND WOULD RATHER BEND OVER FOR THE BLOCK THAN DO THE RIGHT THING'

Although the latter isnt an issue this round the former is becoming one.

In a dynamic napping environmnt I doubt yu would get messages like that

Alliances would put less attention to things like that and more to using the politics to there advantage. Too many f those incidents could se the alliance politics situation change sporadically if alliances did take up the idea

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by lokken

Blocking is the only valid tactic when there is a superior enemy around, as the other option involves rolling over, because you can't improve sufficiently quickly to avoid getting beat.

Lok = winner.

[Axis_WLF]

bette to block and end in stagnation that to not block and end in defeat.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Axis_WLF

bette to block and end in stagnation that to not block and end in defeat.

well actually BOTH happened this round. So I guess stagnation isnt that bad I think

(yes I know its to a lesser degree, but hush)

[[i2k]Xy]

We need more people like allfather & Klendau in this game :[

[Jester]

Originally Posted by [i2k]Xy

We need more people like allfather & Klendau in this game :[

Care to qualify that?

[AzureWrath]

care to clarify it also?

[Cayl]

So what you're saying is that stagnation occurs whenever there's a winner, and its in everyone's interests (except for the winning party) to prevent there from being a winner.

Thats pretty straightforward.

I would say that stagnation is inevitable in a round, as the whole point is to decide a winner or winners, and that will eventually happen. The main problem is when the period after a winner has basically been decided continues for a long time. Thats when stagnation becomes problematic. Its also a problem when a winner is decided too early and the opposition never has a chance, as happens when blocks shape up before a round and never break up.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Cayl

The main problem is when the period after a winner has basically been decided continues for a long time. Thats when stagnation becomes problematic. Its also a problem when a winner is decided too early and the opposition never has a chance, as happens when blocks shape up before a round and never break up.

Just like this round?

I dont think any1 thought 1up wouldnt win this round (under the no-block circumstances) apart from members of Fang.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Just like this round?

I dont think any1 thought 1up wouldnt win this round (under the no-block circumstances) apart from members of Fang.

agreed, yet only MISTU had the balls to try and stop them.

Everyone else just let them win.

Played alliance HC's across the land.

[Chika]

mistu didn't try alone fish. Don't single them out. because in the same sense, they can be singled out as failing horribly and showing the true colors of thir alliance after finisheing second as a new alliance last round. Place the blame on some other alliances also. SO mistu can keep partial dignity.

[Henck]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

agreed, yet only MISTU had the balls to try and stop them.

Everyone else just let them win.

Played alliance HC's across the land.

your saying that your alliance didn't even try it you must be happy with it....

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Chika

mistu didn't try alone fish. Don't single them out. because in the same sense, they can be singled out as failing horribly and showing the true colors of thir alliance after finisheing second as a new alliance last round. Place the blame on some other alliances also. SO mistu can keep partial dignity.

Yes But MISTU and FAnG did it actively and early enough.

Simply you were allowed to much time at the start to grow an thats where dynamic blocking could have helped.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Cayl

So what you're saying is that stagnation occurs whenever there's a winner, and its in everyone's interests (except for the winning party) to prevent there from being a winner.

Thats pretty straightforward.

I would say that stagnation is inevitable in a round, as the whole point is to decide a winner or winners, and that will eventually happen. The main problem is when the period after a winner has basically been decided continues for a long time. Thats when stagnation becomes problematic. Its also a problem when a winner is decided too early and the opposition never has a chance, as happens when blocks shape up before a round and never break up.

See with this pos yu are assuming that one alliance will always have to pull away from the rest, wher as if alliances agree short term co operations and "try" to win what you say wouldn't necessarily happen.

Stagnation occurs BECAUSE someone is allowed to pull away. HC's are so preoccupied with reationships that they have completely forgotten about why this game was s great in the earlier rounds. Alliances should be able to make short term relationships without seing it as bad in any respect. By making agreements of convenience alliances could easily start and make a more exciting game for everyone.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Henck

your saying that your alliance didn't even try it you must be happy with it....

Actually what he is saying (I think) is that the way ineffective cooperation has worked this round no one really put a concerted effort to really and truthfully stop 1up.

If there was you wud have seen much more efefctive co operation than we have done this round.

No blocking sounds great in principle but all it does mean is that "some" alliances will excel while others will be fodder.

In truth you need alliances to be of equal skill for no blocking to work effectively. As that will never happen you have to look at other ways and means of gaining equality of which I believe dynamic blocking to be the best for the game.

[Forest]

There were times when we had 40 fleets launch on us per tick.

We worked bloody hard for this win, and some of us got roided again and again (like me, lo incoming every day for weeks and 28 waves in 36 hiours), and fought back time and time again.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Forest

There were times when we had 40 fleets launch on us per tick.

We worked bloody hard for this win, and some of us got roided again and again (like me, lo incoming every day for weeks and 28 waves in 36 hiours), and fought back time and time again.

I hink I haev said congrats in this thread, you have copd admirably at times and this is not intended to take away from your victory. However if the game is to get more "exciting" alliances should not turn its back on its historic past, but to adapt it to a situation where it can use the advantages of blocking to ensure a more levl plaing field.

Lets be hnest by the time that blocking was use you had already had a significant advantage and that is why even under that level of incomming you could still cope.

[Forest]

Wouldnt u put a command inability to control its members as a factor into all this?
And bad command?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Forest

Wouldnt u put a command inability to control its members as a factor into all this?
And bad command?

Partially and partially the amount of commited players that are left, but without these conditions being met you have to look at other ways to attain equalising things. Dynamic blocking arrangements is the only way I can see of things being more competitive, which ultimately will stop players leaving the game.

[gzambo]

in theory the no- block situation should allow the game to flow more fluidly but as with everything these days it doesnt always do what it says on the tin ,

as rob pointed out after 1 up gained a lead on the chasing pack the opportunity was there for them to organize some sort of resistance to slow down 1 ups growth however the fear of being seen as evul blockers stopped the others from doing this .

personally i feel that if the head honchos from lets say vision lch and mistu came onto ad and made an offical announcment that they wouold be co-ordinating attacks against 1 up to stop them runnign away with the game and that once their lead had been reduced enough to give another alliance a chance at the no 1 spot that their agreement could be ended.
obviously given that so many ppl playing the game now prefer the safety of being in a winning block thgis option would have also caused probs if they did not disband after achieveing their goal

Ps congrats rumad on ur good news the game should have given u plenty of experience for fatherhood and sleepless nights

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Henck

your saying that your alliance didn't even try it you must be happy with it....

NewDawn, like Howling Rain, had no reason to organise a block to take down 1up. However, I'm sure, both alliances would have been willing to join in some co-operation to help knock 1up down the rankings.

It was the job of FAnG, LCH, VisioN and MISTU. They all failed. It seems like only MISTU properly tried, from my inactive viewpoint.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

NewDawn, like Howling Rain, had no reason to organise a block to take down 1up. However, I'm sure, both alliances would have been willing to join in some co-operation to help knock 1up down the rankings.

It was the job of FAnG, LCH, VisioN and MISTU. They all failed. It seems like only MISTU properly tried, from my inactive viewpoint.

I read this and it made me chuckle

Why should any of those alliances be held to a different standard than ND or HR?

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Jester

I read this and it made me chuckle

Why should any of those alliances be held to a different standard than ND or HR?

I cant speak for ND but certainly HR were never considered title challengers, unlike Vision/ LCH/ Mistu/ Fang, who were all expected to be slugging it out for top3 positions? So this ofc would put them directly at odds with 1up and in turn, thats why those alliances were held to a different standard to likes of HR, who many were estimating to achieve #10th if that.

I think the turning point of this round was when LCH knocked 1up from the top spot for like 1day? I'm sure this made the other challengers re-align their strategy and start hittin each other for some nicer roids?

From speaking with numerous HCs, many implied a bitterness that they were getting lots of incomings from alliances who should have been hitting 1up. I think a lot of alliances just weren't focused enough on their objectives and gameplan.

After Forests comment about his incomings, i cant help but feel that 1up deserve the best "Defence fakers" of the round, with such amounts incoming?

[The_Fish]

I pretty much agree with Seth.

[General1]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

However, I'm sure, both alliances would have been willing to join in some co-operation to help knock 1up down the rankings.

ND is the PACK of last round. Fencesitting pussies

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by General1

ND is the PACK of last round. Fencesitting pussies

HAHHAHAHAHHAHA.

thats about all that statement deserves.

[Shaithess]

I support Fish in this. ND are getting plenty of incs from HR and ROCK, which you'd fully expect. But when I get 5 wave attacks from Mistu (Launched at teh same time as a 7 wave WP attack :/), then over the next week more attacks of 5-6 waves from VsN, and even a few LCH incs, I can understand why ND don't want to engage in a war with 1up.

It's difficult enough to hold your ground against constant incs of respectable size from 6 alliances; I wouldn't consider it 'fencesitting' to not start a war against someone 6 times ND's size...

[Chika]

The thing is. People are using this term 'WAR'. War is fighting, for a top posiion for your alliance. "WAR" is landing on defense and killing ships. "WAR" is not waving one planet. "WAR" is waving 2 or 3 gals. What you dudes were doing was "ROIDING". There is a big difference between "WAR" and "ROIDING". 1up was using "WAR" tactics. MISTU was "ROIDING". It was clear they were not at "WAR" but "ROIDING" when they launched on my planet (unsuccessfully) with 6 fleets for 3 waves. When they should have been using those fleets for "WAR". My incoming was only partially covered and all attackers recalled. That isn't "WAR" thats greed, and looking out for your planet only.

To be on topic. A solo round is a good idea. But not when one alliance, 1 single alliance, the majority of its members have finished top 10 before. Realistically, like over half of them have been at least top 50. And about 20 or 30 top 10's. I mean, they got some of the most quality people in PA history. BG commanders, HC's, you name it. All people who are winners. And ironically, very unselfish when it comes to lending those ships for defense. In this case, yes, Blocking would have brought a better round maybe. But then you have to factor in, whoever would have blocked with 1up, probably would have gotten the big head, and maybe performed better, so, it might have been the same situation. All in all. No round should be decided like this. if you want to go solo, go solo. If you want to block, block. **** the community. All the community wants is the win themselves. I can sum the community up for you. "I hate you because I am not winning" or "I am winning because I am 1337" Thats the community. Noone but HC and your alliance community should have influence on your alliances well being.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I hink I haev said congrats in this thread, you have copd admirably at times and this is not intended to take away from your victory. However if the game is to get more "exciting" alliances should not turn its back on its historic past, but to adapt it to a situation where it can use the advantages of blocking to ensure a more levl plaing field.

Exciting in what way?

Please define what you are talking about, or we aare going to be going round in circles forever.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Lets be hnest by the time that blocking was use you had already had a significant advantage and that is why even under that level of incomming you could still cope.

When the war with LCH started, they were #1. Within 2 days (to my recollection), they had formed a NAP with Vision. Mistu were already attacking us anyway.

So, what you are actually arguing for is not more intelligent play, better tactics, better politics or anything like that. You're just arguing for earlier blocking, and anyone with any sense can see where that leads.

You have to make your mind up - either blocking is a last resort to be employed only when it's the only option to defeat a clear and present common threat, or it is to be used pre-emptively, to eliminate a major threat before they "get too big". It can't be both, so which is it?

Originally Posted by Rumad

Stagnation occurs BECAUSE someone is allowed to pull away. HC's are so preoccupied with reationships that they have completely forgotten about why this game was s great in the earlier rounds. Alliances should be able to make short term relationships without seing it as bad in any respect. By making agreements of convenience alliances could easily start and make a more exciting game for everyone.

Define "stagnation". In my mind, stagnation occurs when the incentives to continue playing are reduced to a point where most people don't bother.

There are several potential causes of stagnation. The first is the game mechanics - there comes a point in every round when people have huge fleets relative to their roid count, making roiding them prohibitively expensive. Thankfully this hasn't happened yet this round and attacking is still pretty easy even 2 months into the round.

The second is when a dominant force gains victory. This dominant force can then roid the hell out of its defeated rivals, making it impossible for those defeated rivals to grow. Again, this hasn't happened this round. A single alliance isn't enough to dominate in that way. Sure, in round 5 when the winning side was a 5-alliance block (until the weaker members were kicked and roided) then those 5 alliances were easily capable of smashing everyone else, every night. They also had a numerical advantage over NoCeX - I'd esimate that WTFVE had maybe 50% more members than NoCeX in r5. Once they had won, they had very few available targets and the targets they did have were repeatedly attacked, night after night.

That hasn't occured this round, for a simple reason - a single alliance cannot feasibly attack all of its enemies simultaneously. We simply don't have enough fleet slots, if nothing else. So, when a single alliance "wins", everyone else below them still has a chance to grow - check the alliance growth stats on sandmans or pilkara if you don't believe me. Over half of the top 100 is non-1up, so we certainly are not dominating even to the extent that Legion/Fury did in round 2.

If we had had blocks this round, we'd probably be seeing the top 3 alliances attacking everyone else mercilessly night after night. Now that would be stagnation.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Partially and partially the amount of commited players that are left, but without these conditions being met you have to look at other ways to attain equalising things. Dynamic blocking arrangements is the only way I can see of things being more competitive, which ultimately will stop players leaving the game.

That's the best you can do? For someone who used to be a Legion BC and FAnG HC, the fact that the only option you can think of is more blocking is really quite disappointing. To be honest, this attitude is precisely why 1up won. Rather than preparing tactics to use against 1up, everyone else thought they could sit back and use politics to win. LCH were scurrying around trying to ally with anyone they could, long before war broke out. They even made several overtures to us, for a 1up/LCH block.

Once they had to do any actual fighting, they were screwed. Round after round of playing block politics has created a bunch of alliances which don't seem to be oriented towards war tactics at all (as Chika also pointed out).

Originally Posted by SethMace

After Forests comment about his incomings, i cant help but feel that 1up deserve the best "Defence fakers" of the round, with such amounts incoming?

No. Members were often left uncovered during difficult times, we just gained more roids than we lost.

To sum up, LCH/Vision/MISTU/etc. could have won if they had used better tactics, there's no need to go back to the days of r5 when stagnation genuinely was the result of the block situation.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Exciting in what way?

Please define what you are talking about, or we aare going to be going round in circles forever.

Excitement is ensuring a leveller playing field during he round. Allowing people that would normally give up hope or care a chance of competing alongside yourself.

Your alliance is immensely talented. You have and will continue to have a core which has unsurpass activity and dedication. Unfortunatey the competing alliances however skilled and whatever intents they have simply cannot cope in the same playing enironment.

No blocking worked to an extent, but there was still 1 overall winner who has won by a mile. My phillosphy of all the posts here is to use blocking o stop that happening again so easily.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

When the war with LCH started, they were #1. Within 2 days (to my recollection), they had formed a NAP with Vision. Mistu were already attacking us anyway.

So, what you are actually arguing for is not more intelligent play, better tactics, better politics or anything like that. You're just arguing for earlier blocking, and anyone with any sense can see where that leads.

You have to make your mind up - either blocking is a last resort to be employed only when it's the only option to defeat a clear and present common threat, or it is to be used pre-emptively, to eliminate a major threat before they "get too big". It can't be both, so which is it?

I think while you have had significant incommings from those three alliances the co-operation was minimal. Unfortunately due to your experience and skill as an alliance I am advocating a more timely use of blocking to prevent you from pulling away. if it had been effective you would not have pulled away so easily, but you did.

Blocking like i am suggesting would result in better tactics, politics and more intelligent and subtle play. The problem here is that this is fundamentally against you this will occur.

Simply alliances cannot survive against 1 competitor alone who has a significant player base advantage which is what you have.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Define "stagnation". In my mind, stagnation occurs when the incentives to continue playing are reduced to a point where most people don't bother.

There are several potential causes of stagnation. The first is the game mechanics - there comes a point in every round when people have huge fleets relative to their roid count, making roiding them prohibitively expensive. Thankfully this hasn't happened yet this round and attacking is still pretty easy even 2 months into the round.

The second is when a dominant force gains victory. This dominant force can then roid the hell out of its defeated rivals, making it impossible for those defeated rivals to grow. Again, this hasn't happened this round. A single alliance isn't enough to dominate in that way. Sure, in round 5 when the winning side was a 5-alliance block (until the weaker members were kicked and roided) then those 5 alliances were easily capable of smashing everyone else, every night. They also had a numerical advantage over NoCeX - I'd esimate that WTFVE had maybe 50% more members than NoCeX in r5. Once they had won, they had very few available targets and the targets they did have were repeatedly attacked, night after night.

That hasn't occured this round, for a simple reason - a single alliance cannot feasibly attack all of its enemies simultaneously. We simply don't have enough fleet slots, if nothing else. So, when a single alliance "wins", everyone else below them still has a chance to grow - check the alliance growth stats on sandmans or pilkara if you don't believe me. Over half of the top 100 is non-1up, so we certainly are not dominating even to the extent that Legion/Fury did in round 2.

If we had had blocks this round, we'd probably be seeing the top 3 alliances attacking everyone else mercilessly night after night. Now that would be stagnation.

Stagnation is pretty much as you say, however I would say that most have given up playing this round already. Stagnation is whenever the player base give up.

You and I know from previous rounds 1up are in a siuation now for roid collecting. Every winning alliance enters this stage and its just before when the roids dry up. Whether the round has no roids or not is a mute point, the opposition has fundamentally given up already there is no fight.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

That's the best you can do? For someone who used to be a Legion BC and FAnG HC, the fact that the only option you can think of is more blocking is really quite disappointing. To be honest, this attitude is precisely why 1up won. Rather than preparing tactics to use against 1up, everyone else thought they could sit back and use politics to win. LCH were scurrying around trying to ally with anyone they could, long before war broke out. They even made several overtures to us, for a 1up/LCH block.

Once they had to do any actual fighting, they were screwed. Round after round of playing block politics has created a bunch of alliances which don't seem to be oriented towards war tactics at all (as Chika also pointed out).

You won, because you simply have not had the co-ordinated opposition you needed to stop you from winning. I am suggsting blocking, but a fundamentally different type of blocking with a fundamentally different attitude.

Tactics are fine, but I doubt significant changes would occur unless you get some meaty resistance.

At the end of the day you want to win and your oponents want to compete (for mediocre alliances) and some want to win against you. At the end of the end of the day you recruited the creme de la creme to be significantly better than other alliances and I think blocking is a decent tactic which would result in better playability for those that give up.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

No. Members were often left uncovered during difficult times, we just gained more roids than we lost.

To sum up, LCH/Vision/MISTU/etc. could have won if they had used better tactics, there's no need to go back to the days of r5 when stagnation genuinely was the result of the block situation.

Your "uncovered" and ND's "uncovered" I would suggest are vastly different and subjective descriptions.

I know from previous experience the pressure I had in FAnG round 7 was nothing compared to the pressure in round 9.5 playing for NoS. Pressure is relative to the success of your alliance.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Excitement is ensuring a leveller playing field during he round. Allowing people that would normally give up hope or care a chance of competing alongside yourself.

Your alliance is immensely talented. You have and will continue to have a core which has unsurpass activity and dedication. Unfortunatey the competing alliances however skilled and whatever intents they have simply cannot cope in the same playing enironment.

I think you give them far too little credit. Individually, they have enough active players to match 1up - certainly between LCH/Vision/Mistu they did. I'm getting tired of saying it, but the problem was how they used their fleets.

Originally Posted by Rumad

No blocking worked to an extent, but there was still 1 overall winner who has won by a mile. My phillosphy of all the posts here is to use blocking o stop that happening again so easily.

Surely it's better than 3 alliances winning together? You can't have it both ways, either a block wins or a single alliance wins. I think it's better for everyone if a single alliance wins.

Originally Posted by Rumad

I think while you have had significant incommings from those three alliances the co-operation was minimal. Unfortunately due to your experience and skill as an alliance I am advocating a more timely use of blocking to prevent you from pulling away. if it had been effective you would not have pulled away so easily, but you did.

A "more timely" use of blocking could only have involved the #1, #3 and #4 alliance blocking against the #2. Is that what you are suggesting? Remember, until war broke out, LCH were #1.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Blocking like i am suggesting would result in better tactics, politics and more intelligent and subtle play. The problem here is that this is fundamentally against you this will occur.

I probably won't play next round, so I don't give a shit which alliance is personally affected by it. What I am arguing for is the principle. You are arguing for the principled right of alliances to pre-emptively band together against anyone else they regard as a 'threat', even if that alliance isn't #1. That sounds to me like old-school blocking, the kind we are better off without. I'm not saying they can't do it, merely that if they do, it will be worse for the game.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Simply alliances cannot survive against 1 competitor alone who has a significant player base advantage which is what you have.

If 3 alliances can't beat 1, then the 1 alliance deserves to win imo. Short of blocking against 1up when we were still ranked second, I don't think greater cooperation could have been achieved. As I have said time and time again, you're looking in the wrong places for the reasons for their failure. You're an experienced BC, why don't you try starting some discussions on how alliances could compete better tactically, rather than sit there telling them to go back to the old days of blocking the moment they feel threatened?

Originally Posted by Rumad

Stagnation is pretty much as you say, however I would say that most have given up playing this round already. Stagnation is whenever the player base give up.

You and I know from previous rounds 1up are in a siuation now for roid collecting. Every winning alliance enters this stage and its just before when the roids dry up. Whether the round has no roids or not is a mute point, the opposition has fundamentally given up already there is no fight.

I think I've lost about 1k roids in the past 3 days. Have the people who attacked me "given up"? To be honest, the fact that the only person really agreeing with your rants is yourself, I am starting to suspect that you're quite out of touch with what's really going on. If you were LCH, Vision or Mistu HC then I might be able to give some credence to your statements, but what you are posting is plainly at odds with reality. Alliances may have given up trying to take down 1up, but their individual members are still playing on, and plenty of them are still highly ranked and continuing to gain roids.

Originally Posted by Rumad

You won, because you simply have not had the co-ordinated opposition you needed to stop you from winning. I am suggsting blocking, but a fundamentally different type of blocking with a fundamentally different attitude.

I'm willing to give your idea the benefit of the doubt - if you can get the various alliances to agree to some kind of blocking rules, publicly discussed and agreed by all, then I would regard the idea as a good thing.

As things stand, you've said a lot about how more blocking is needed, but nothing on how these blocks will be broken up, or what rules will govern their conduct. Until those rules are in place, you're just advocating a return to the bad old days.

Originally Posted by Rumad

Tactics are fine, but I doubt significant changes would occur unless you get some meaty resistance.

Why do you doubt this? Let me illustrate with an example:

During wartime, a typical night's attacks for 1up could start as early as 20:00, with large fake attacks going out for the next 6 hours or so. Real waves would be starting by 2am, though still supplemented by further fakes. Typically the main launch time would be 0400, though often several raids would go out much later, at 0900. Daytime raids were also run, as well as solo/counter attacks.

A typical night's attack for our regular rivals began with some fakes at 0200, and a big wave at 0400. They launched so regularly at the same times that you could set your clock by them. There was no variation, very little faking, very few attempts to draw our fleets out early. Between the three of them (LCH/Vsn/Mistu) they had more than twice our score and almost three times our member base - it would have been a trivial matter indeed to gather enough fleets for early fake attacks. I still don't understand why they didn't do this.

Originally Posted by Rumad

At the end of the day you want to win and your oponents want to compete (for mediocre alliances) and some want to win against you. At the end of the end of the day you recruited the creme de la creme to be significantly better than other alliances and I think blocking is a decent tactic which would result in better playability for those that give up.

Those who have given up get no sympathy from me, especially when there are plenty of their alliance-mates still playing on. Remind me again why we should make the game easy for the lazy gits who give up at the first sign of roid loss?

Originally Posted by Rumad

Your "uncovered" and ND's "uncovered" I would suggest are vastly different and subjective descriptions.

As far as I know, "uncovered" means "without defence" to just about everyone. An undefened 1up member is much the same as an undefended ND member.

[lokken]

I don't see why this 'block' is dressed up as one that could only result where alliances sit together after they beat 1up - this is not a private round, unlike r5, there is more freedom to switch political allegiances, and after the great 1up threat could be removed I see no reason why alliances would not want to attack each other, they've got no reason anchoring them down like shared galaxies, the biggest excuse when it comes to this. Personal experience this round suggests they would probably hit each other.

There's also the issue of using better tactics and intelligence - well yes, that's all well and good, but in this rounds context with only one alliance of real all round quality, there is little scope for alliances to improve in short spaces of time necessary to close and bridge the gap to 1up. Their only alternative i believe was for them was to block and attempt to run 1up out of the game from day 1 (instead they were caused to dither for various reasons) and then to try and fight it out against their lesser selves if they wanted to win.

1up are undoubtedly dominant - while that 50% stat is probably true, i'd like to see what that stat is like when you include people in 1up galaxies. It's probably a much higher percentage. There are quite a large number of them who might as well be 1up members considering their raiding activities.

[statutory disclaimer that 1up have played very well and disposed of their opposition accordingly]

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I think you give them far too little credit. Individually, they have enough active players to match 1up - certainly between LCH/Vision/Mistu they did. I'm getting tired of saying it, but the problem was how they used their fleets.

Collectively at the start of the round I would agree with you, but as a round goes on they get more and more tired, especially if incommings are not covered. This has a knock on effect for the rest of the alliance that DO continue playing.

Experience plays a part in fleet use as do the amount of active members. You are right when you say its fleet usageand tactics, but that is merely an effect of your super duper alliance against players of a lesser standard depth wise.

Also as stated to forest it also has issues over command, but I am not interested in the reasons why, just a leveller for them to get back into things. 1 Super Duper aly is great if your on the inside, but not so if your on the receiving end.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Surely it's better than 3 alliances winning together? You can't have it both ways, either a block wins or a single alliance wins. I think it's better for everyone if a single alliance wins.

Woah there Tonto - who said anything about 3 alliances sharing a win? Thats not what I think dynamic blocking is or how it would work.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

A "more timely" use of blocking could only have involved the #1, #3 and #4 alliance blocking against the #2. Is that what you are suggesting? Remember, until war broke out, LCH were #1.

Blocking could have involved everyone and anyone and in my opinion should (just like your view on witch hunting those that blocked before the round began).

LCH did in fact have number one status for a period of time, but again as soon as they received the pressure things went tits up. You had way to much quality. take that as a compliment, but such disparate skill levels needs an action to help equalise things. Dynamic blocking would do that to any alliance that pulls away (not just 1up).

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I probably won't play next round, so I don't give a shit which alliance is personally affected by it. What I am arguing for is the principle. You are arguing for the principled right of alliances to pre-emptively band together against anyone else they regard as a 'threat', even if that alliance isn't #1. That sounds to me like old-school blocking, the kind we are better off without. I'm not saying they can't do it, merely that if they do, it will be worse for the game.

I am arguing for alliances to take earlier action as a group and then to look a the co-operations they had in place and break those agreements. I think if there is no blocking we end up in a status quo situation which is still no good for the game,

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

If 3 alliances can't beat 1, then the 1 alliance deserves to win imo. Short of blocking against 1up when we were still ranked second, I don't think greater cooperation could have been achieved. As I have said time and time again, you're looking in the wrong places for the reasons for their failure. You're an experienced BC, why don't you try starting some discussions on how alliances could compete better tactically, rather than sit there telling them to go back to the old days of blocking the moment they feel threatened?

They could still win theoretically

I am not talking abut bashng people out of existence, just making the game environment level and more fun for the entire universe. I see advantages in doing that and keeping players playing.

I could talk about tactics but any good BC will tell you that you apply tactics to the situation that arises.

Without the personnel or organisation you can suggest as many tactics as you want, but at the end of the day you will probably end up with no more success than they had this round.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I think I've lost about 1k roids in the past 3 days. Have the people who attacked me "given up"? To be honest, the fact that the only person really agreeing with your rants is yourself, I am starting to suspect that you're quite out of touch with what's really going on. If you were LCH, Vision or Mistu HC then I might be able to give some credence to your statements, but what you are posting is plainly at odds with reality. Alliances may have given up trying to take down 1up, but their individual members are still playing on, and plenty of them are still highly ranked and continuing to gain roids.

You and I know when alliances give up they aim to piss off the HC's and officers.

Thats common practice - I talked to Maz about 2 weeks ago who admitted though you were still having incomming you were coasting and things had calmed down considerably.

I may not be in one of the competing alliances but anyone can see things are stitched up. Sure you will lose a few and gain a few, but thats more about knowing about the incomming at the correct time more than anything else.

You won, and I think you did it in some style and actually made the conditions work for you, its easy to rubbish what I say, but something needs to happen to make things more exciting. I think dynamic blocking is the answer.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I'm willing to give your idea the benefit of the doubt - if you can get the various alliances to agree to some kind of blocking rules, publicly discussed and agreed by all, then I would regard the idea as a good thing.

As things stand, you've said a lot about how more blocking is needed, but nothing on how these blocks will be broken up, or what rules will govern their conduct. Until those rules are in place, you're just advocating a return to the bad old days.

This is what I was trying to do with this thread. The start of little acorns grow big tree's etc.

This was an idea thread to discuss and debate what I have said, but further development would be needed to make things work. You have to have a framework from which to work otherwise you have nothing.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Why do you doubt this? Let me illustrate with an example:

During wartime, a typical night's attacks for 1up could start as early as 20:00, with large fake attacks going out for the next 6 hours or so. Real waves would be starting by 2am, though still supplemented by further fakes. Typically the main launch time would be 0400, though often several raids would go out much later, at 0900. Daytime raids were also run, as well as solo/counter attacks.

A typical night's attack for our regular rivals began with some fakes at 0200, and a big wave at 0400. They launched so regularly at the same times that you could set your clock by them. There was no variation, very little faking, very few attempts to draw our fleets out early. Between the three of them (LCH/Vsn/Mistu) they had more than twice our score and almost three times our member base - it would have been a trivial matter indeed to gather enough fleets for early fake attacks. I still don't understand why they didn't do this.

Yep thats some tactics used by your competitors, but where they really successful? I mean really?

Ofcourse the answer is no.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Those who have given up get no sympathy from me, especially when there are plenty of their alliance-mates still playing on. Remind me again why we should make the game easy for the lazy gits who give up at the first sign of roid loss?

I agree, but the emphasis is not on villanising the for here actions, but more wat can be done to stop them from giving up and keep the game interesting? Thats my driver here - keep allainces and there members playing and keep things interesting.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

As far as I know, "uncovered" means "without defence" to just about everyone. An undefened 1up member is much the same as an undefended ND member.

Yes

But how many members were left uncovered repeatedly?

I would suggest the "other" alliances had a lot more than you due t the disparate skills and activity levels I have talked about.

[Barrow|Pony]

I'd point out that the roid loss/gain percentages shown from Pilkara were either constant or within +/- 5 percentage points for every top 5 alliance for the majority of the round.

Nobody had one particular night or even one particular set of nights which broke their backs. Alliance DC's put up the good fight in a round where the attacker has the advantage - tis all.