Planetarion Forums

16 Sep 2003, 13:01

The first BLOCK comes into effect congradulations for repeating history, Eclipse/Tot/Ely In addition, they are activly seeking out other relations with what they see as minor alliances to buffer there incommings and spread out there firepower to destroy everyone else before they can possibly become a threat.
They indeed have learned not to repeat the mistaks vom made they managed to keep there co-operation from the view of most of planetarion so far.

why in a ever shrinking universe would 3 of the largest alliances seek to form a bond of 450 members + flak alliances/naps to destroy what little fun the smaller guys in rock and nos like to enjoy ?, Oh yes its about the win I almost forgot the only goal in Planetarion is to win at all costs, well it looks like we may have another powergrab by the masters of deception. of course they will dumb down there numbers as they did in round 9 and attempt to pull the same woll over our eyes.

They MAY succeed in overpowering the rest of the alliances in round 10 because of big memberships and still recruiting atm. Its not a bad plan. The big question now is will there be a willingness to co-operate amongst others to challenge them. I just hope there is or we will have another lopsided round.

Hicks · 16 Sep 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Anatnom
Ensign

Registered: Sep 2003

Sigh. Why on Earth do people need to sign up new accounts to leak their super secret intel

KillGhost · 16 Sep 2003, 13:19

Gimmick ahoy !

Maddix · 16 Sep 2003, 13:31

Boring

Quote:

Originally posted by Anatnom
why in a ever shrinking universe would 3 of the largest alliances seek to form a bond of 450 members

I very much doubt Eclipse & Elysium have 150 members each btw, either that or they are averaging about 5.5k score per planet....

xtothez · 16 Sep 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Maddix
Boring :bunny:

I very much doubt Eclipse & Elysium have 150 members each btw, either that or they are averaging about 5.5k score per planet....

We are unleet :(

Desse · 16 Sep 2003, 13:44

lol.

Try reading the nick backwards.

Does the nick Montana remind you of anything ?

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Maddix
Boring

I very much doubt Eclipse & Elysium have 150 members each btw, either that or they are averaging about 5.5k score per planet....

I somehow doubt Eclipse show their full strength at the current alliance ranking.

Scoot951 · 16 Sep 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Treveler
I somehow doubt Eclipse show their full strength at the current alliance ranking.

You can't get the eta -1 bonus without being in the alliance, how many members do you think would be willing to miss out on defence just so they can hide their numbers?

Narziss · 16 Sep 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Treveler
I somehow doubt Eclipse show their full strength at the current alliance ranking.

hmm....thought the same in the beginning...But I really think all Eclipse-members signed up ingame now to use the ETA-1 advantage for alliances....maybe a few left who didn't sign up yet...

Narziss · 16 Sep 2003, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Scoot951
You can't get the eta -1 bonus without being in the alliance, how many members do you think would be willing to miss out on defence just so they can hide their numbers?

LOL....2 f00ls-> same mind

Kjeldoran · 16 Sep 2003, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Maddix
Boring

I very much doubt Eclipse & Elysium have 150 members each btw, either that or they are averaging about 5.5k score per planet....

or hardly half of them are added to the alliance ingame

rgds Kj

The_Fish · 16 Sep 2003, 15:31

*if* its true, then the alliances willing to ally/nap them are pretty stupid... somehow I doubt its true though.

Jorinn · 16 Sep 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Fish
*if* its true, then the alliances willing to ally/nap them are pretty stupid... somehow I doubt its true though.

Unless they managed to stab the strongest alliance of the bunch in the back with the others. In whichcase it would be clever, although that's based on the assumption they could pull it off. Which I doubt.

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Narziss
hmm....thought the same in the beginning...But I really think all Eclipse-members signed up ingame now to use the ETA-1 advantage for alliances....maybe a few left who didn't sign up yet...

I heard some whispers about the fact that you can add members as recruits and not full members. This will give the -1 eta advantage but will not show up on the rankings. I somehow doubt this tho as it seems unlightly that no other alliance has done the same.

Maddix · 16 Sep 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Fish
*if* its true, then the alliances willing to ally/nap them are pretty stupid... somehow I doubt its true though.

If it were true, I imagine a lot of people would nap them, just to save their own backsides (for a while).

Cochese · 16 Sep 2003, 16:15

That doesn't change anything, and you still show up on the rankings.

All it is, is a 'title' to separate the recruits from the members. Fancy how that works.

The HC can then see a list of all the members and what their ranks are...'recruits' can be upgraded to 'members', 'members' promoted to BC, etc etc.

You'd think people would have messed around with this in beta, what with it being fairly important and all

Omnipotent · 16 Sep 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Hicks
Sigh. Why on Earth do people need to sign up new accounts to leak their super secret intel

HI HOMEGIRL!

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
That doesn't change anything, and you still show up on the rankings.

All it is, is a 'title' to separate the recruits from the members. Fancy how that works.

The HC can then see a list of all the members and what their ranks are...'recruits' can be upgraded to 'members', 'members' promoted to BC, etc etc.

You'd think people would have messed around with this in beta, what with it being fairly important and all

Guess Eclipse is just a bit fat bobble of air then with no real military power?

Either that or far from all Eclipse members are added in-game!

Rudmer · 16 Sep 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Anatnom
Oh yes its about the win I almost forgot the only goal in Planetarion is to win at all costs,

one word:

t-shirts

or is that a two word word?

Maddix · 16 Sep 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudmer
one word:

t-shirts

or is that a two word word?

Haven't got t-shirts for a while, since at least R7

Cochese · 16 Sep 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Treveler
Guess Eclipse is just a bit fat bobble of air then with no real military power?

Or they've spent resources building ships, while everyone else keeps building roids they can't hope to defend?

Quote:

Either that or far from all Eclipse members are added in-game!

I wouldn't know anything about that being but a humble, quite content, peon.

Scorpio · 16 Sep 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
Or they've spent resources building ships, while everyone else keeps building roids they can't hope to defend?

Yes, I've noticed that fighters are real efficient at roid-capping

PS Focht in charge of military?

Mav · 16 Sep 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Desse
lol.

Try reading the nick backwards.

Does the nick Montana remind you of anything ?

How closely to do analyse people's threads / posts heh.

By the way, any one in the command o ely / tot / eclipse to say clearly that these 3 alliances are not working together?

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
Or they've spent resources building ships, while everyone else keeps building roids they can't hope to defend?

According to eclipse`s own tick-plan every eclipse member should be close to 200 roids atm and none should be able to "harvest" more then 200 roids! Considering this fact it would be quite stupid to attack to cap roids.

Besides its very easy to defend 200 roids atm as far as I`m told!

Cochese · 16 Sep 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Scorpio
Yes, I've noticed that fighters are real efficient at roid-capping

PS Focht in charge of military?

Are we forgetting that people will have (or are currently building) Frigates today?

Have you noticed the large amount of Zik planets around? Do you have any clue as to what ship Ziks will be building scads of?

I really can't be bothered to connect all the dots here, try to use a little of your own grey matter.

PS Why don't you ask him yourself.

Quote:

Originally posted by Treveler
According to eclipse`s own tick-plan every eclipse member should be close to 200 roids atm and none should be able to "harvest" more then 200 roids! Considering this fact it would be quite stupid to attack to cap roids.

Besides its very easy to defend 200 roids atm as far as I`m told!

I wouldn't know anything about the tick planner, as I haven't read it (skimmed over it) and personally don't need someone else to tell me how to play a game I've been playing for weeks now.

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
I wouldn't know anything about the tick planner, as I haven't read it (skimmed over it) and personally don't need someone else to tell me how to play a game I've been playing for weeks now.

You have a mind of your own? I thought this was Fury!

Razorback · 16 Sep 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Treveler
According to eclipse`s own tick-plan every eclipse member should be close to 200 roids atm and none should be able to "harvest" more then 200 roids! Considering this fact it would be quite stupid to attack to cap roids.

Besides its very easy to defend 200 roids atm as far as I`m told!

According to the universepage atm everyone is closely around 200 roids. Thats no rocketsience m8.
If pa hasnt changed and if your overview is not different from mine its initiating roids under "mining". Considering atm the amount of ships and the lack of tactics researched attacking to cap roids is atm nearly impossible and stupid in total.
Defending 200 roids is as easy as defending 2k roids if you get defence and if you are active, so no secret news here either.

So to sum your statements up. You have found out what everyone else can find out without even playing pa

congratz

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Razorback
So to sum your statements up. You have found out what everyone else can find out without even playing pa congratz

Don’t point at me mate I was stating the obvious and did it be course it seems necessary from what one of your members said!

Cochese · 16 Sep 2003, 18:19

You took my statement at face value though, instead of reading between the lines.

Had I actually been serious, the "

" at the end the sentence would have been absent.

Board posting 101 here folks.

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
You took my statement at face value though, instead of reading between the lines.

Had I actually been serious, the "" at the end the sentence would have been absent.

Board posting 101 here folks.

Well I wasn’t exactly dead serious when I wrote what I wrote either. Hence the "

"

Chaos · 16 Sep 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
That doesn't change anything, and you still show up on the rankings.

All it is, is a 'title' to separate the recruits from the members. Fancy how that works.

The HC can then see a list of all the members and what their ranks are...'recruits' can be upgraded to 'members', 'members' promoted to BC, etc etc.

You'd think people would have messed around with this in beta, what with it being fairly important and all

ppl regged as recruits in the ingame system, doesn't get counted.
I don't know if they still get -1 eta or not as recruit.

Cochese · 16 Sep 2003, 20:35

Well that's news to me.

Seems a bit retarded.

Treveler · 16 Sep 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
Well that's news to me.

Seems a bit retarded.

If the system was made to mearly give an in-game ranking of the alliances it makes sence allthough, if it is true, the in-game ranking will probably mean less then it does now as alliances will demote members to recruits to hide their full strenght.

TehVader · 16 Sep 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese
Well that's news to me.

Seems a bit retarded.

aza1 · 17 Sep 2003, 03:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Treveler
Guess Eclipse is just a bit fat bobble of air then with no real military power?

Either that or far from all Eclipse members are added in-game!

Well i am sure if certain alliances started targetting eclipse now they would be forced to show there hand in regards to thier real strength as thier members would all need that -1eta bonus.

Tomkat · 17 Sep 2003, 10:56

Or maybe we didn't even register the alliance as "Eclipse"...wooh...

Jeez.

Is there a topic on AD that doesn't revolve around Eclipse's workings? I can't believe you're all discussing the number of members Eclipse has.

Morden · 17 Sep 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomkat
Or maybe we didn't even register the alliance as "Eclipse"...wooh...

Jeez.

Is there a topic on AD that doesn't revolve around Eclipse's workings? I can't believe you're all discussing the number of members Eclipse has.

surely you know the value of forcing your opponents into the limelight while you hide out of the way? its been something our mutual sides have done very successfully in the past, guess you got beat to the punch this time though.

G.K Zhukov · 17 Sep 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomkat
Or maybe we didn't even register the alliance as "Eclipse"...wooh...

Jeez.

Is there a topic on AD that doesn't revolve around Eclipse's workings? I can't believe you're all discussing the number of members Eclipse has.

1) Admit you got a nap with ToT.
2) Sign up your members in the AH system as members, not as trialmembers.

And Im sure nobody would bother you anymore, "Einstein".
Just a friendy tip

Razorback · 17 Sep 2003, 14:01

1) why should we do something which you only assume we have done ? prove ?
2) why should we do that if we havent done it ? prove ?

You maybe shouldnt jump the bandwagon to quickly with assumptions and whatever rumors you make up.

Dragons is not far bigger scorewise so where are their members ?
Where are the Rah members ?
The ipc members ?
Questions over questions and i guess none will be answered :/

Tomkat · 17 Sep 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
1) Admit you got a nap with ToT.
2) Sign up your members in the AH system as members, not as trialmembers.

It's quite simple.

Speaking theoretically here, suppose we ARE napped with ToT. We have nothing to gain from telling you, do we?

And if we AREN'T, then we could deny it yes. But you would then ask us in a week or less about a new scandalous rumour that we were napped with someone else.
And if we didn't deny it, but avoided the subject, then you would take that as us saying "Yes we are napped", because we gave a firm answer to the other question about ToT.

Maddix · 17 Sep 2003, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Razorback
Where are the Rah members ?

RaH has no members

Stress · 17 Sep 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Cochese

You'd think people would have messed around with this in beta, what with it being fairly important and all

G.K Zhukov · 17 Sep 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomkat
It's quite simple.

Speaking theoretically here, suppose we ARE napped with ToT. We have nothing to gain from telling you, do we?

And if we AREN'T, then we could deny it yes. But you would then ask us in a week or less about a new scandalous rumour that we were napped with someone else.
And if we didn't deny it, but avoided the subject, then you would take that as us saying "Yes we are napped", because we gave a firm answer to the other question about ToT.

Speaking theoretically here, I would perhaps suggest you tell ToT HC not to idle with their usual nicks on the Eclipse server.

Just a friendly theoretically advice

xtothez · 17 Sep 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
Speaking theoretically here, I would perhaps suggest you tell ToT HC not to idle with their usual nicks on the Eclipse server.

Just a friendly theoretically advice

Find anything on our server too?

Code:

Zhukov was [email protected] * f5hd
Zhukov Real Hostname tunnel-45-13.vpn.uib.no
Zhukov using Venus.ElysiumHQ.com Sun Sep 14 04:16:01 2003
End of WHOWAS

Gerbie · 17 Sep 2003, 16:55

To answer the question in the topic:

NO

This isn't even close to a rerun of round 9. I haven't seen the daily incommings on hostile planets yet. There is no block powerfull enough at this point to overpower the universe. The current situation is more similar to round 9.5 in that aspect.

One block might start overpowering the rest. But if they succeed in that they are stupid f***-ups, because then they will soon be unable to acquire new score. The current scoring system is a mix of the one at the beginning of the first beta and the one they implemented halfway. If the game stagnates, they will be in deep sh*t as they will hardly be able to gain score any more. Getting the higher values will not be enough.

TehVader · 17 Sep 2003, 18:49

I'm going to idle on all major alliance servers and convince Zhukov that we've created a super block!

Still love you though

G.K Zhukov · 17 Sep 2003, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by xtothez
Find anything on our server too?

Code:

Zhukov was [email protected] * f5hd Zhukov Real Hostname tunnel-45-13.vpn.uib.no Zhukov using Venus.ElysiumHQ.com Sun Sep 14 04:16:01 2003 End of WHOWAS

Nope, I was just there to check if I had gotten the correct address.
For all I know, I might get bored in the future, thats why I like to have the addresses of alliance irc servers

G.K Zhukov · 17 Sep 2003, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by TehVader
I'm going to idle on all major alliance servers and convince Zhukov that we've created a super block!

Im member of you own alliance, IDIOT

Still wub ya

Tomkat · 17 Sep 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
Speaking theoretically here, I would perhaps suggest you tell ToT HC not to idle with their usual nicks on the Eclipse server.

Just a friendly theoretically advice

That didn't reply to my post at all. Why did you quote me when you didn't respond to any of the points I made?

Apart from putting the word "theoretical" in another context (albeit an incorrect one), what was your point?

G.K Zhukov · 17 Sep 2003, 19:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomkat
That didn't reply to my post at all. Why did you quote me when you didn't respond to any of the points I made?

Apart from putting the word "theoretical" in another context (albeit an incorrect one), what was your point?

I was trying to help you silly boy.
There's alot of people out there, who manages to ge 4, when adding 2+2.