Planetarion Forums

General1 · 27 Jun 2004, 18:12

several gals are hit by 2 different alliances, at the same time. How is that called????

Pfffff no blocking was the idea. After 200 ticks some people decided to go on a different tour already?????

Nitros · 27 Jun 2004, 18:14

what if..........

its pure coincedence?

[Smurf]Pies · 27 Jun 2004, 18:15

Word up

ph8 · 27 Jun 2004, 18:18

I just wish i understood what the question was

General1 · 27 Jun 2004, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph8

I just wish i understood what the question was

Why people block when they say they don't..................

ph8 · 27 Jun 2004, 18:19

Maybe they have spies!

General1 · 27 Jun 2004, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitros

btw, both taking 1 gal? isnt that abit..erm..overdone? 1 alliance can easily 1 silly gal...or?

2 alliances attacked several gals together

Teh_Necro · 27 Jun 2004, 18:21

Hey Gen mate.

I think it was just co-incidense if i'm honest. I shouldn't fear any rumours of alliances blocking just yet - im having a lot of fun and i imagine everyone else is so why would people want to change it all of a sudden?

Anyways good luck with of round mate, give me a pm sometime as well

.

Nitros · 27 Jun 2004, 18:21

k missunderstood that, my bad

alch · 27 Jun 2004, 18:41

stop the whining so what?
our gal was hitted by 6+ waves at tick 72, my bet would say it wasnt one alliance, but i am sure its pure coincidence, they were all nicely coordinated on 10 planets wave after wave without any piggy back :P

Phil^ · 27 Jun 2004, 19:23

it would be fishy if it was agasint the same alliance, and was done repeatedly. if this is the first signs of blocking starting up to inevitably ruin a round AGAIN, im very very disappointed

if its just the once, its more likely to be a coincidence

Gerbie · 27 Jun 2004, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

it would be fishy if it was agasint the same alliance, and was done repeatedly. if this is the first signs of blocking starting up to inevitably ruin a round AGAIN, im very very disappointed

if its just the once, its more likely to be a coincidence

Blocking does not inevitably ruin a round. It's time we got some real action. Going for the easy roids gets boring after a while.

Mav · 27 Jun 2004, 19:51

Which alliances are you speaking about?

Phil^ · 27 Jun 2004, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Blocking does not inevitably ruin a round. It's time we got some real action. Going for the easy roids gets boring after a while.

it certainly ruined last round

Gerbie · 27 Jun 2004, 21:36

Last round we had fixed blocks before tickstart with allainces swearing in public they would never backstab each other. And we had private galaxies that made splitting a block difficult. This is not last round.

Ofc there is a risk of ruining the round. We should not be blind for the past. HCs somehow don't seem to learn from the past: THEY think they are not going to make the same mistakes others made over and over again. But these rumours alone make the round already a lot more interesting.

ComradeRob · 27 Jun 2004, 22:42

Get a bunch of BCs/MOs/whatever from several different alliances. Tell them to find the best targets they can. I'm willing to bet that they mostly find the same galaxies.

Leinad · 27 Jun 2004, 23:34

i am not sure if the current thing we got is better than blocking.
Now we have a boring roid race. No alliance is able to threaten any other or put em under pressure. The totaly mixed gals make it impossible, u would have to take 5 complete gals just to hit a small percentage of an alliance member size and thats still pretty easy to defend for the other side.
It comes all down to a roid race, no big fights about top spot, just which alliance can motivate his members the longest time.
This solo thing wont work (or better said end in boredom) if gals arent pure alliance gals.
Ofc most pa players wont have the balls to agree to such an idea. U will tell me about defence problems but i can just say that this allways counts for everyone and things like intel, counters and agressive attacking will be more important.
In other games its done, see no reason y it shouldnt be possible here.
But one thing i know is that i dont prefer roid race boredom over blocking boredom.

General1 · 27 Jun 2004, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Get a bunch of BCs/MOs/whatever from several different alliances. Tell them to find the best targets they can. I'm willing to bet that they mostly find the same galaxies.

Oh yeah sure 5 gals get attacked by 2 different alliances at the same time.................

Gimme a break

ComradeRob · 28 Jun 2004, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by General1

Oh yeah sure 5 gals get attacked by 2 different alliances at the same time.................

Gimme a break

I'm just playing devil's advocate

You might be right, some alliances might be blocking. I'm not aware of it happening yet, and since I don't know which galaxies you are referring to, there's no way I can try to find out if it's true or not. If the two alliances in question do the same thing again tonight, then I'll be much more inclined to believe it.

Leinad · 28 Jun 2004, 00:26

tbh they must be kinda stupid to attack together one galaxy.
First its much harder to organise and second if there are alliances working together they would be smart enough to do it not in such an obvious way, they would coordinate attacks but wont attack together one gal.

Jackal2112 · 28 Jun 2004, 01:28

general what if your intel sucks and it was just one alliance..

and why would 2 alliances attack several galaxies together? most logical thing to do would be just to have x galaxies attacked by alliance 1 and the other x galaxies attacked by alliance 2.

tbh this just looks like either a) OMG I GOT ROIDED IT MUST BE BLOCKING or b) your trying to stir up shit from something thats only happening in your head

Boogster · 28 Jun 2004, 01:42

Might Leinad not be right?

What if - peversely - the cause of stagnation this round was the result of each alliance's dogmatic attempts to stay solo, and blocking was the only solution.

Bear in mind, I am nothing more than a peon who stays up late - I know nothing of any consequence. :/

virogenesis · 28 Jun 2004, 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

general what if your intel sucks and it was just one alliance..

and why would 2 alliances attack several galaxies together? most logical thing to do would be just to have x galaxies attacked by alliance 1 and the other x galaxies attacked by alliance 2.

tbh this just looks like either a) OMG I GOT ROIDED IT MUST BE BLOCKING or b) your trying to stir up shit from something thats only happening in your head

7 gals would be hard for a allie to take alone due to the nature of how many online lets say the gals that were attacked had 10 in each but only 7 were in range in terms of score.
That would require 49 members all online at the same time this to me seems highly unlikely as it would mean near enough half the alliance would be attacking which would be very easy to retal.
Don't forget most are around the same size in terms of value & what have you.
So that knocks the idea of claiming 2 targets per person.

Helix · 28 Jun 2004, 02:41

yea, what jumped into my head was bad intel, which is more than plausable this early in the round.

Storebo · 28 Jun 2004, 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Blocking does not inevitably ruin a round. It's time we got some real action. Going for the easy roids gets boring after a while.

True... But blocking shouldn't happen before atleast mid round. That way whomever wins atleast the loosers also got their credits worth. Else sertain alliances just end up getting bashed the first ticks, half of that alliance stop to play and the rest build only defence ships.

Storebo · 28 Jun 2004, 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leinad

i am not sure if the current thing we got is better than blocking.
Now we have a boring roid race. No alliance is able to threaten any other or put em under pressure. The totaly mixed gals make it impossible, u would have to take 5 complete gals just to hit a small percentage of an alliance member size and thats still pretty easy to defend for the other side.
It comes all down to a roid race, no big fights about top spot, just which alliance can motivate his members the longest time.
This solo thing wont work (or better said end in boredom) if gals arent pure alliance gals.
Ofc most pa players wont have the balls to agree to such an idea. U will tell me about defence problems but i can just say that this allways counts for everyone and things like intel, counters and agressive attacking will be more important.
In other games its done, see no reason y it shouldnt be possible here.
But one thing i know is that i dont prefer roid race boredom over blocking boredom.

The game probably needs some big wars, but not so early in the round. First part should be about roiding, getting bigger, getting a decent fleet etc... Then later someone will eventually make war on each other. One side will start to loose a bit, and bring in others etc.. But lets wait with that stuff, let every ally get settled in first.

ComradeRob · 28 Jun 2004, 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogster

Might Leinad not be right?

What if - peversely - the cause of stagnation this round was the result of each alliance's dogmatic attempts to stay solo, and blocking was the only solution.

Bear in mind, I am nothing more than a peon who stays up late - I know nothing of any consequence. :/

Since stagnation hasn't occured yet (we're only a little more than a week into the round ffs), it's a bit soon to say that going solo causes stagnation.

KinGSmity · 28 Jun 2004, 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Since stagnation hasn't occured yet (we're only a little more than a week into the round ffs), it's a bit soon to say that going solo causes stagnation.

Idd, Give it some time and then something is bound to happen later on as usual.

Sinn · 28 Jun 2004, 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinGSmity

Idd, Give it some time and then something is bound to happen later on as usual.

let us hope 'n' pray..

Achilles · 28 Jun 2004, 03:43

Why is it people feel the need to come onto this Forum and spout crap without feeling the need to back it up? YHave a bit of backbone and name names. Lay the blame squarely at the alliances you believe were involved.

At least then this thread would have a small bit of value and might even escape the pit of tedious mediocrity in which in currently resides

Tomkat · 28 Jun 2004, 03:50

1. It is probable your gal (or gal in question, if not yours) was fat, so an obvious target simple by pulling up pilkara and finding a fat target.
2. Would you care to state which 2 alliances were hitting you? Or was just it just a random guess, and you're accusing wildly?
3. Which gal is yours? Were you a smallish fat galaxy?
4. Before you point accusatory fingers at anyone, please specify who you're aiming them at, and where they're supposed to have hit. Otherwise people can't defend themselves, or know what the hell you're blabbering on about.

Nofutcha · 28 Jun 2004, 05:57

whatever happened to allinces having allies without blocks? I liked them

General1 · 28 Jun 2004, 06:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomkat

1. It is probable your gal (or gal in question, if not yours) was fat, so an obvious target simple by pulling up pilkara and finding a fat target.
2. Would you care to state which 2 alliances were hitting you? Or was just it just a random guess, and you're accusing wildly?
3. Which gal is yours? Were you a smallish fat galaxy?
4. Before you point accusatory fingers at anyone, please specify who you're aiming them at, and where they're supposed to have hit. Otherwise people can't defend themselves, or know what the hell you're blabbering on about.

It wasn't my gal and neither my alliance..................

Linkie · 28 Jun 2004, 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by General1

It wasn't my gal and neither my alliance..................

That doesn't help alot.
It's no use coming in here shouting accusations when no one knows who you are accusing.
Give us the names of the alliances you are accusing and maybe this could turn into a sensible discussion, 'cause right now, this discussion is completely useless.

Heartless · 28 Jun 2004, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

it would be fishy if it was agasint the same alliance, and was done repeatedly. if this is the first signs of blocking starting up to inevitably ruin a round AGAIN, im very very disappointed

if its just the once, its more likely to be a coincidence

Start being disappointed. There's too much coincidence around lately.

Teh_Necro · 28 Jun 2004, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Get a bunch of BCs/MOs/whatever from several different alliances. Tell them to find the best targets they can. I'm willing to bet that they mostly find the same galaxies.

sort by ratio.

heh

ComradeRob · 28 Jun 2004, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heartless

Start being disappointed. There's too much coincidence around lately.

I think you're being a bit paranoid, unless you have some real evidence of blocking - and I assume that if you did have such evidence, you would have posted it already.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to suspect the existence of blocks. The amount of incoming on 1up has increased quite a bit over the last couple of days, but there's no obvious sign of blocks or alliance cooperation being behind it. If anyone is blocking, it's probably the smaller alliances, and this isn't really something that the top 5 alliances need to worry about.

General1 · 28 Jun 2004, 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I think you're being a bit paranoid, unless you have some real evidence of blocking - and I assume that if you did have such evidence, you would have posted it already.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to suspect the existence of blocks. The amount of incoming on 1up has increased quite a bit over the last couple of days, but there's no obvious sign of blocks or alliance cooperation being behind it. If anyone is blocking, it's probably the smaller alliances, and this isn't really something that the top 5 alliances need to worry about.

More inc on 1up uhm how come???

they are nr1 alliance and most of your coords are know to the public already.

Razorback · 28 Jun 2004, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by General1

More inc on 1up uhm how come???

they are nr1 alliance and most of your coords are know to the public already.

i think you are missing Robs point.

He stated that he doesnt think there is a block, atleast not a big one yet and supported that with his own, 1up, experiences.

More incomings is normal, especially when u are ontop.

General1 · 28 Jun 2004, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorback

i think you are missing Robs point.

He stated that he doesnt think there is a block, atleast not a big one yet and supported that with his own, 1up, experiences.

More incomings is normal, especially when u are ontop.

Nah I didn't only wanted to clear out why there is more inc on you guys

Hicks · 28 Jun 2004, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heartless

Start being disappointed. There's too much coincidence around lately.

Best ally half the universe and wreck the round again Heartless, just in case.

Razorback · 28 Jun 2004, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heartless

Start being disappointed. There's too much coincidence around lately.

Checking your and all other top20 alliances growthrates roids and scorewise tell a different story.

If there was a block there would be those who lose roids and those who gain more than others.

So far all alliances steadily grow for 8-11% per day so its unlikely someone is focussed on exclusively.

The_Fish · 28 Jun 2004, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

Best ally half the universe and wreck the round again Heartless, just in case.

On a sidenote, I agree with whatever Achilles says, ever.

Tis · 28 Jun 2004, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by General1

Nah I didn't only wanted to clear out why there is more inc on you guys

Id like to clear up something too.

Can you read?

Cayl · 28 Jun 2004, 21:55

Just to bring a few scattered things around the boards together:

What I find most amusing about this thread is that Phil^ finds two alliances happening to hit the same few galaxies at rougly the same time a stretch, and is suspiciously willing to grant that it -might- be a coincidence.

Yet:

Phil^ also denies that 6 people from the same last-round galaxy ending up together in a galaxy of 10 active players, along with 2 or more other supergalaxies of 10 active players with 3 buddy groups in them is anything other than pure coincidence that is almost mathematically -expected- if one could be bothered with math. After all the system can't be abused and the Admin didn't make any mistakes, so there's no other explanation.... right?

Phil^ · 28 Jun 2004, 23:04

i didnt say it was a stretch actually, i said its more likely to be coincidental, as was pointed out above, a juicy target is a juicy target, regardless of what alliance it is

Rumad · 29 Jun 2004, 14:54

everyone needs targets.

Unless you have solid evidence of cooperation stop whining. Lifes too short.

If your planet gets toasted get laid - worked for me in past round ;D

Remy · 30 Jun 2004, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

it would be fishy if it was agasint the same alliance, and was done repeatedly. if this is the first signs of blocking starting up to inevitably ruin a round AGAIN, im very very disappointed

if its just the once, its more likely to be a coincidence

actually, it was 3 alliances i heared, and it was pure coincidence. I dont care if you believe it or not, it the truth. Maybe the gal was just to juicy to neglect