BattleGroups vs Alliances

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Dingo


BGs that are solely made up of a single alliance can certainly be a great benefit, but they ARE still part of the main alliance. It is the "multi-alliance-spanning" BGs that to me are a blight on the game. I'd like to make that clear distinction.

How about Bull? Bull was primarily run/controlled by Xanadu, but they had HC's that where not part of Xan,like TGO who was a Bull HC as well as a Rock HC/Founder. In his case since Rock was allied/naped to Xan for 2-3 rounds it didnt create a big problem. But Bull was still a mulit-alliance BG, maybe not as extensive as Plush or some of the other BGs out there.

By your above post I assume that BGs such as Bull and Thieves&Pirates would be considered an asset, even though they are multi-alliance, they are controlled by the 'mother' alliance and are primarily made up of members from the main alliance.

I have some, very small, knowledge of what is going on in some alliances. From what I am seeing, the reason some folks are looking for BGs for their attack purposes can be broken up into several diffrent catagories:

1) their main alliance attacks at inconvenient times
2) all the good targets are always taken by the time member comes online to choose a target
3) the alliance picks bad targets, either roids, ratio,cluster wise
4) they dont feel comfortable attacking with the alliance due to personal reasons, ie bad expierieince or they dont trust the BC anymore that is running the attack
5) they rather attack with folks they know. This is a big thing since an alliance with 150+ folks means there is no way you can know them all. So some folks choose to instead attackwith the same 30 or so people that they are very familiar with.

So would the above be the fault of the member or the alliance. ie the alliance is not providing the 'right' atmosphere that the member is choosing so they go looking for a BG to fill that void.

NOTE: the above is partially made up and is not based upon any particular alliance. Its just something I just thought up, and could be totally wrong. I am just trying to add some of my views,commments, observations to the rest of the groups.

-RexDrax

[Chaos]

if your not happy with the way your alliance is.. then leave.
or try to help your alliance become better.

most ppl that are in a BG doesn't attack or rearly attacks with their alliance.. it prob started by them not likeing the targets. or that LT. but after they've joined BG. they feel they must keep attacking with their BG outa loyality to their Friends there.

what does this? it weakens the alliance they are in.

if we where talking about a few ppl. then this wouldn't be a problem. but we are talking about a LOT of ppl.

that makes it harder for the BC's to find good targets. cuz they hafto consider filling the attack. so they need to find smaller targets. so either smaller ppl can take a target. or bigger ppl can take several targets.

ppl in BG's may think NoS is stupid to take this stand.
but this problem isn't just in NoS. I know several alliances that have the same problem.. but they are either afraid of loosing members. or just haven't realised how big the problem is yet.

for each person in a BG. you have less ships for defence. and even lesser ships for attack.

the "main" alliances become a "backup solution"

you get defence when you realy need it. and you get protected from the alliance members.

in my opinion BG members are nothing more than ppl in mini alliances fully aware they can't survive on their own.

cuz if they deside to stand alone. they arn't big enough to have a chance. if the coords of a BG get leaked. they would be leveled pretty fast if they didn't have alliances to lean on.

soo. for those that in BG's. stop leaching off your fellow m8s. quit the BG's and support your alliance. I hope to see all BG's gone.
and it would be nice to see other alliance be brave enough to ban these mini alliances before they do more damage.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by RexDrax


How about Bull? Bull was primarily run/controlled by Xanadu, but they had HC's that where not part of Xan,like TGO who was a Bull HC as well as a Rock HC/Founder. In his case since Rock was allied/naped to Xan for 2-3 rounds it didnt create a big problem. But Bull was still a mulit-alliance BG, maybe not as extensive as Plush or some of the other BGs out there.-RexDrax

My stance on 'Bull' is well known. For all rounds, our guidelines were that NO NoS member should be part of a Bull galaxy. There were a few that did not adhere to this ofc. But in general, the Bulls galaxies ONLY cared about themselves and expected the alliance members to put Bull BEFORE their alliance. They fall into the same "Sponge" category as far as I am concerned.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Chaos

-SNIP-

Hold on there Chaos, what I posted was not an attack on NoS. Just some observations I made. If you took it as a direct attack on NoS then I am sorry, thats not what I was trying to get at. If i misinterpreted your post then sorry about that.

I agree with you in the respect that BG's can lead to the lose of firepower that any alliance can preoject. The more members of an alliance are in a BG and not taking part in alliance missions, the less missions that alliance can take part in.

With respect to you stating that BGs should take a stance and be counted, I agree. Its time to come out and everyone that knows the anything agrees that BGs are just alliances, or a group of people, that choose to hide behind several alliances and use them for their intrests until a certain goal or something else has been achived. Thats not in dispute, what I am wondering is what drives any member to a BG. Is it the fact that their alliance is not providing their specific need, or is it because the member is not willing to sacrifice a bit for the 'greater good'.

Now for my actions, I used to be NoS BC. I had a great time and enjoyed it. The sour points where when some members got a bit greedy and were not willing to fake or team up. But thank goodness we where able to resolve the issue and attacks improved. That about the time i focused less on attacks and more on defence since thats what I was better at. What drove me to join a BG, namely Plush, was that I had a lot of friends in there and I was asked to join them. Add the fact that I was allianceless, not because I was booted from NoS for being in a BG, but beacause I was not sure of my online activity and didnt want to be a drain on NoS defence efforts since I wouldent meet the minimum standard for activity. So no alliance and needing something to fill the void is what turned me to Plush. The great thing about Plush is that I am not necessarily forced to defend or have any other obligations. I made it known from the beginning that I would be inactive and that they shouldent expect much from me.

Since a BG operates a bit diffrently from an alliance, as in less of a rigid structre, it filled the void for me. Does anyone else care to post what drove them to join a BG ontop of their alliance? Or will I be the only one that will, not justify, but explain my reasoning for joining Plush.

[KoRnNut]

I'm not gonna whip out any outstanding relevations on the subject, can't be arsed. But I will say I didn't mind the BattleGroups in former rounds. There were times some conflict of interests would arise but all in all they weren't anywhere near as annoying as HUMONGOUS powerblocks, hepatitus, and Zh|l.

This round is much different, probably due to random galaxies. I can't be arsed to get into it but BG's have been on my sh*t list all round I've just kept rather quiet about it until now since the issue has risen. But that's my 2 cents. Glad to see 'em go from my alliance anyways. In just another 2 weeks so0o0o0o many galaxies will be even further lopsided. Look at 'Mediocrity''s galaxy for example, or 'Wik''s. BG's are all gonna be a bit screwed imo since looking at Insomnia for example, you can't exactly get a "small Insomnia member" to cover one of the 9 smallish targets in a galaxy. Where as an alliance has more members and more varied sizes(20% cap rule ofc will affect BG's).

And btw was just kidding Zh|l....

...... I enjoyed every moment of hepatitus.

[CamelToe]

Originally posted by KoRnNut
I'm not gonna whip out any outstanding relevations on the subject, can't be arsed. But I will say I didn't mind the BattleGroups in former rounds. There were times some conflict of interests would arise but all in all they weren't anywhere near as annoying as HUMONGOUS powerblocks, hepatitus, and Zh|l.

This round is much different, probably due to random galaxies. I can't be arsed to get into it but BG's have been on my sh*t list all round I've just kept rather quiet about it until now since the issue has risen. But that's my 2 cents. Glad to see 'em go from my alliance anyways. In just another 2 weeks so0o0o0o many galaxies will be even further lopsided. Look at 'Mediocrity''s galaxy for example, or 'Wik''s. BG's are all gonna be a bit screwed imo since looking at Insomnia for example, you can't exactly get a "small Insomnia member" to cover one of the 9 smallish targets in a galaxy. Where as an alliance has more members and more varied sizes(20% cap rule ofc will affect BG's).

And btw was just kidding Zh|l....

...... I enjoyed every moment of hepatitus.

Sorry m8... the doc said I was clean :/

[Hathor]

I personally think BGs are destroying many alliances. I have personally seen alliance members attack alliance mates because their BG attacked that gal and they 'didn't check to see if there were allies in it'. I have seen BGs attack gals with members of their own alliance in it and fake attacks on their alliance mates to cover their own arses with their BG mates. This to me is sheer hypocracy in the alliance member's case. It's facinating to see also these same BG ppl taking targets in their alliance attacks and also attacking with their BG. This means all fleet slots are tied up with attacks thus making them devoid of the ability to defend if needed. Dingo's term'sponge' is more that fitting. They are the scourge of PA...worse to me that farms...at least they don'ty let you down when needed most.

[Domin]

uummm

BG contains friends mostly...

Last round you had the options to have friends in your alliance. If your gonna close people away from working with they friends this last round that's just sad and im in doubt what people will choose! Some alliances actually trust theyr members wich to many don't..

Friends vs Alliances ain't to hard to choose....

[Lerxst]

"You can't serve two masters"

For some, their friends are in their alliances. For some (i.e. for me) my friends are spread far out. This round I chose ally. Not because I "dislike" my friends but because I don't relate my friendship with this silly game - friendship is a bit deeper than mates in the game. In the game I serve my alliance, in real life I am here for my friends. Don't have a problem.

Ppl playing with their friends and using their alliance as "coverage" and "flak" for their own ego-boosting aims don't have to wonder about their alliance considering to ask them about their loyalty. On the other hand I know ppl in BGs who work real hard for their alliance and send def to ally whenever needed... Depends on the "attitude"...

[Domin]

Originally posted by Lerxst
Ppl playing with their friends and using their alliance as "coverage" and "flak" for their own ego-boosting aims don't have to wonder about their alliance considering to ask them about their loyalty. On the other hand I know ppl in BGs who work real hard for their alliance and send def to ally whenever needed... Depends on the "attitude"...

Mmmm i been nos since mid round 3 and i have never "used" nos in any ways. But after i joined a BG they claim that i use nos in every way... even if i have defended alot more than theyr averenge member and so far i have dragged NOT A SINGEL FKING defence fleet because my BG defended me....

So what's the problem i clearly don't see it????

[Lerxst]

Originally posted by Domin
So what's the problem i clearly don't see it????

In your case - dunno about a problem. If your performance is good, it's OK I think. Only thing I can imagine is the concern where your loyalty would be in future and when it's getting tought... else... *shrug* Dunno - that's why I am no HC-guy and so

[HOPupNdown]

sponge here sponge there sponge sponge everywhere.
you people ignore the active BG members who actively defend their alliance mates . sure , point at a problematic member
and cry "Battlegroups ruin pa , they are worst then farms"

LOL.

for the last round of planetarion , players will want more options , and some freedom of choice . 2-3 rounds of powerblock wars were more then enough of "launch at who we tell you" and
"you cant launch at 200 allied galaxies"

Battelgroups is what saves PA , from boredom , shake the old structure of the game and bring in some fun . your cries that these people leech their alliances are mostly selective , ignoring
the BG members that have been in certain alliances from the beginning , defend their alliance often , and still you cannot trust them , or allow them some freedom of thought or play.

[HOPupNdown]

you live in a dream world if you think pa will continue.
and even if it does, the player base will be so small that alliances
WILL be small . the big ones will contain the inactives.

and yes , people have interests for themselves too .
or should they be pawns for the greater good of their "alliance" ?

Originally posted by Dingo


We have only just started asking people to make a choice and those that decide to leave, so couldn't say.




You live in a dream world if you honestly believe this. Read this thread again and you will see what the future holds for your BG. If PA was to continue, your nice little chummy BG WILL become a full alliance and there will be NO distiction between it and any other current alliance. I would rather have a small group of people that want to be with each other, than this "refined attack force" you talk of that in reality is only interested in themselves. (That comes from talks with several people regarding their reasons for being in the BG)

[Chaos]

soo.. to let ppl have choices. and let them have "FUN"
we should then let that go out on the members that arn't in BG's ?

you know.. there ARE actualy members that's loyal to their alliances. and don't do around just fending for them self.

ppl in BG's are selfish. that don't care anything about their fellow alliance members.

cuz when a person is in a BG. he just doesn't give as much defence as someone of same size that's not in a BG.

and most ppl in BG's never and I mean NEVER attack with their alliances. where does that leave those that arn't in BG's ?
it leaves them without roids. cuz good targets can't be taken. cuz of lack of fleets.

soo.. those ppl again doesn't have a choice. they then need to join a Battle Group to be able to get roids.

where does this leave the alliance? powerless.
with no attacking force at all.

if you realy hate your alliance enough to bring this apon them. then leave instead. before you hurt them more.

we in NoS has taken a stand. before BG's ruin more than they already have.

I've seen several alliances have this problem now. and it's only growing. WE will atleast fix the problem. and since I don't hate any alliance. but I do just about every BG. I would like to see other alliances BAN them also. before it destroys them.

it doesn't mather how you twist and turn it.
BG's is a selfish tool.
and they do not help any alliance one bit.

so why should we tolerate them?

[KoRnNut]

Hmmm.....BG's aren't *that* annoying guys, heh. I know members in BG's that defend their alliance like crazy.....

My big problem with BG's the the 500 extra pages of paperwork involved and the extra politics that are the result of a single BG member. I say this because I know of not a single BG that has a composure of less than 4 alliances involved in it.

[p0ma] Why are you attacking an Arbiter protected galaxy?
[BGguy] Oops...well because my BG (insert excuse)
[p0ma] hmmm....that's a ghey excuse

or my favorite one personally:

[BGvictim] Why am I being defended against by someone our BC's have sent me to defend several times this round?
[p0ma] Their defending a member of their BattleGroup
[BGvictim] ffs! I'll quit if this sh*t keeps up


^^^^^^These were a daily routine for a while but have died down a little, probably because many BG members within nos have left.

Don't flame BG's as the wankest thing ever in PA, because their not. But don't play them off as innocent little puppies either. This whole BG issue is merely a poor man's version of a "Justifying Mixed XETA/DHN/FLTV/NWC Galaxies" thread recycled from R6.

"Am I not allowed to play with my friends?....." <-----The justification attempt in both arguments. Well it's the same bloody argument anyways.

[Domin]

Originally posted by KoRnNut
"Am I not allowed to play with my friends?....." <-----The justification attempt in both arguments. Well it's the same bloody argument anyways.

It's quite obviouse that members are bored when the alliance have to hire own officers for entertainment...

my, highly succesfull, BG consist of real life friends.

[KoRnNut]

Originally posted by Domin


It's quite obviouse that members are bored when the alliance have to hire own officers for entertainment...

I actually enjoy the games and many websights they find that I'd have otherwise never found since I haven't exactly had time to 'surf the web' in a long time. I think many others do too.

Originally posted by WipeOut


I think I know Dingo better than most people, I've worked for and lateron alongside Dingo for over a year. Dingo would never use NoS to elevate the general opinion about him. He cares too much about NoS to do that, and he sure as hell doesn't give a sh|t about his popularity, nor the public opinion on his person.

All Dingo cares about in pa is NoS, NoS, NoS and .... women.

Well said Wipey. Too much bullcrap out there about Dingo fs. He spends all his spare time on NoS. There are people out there in HC positions that merely sit in the position to look good cos in RL they really are inadequate in many ways. Dingo is not one of these people and works constantly with his HC and other officers to improve NoS.

Those of you that defected and are just bitter at Dingo certainly have your annoyances misdirected. They should be at yourselves. You obviously don't see what Dingo does 'behind' the scenes which the officers and HC do. You also obviously forgot the community that we have and thought only for yourselves. Your loss.

As for BG's I don't see them benefitting an alliance at all.. so what if they get you more roids. What good are those roids to your 'main' alliance if you're constantly out attacking with your BG. Conflicts of interest will always arise, such as a target being chosen where a member of the BG has an allied planet and although he may well sit out of the attack to stay in his alliance's good books, he probably won't risk his BG membership by compromising their target with providing his alliance with pre-warning. Some do and some don't. My suspicion is that most don't. Then you have to ask yourself why you are a member of that alliance. If it's for selfish protection of your precious BG gained roids then why should your alliance defend those roids.

[Zahadum]

From what I've seen in the past few weeks. BG's tend to bash more than alliances. ofc if Legion were here I would have to say different, heh.

P.S. Do you think a 2.5 mil Xan being attacked by a 8 mil Terran is really fair?

lol.. of course it aint fair but then that's the way the game is designed. If an 8 mill terran attacked a 2.5 mill Xan (or any other race for that matter) with his full fleet he's doing it for a reason other than roiding as he will NOT get a decent cap at all. If he wants the 15% cap then he has to send a fleet of the same score as the defender at most. So your comment has no real point does it? BG's are no different from any alliance in that respect. Maybe your mate stirred up trouble?

[menth0l]

On a personal level, if a person would choose his battlegroup over his alliance, i say the battlegroup can have him.

[Domin]

Originally posted by Zahadum
From what I've seen in the past few weeks. BG's tend to bash more than alliances. ofc if Legion were here I would have to say different, heh.

P.S. Do you think a 2.5 mil Xan being attacked by a 8 mil Terran is really fair?

Battlegroups takes all targets in the gal and it's just to roid not to kill.... if a 2,5 mill xan got 600 roids give me one good reason for not taking em? even if im 8 mill... because it's not fair? is it fair that kids in africa is starving?

not much is fair neway...

And why is it fair that 10 people at 2 mill attack one at 8 mill?? they most likley got built together alot better fleet than he had against one of you...

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Domin
Friends vs Alliances ain't to hard to choose....

Your alliance are supposed to be your friends as well. If that is not why you were part of NoS, then your decision to leave was both correct and welcome.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by HOPupNdown
Battelgroups is what saves PA , from boredom , shake the old structure of the game and bring in some fun . your cries that these people leech their alliances are mostly selective , ignoring
the BG members that have been in certain alliances from the beginning , defend their alliance often , and still you cannot trust them , or allow them some freedom of thought or play.

It's obvious that you don't have a clue, but never mind. It was power blocks that killed the gameplay, not a single alliance. If all alliances stood alone, there would be no need for BGs that are multi-alliance in the first place.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Domin
It's quite obviouse that members are bored when the alliance have to hire own officers for entertainment...

The statement of a true pessimist. Ever thought that trying to entertain the troops could be to provide a better enviornment?

[Nadar]

Originally posted by Dingo
It was power blocks that killed the gameplay, not a single alliance.

Agree, powerblocks are EVIL and it SUX and it is ONLY for alliances who CANT win themselfs!

[Seth Mace]

Originally posted by Domin
It's quite obviouse that members are bored when the alliance have to hire own officers for entertainment...

Tis something HR has had officers doing for over 3rounds, it provides some of the most funny IRC events ever. It also means even when members leave, they always come back to the cave

[HOPupNdown]

Originally posted by Dingo


It's obvious that you don't have a clue, but never mind. It was power blocks that killed the gameplay, not a single alliance. If all alliances stood alone, there would be no need for BGs that are multi-alliance in the first place.

well , since a big chunk of your members seem to have left at the end of round 7 , and slowly leaving even now , i seem to have some sort of clue after all .

[K03N]

Originally posted by Theamion!
my, highly succesfull, BG consist of real life friends.

and we dont fkin care about xanadu or legion!!!!!!!!!111

The most fun I ever had, and the biggest score/roid wise I ever got was with a little known attack group known as "Gods". Some of you old timers may remember them. There were a few before them and since them ie T&P and Madcows but in my opinion..none ever feared as much as Gods. Just a group of like minded players bent on 1 thing..universal domination. Wait that sounds an awful lot like an alliance to me.... *shrug*

=ZZ=

[Ska]

Originally posted by Zim
The most fun I ever had, and the biggest score/roid wise I ever got was with a little known attack group known as "Gods". Some of you old timers may remember them. There were a few before them and since them ie T&P and Madcows but in my opinion..none ever feared as much as Gods. Just a group of like minded players bent on 1 thing..universal domination. Wait that sounds an awful lot like an alliance to me.... *shrug*

=ZZ=

FFS ZIM, GET ON IRC

Originally posted by Zim
The most fun I ever had, and the biggest score/roid wise I ever got was with a little known attack group known as "Gods". Some of you old timers may remember them. There were a few before them and since them ie T&P and Madcows but in my opinion..none ever feared as much as Gods. Just a group of like minded players bent on 1 thing..universal domination. Wait that sounds an awful lot like an alliance to me.... *shrug*

=ZZ=

Sounds like Legion to me. And, yes, I was in 16:23 as well, if that means anything to you.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by HOPupNdown
well , since a big chunk of your members seem to have left at the end of round 7 , and slowly leaving even now , i seem to have some sort of clue after all .

No Zara, you are simply someone that never really fit in anyway and decided to leave. Your choice.

[cypher]

wasn't gods created a bit later in the round...when they were already on top? (i don't know...just asking? )

[Sirad]

in madcows we dident need to be feared : o )
in round 5 the top 3 vts galaxies hit our #1 madcow galaxy for a week straight and only got thru on me once, (they took 30 of my roids then and payed for them)
there is much to be said for the unknown force, your not targetd as much by the big boys.

[HOPupNdown]

Originally posted by Dingo


No Zara, you are simply someone that never really fit in anyway and decided to leave. Your choice.

ROFL
i didnt fit in nos for 2 rounds