Planetarion Forums

Tietäjä · 27 Apr 2006, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerome

i think we should all attack f-crew, and solely f-crew!! who needs 1up v Omen or such wars when we can have a gangbanging session :drool:

I thought it was ND/Ins v. Omen.

(This thread was started by me as it was an off-topic discussion in another thread, specifically "f-crew FO" - JBG)

Edit. (by the owner of the profile used to create this thread; I'd like to press that I did not start this thread, and that the the post that started this thread was mine from another thread, hence, the topic isn't mine, and the first post of this thread would be better off as a quote on me by JohnnyBGood. I'm rather insulted by the fact that the moderation team here is allowed - or finds it correct - to start threads under other people's names, without talking to them; I would have better understood deleting post or starting a thread of his own instead of a thread under my nick. To clear up the messy situation the moderation team caused).

The_Fish · 27 Apr 2006, 11:06

I thought it was Omen/Angels.

Kjeldoran · 27 Apr 2006, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I thought it was Omen/Angels.

There hasn't been (so far) a single cooperation between Angels and Omen, nor concerning attacks nor concerning defence.

If you claim differently then I call you, and quote me on that, a liar. Either that you have no clue and speak bollocks.

You can quote me (timestamp: 27/04/2006) on this if you like.

JonnyBGood · 27 Apr 2006, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

There hasn't been (so far) a single cooperation between Angels and Omen, nor concerning attacks nor concerning defence.

If you claim differently then I call you, and quote me on that, a liar. Either that you have no clue and speak bollocks.

You can quote me (timestamp: 27/04/2006) on this if you like.

Are you implying by absence that you're NAPed or are you just butchering the english language?

Stifler · 27 Apr 2006, 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Are you implying by absence that you're NAPed or are you just butchering the english language?

Appears to be implying that...

Kargool · 27 Apr 2006, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

(timestamp: 27/04/2006)

Oh, its my dads birthday. I had totally forgotten

ReligFree · 27 Apr 2006, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

There hasn't been (so far) a single cooperation between Angels and Omen, nor concerning attacks nor concerning defence.

If you claim differently then I call you, and quote me on that, a liar. Either that you have no clue and speak bollocks.

You can quote me (timestamp: 27/04/2006) on this if you like.

Haha! Thats almost as funny as when Omen are going to deny that they got Orbit/SiN to wave Insomnia then launched a tick later against the same alliance after telling them to launch same tick.

Such honour!

Kargool · 27 Apr 2006, 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReligFree

Haha! Thats almost as funny as when Omen are going to deny that they got Orbit/SiN to wave Insomnia then launched a tick later against the same alliance after telling them to launch same tick.

Such honour!

Or you claiming that they did?

Proxi · 27 Apr 2006, 11:43

That appears to be the implication.

Mek · 27 Apr 2006, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReligFree

Haha! Thats almost as funny as when Omen are going to deny that they got Orbit/SiN to wave Insomnia then launched a tick later against the same alliance after telling them to launch same tick.

Such honour!

Yes Omen did have Orbit/SiN flak us last night. i was online till 4am so saw it first hand (caused me to oversleep for work tho :/ lol)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

There hasn't been (so far) a single cooperation between Angels and Omen, nor concerning attacks nor concerning defence.

If you claim differently then I call you, and quote me on that, a liar. Either that you have no clue and speak bollocks.

You can quote me (timestamp: 27/04/2006) on this if you like.

And KJ, you guys NAP'd long before we started throwing fleets at Omen and if you are telling me that Omen didnt ask you to keep ND off them last night while they work on us then you are a lier

Kjeldoran · 27 Apr 2006, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

And KJ, you guys NAP'd long before we started throwing fleets at Omen and if you are telling me that Omen didnt ask you to keep ND off them last night while they work on us then you are a lier

Omen approached us to do joint attacks. We kindly declined that. You will not find a single (and I mean not a single) fact that states that Angels and Omen did coordinated attacks of any kind whatsoever.

Fact is, ND and insomnia are the first alliance that did joint attacks this round. Turn it whatever way you want, it doesn't change the fact that you did.

Whether we have a NAP or not is irrelevant, it doesn't change anything since Angels has at no point been aggressive towards your alliance or towards any other alliance. We don't attack with anyone and we don't defend anyone else.

You can take my word on that. If you wish to not believe it then that's your problem.

wakey · 27 Apr 2006, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

Yes Omen did have Orbit/SiN flak us last night. i was online till 4am so saw it first hand (caused me to oversleep for work tho :/ lol)

It always suprises me how often the top 5 manage to trick some 'lesser' alliance into running flak for them. Its normally pretty obvious thats what the alliance is doing when they approach such alliances and theres rarely any real gains for the alliances running flak, especially if its more than just a once off yet they keep getting suckered into it

Clogg · 27 Apr 2006, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

Yes Omen did have Orbit/SiN flak us last night. i was online till 4am so saw it first hand (caused me to oversleep for work tho :/ lol)

Think after your SMS session you know you are wrong about SiN atleast. So I expect a rectificition soonish!

Kjeldoran · 27 Apr 2006, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReligFree

Haha! Thats almost as funny as when Omen are going to deny that they got Orbit/SiN to wave Insomnia then launched a tick later against the same alliance after telling them to launch same tick.

Such honour!

I'll quit playing and posting if you find 1 single proof that Angels and Omen did a joint attack on another alliance. I check our targets EVERY DAY, and so far we've only been hitting full galaxies (entire galaxies), 2 waves MAX on each galaxy, often with 2-3 ticks between the wave.

The_Fish · 27 Apr 2006, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I'll quit playing and posting if you find 1 single proof that Angels and Omen did a joint attack on another alliance. I check our targets EVERY DAY, and so far we've only been hitting full galaxies (entire galaxies), 2 waves MAX on each galaxy, often with 2-3 ticks between the wave.

Without directly accusing you of co-operating...

What proof do you expect to be available to us? IRC logs at command level? leaked target lists about who is taking who?

Just because there is no proof doesn't mean it isn't true.

Mystical · 27 Apr 2006, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReligFree

Haha! Thats almost as funny as when Omen are going to deny that they got Orbit/SiN to wave Insomnia then launched a tick later against the same alliance after telling them to launch same tick.

Such honour!

you ever heard about alliances doing gal attacks.. the one day it might be an insomnia galax the other day a ND galax the day after an omen galax etc.. If your def tool shows incomings from more then 1 alliance , are they teaming up? if that is the case i can state f-crew xvx ND insomnia Subh 1up are an uberblock as my galaxy got incs on the same night from planets belonging to all these alliances.. ;/ so bullocks!

furball · 27 Apr 2006, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystical

you ever heard about alliances doing gal attacks.. the one day it might be an insomnia galax the other day a ND galax the day after an omen galax etc.. If your def tool shows incomings from more then 1 alliance , are they teaming up? if that is the case i can state f-crew xvx ND insomnia Subh 1up are an uberblock as my galaxy got incs on the same night from planets belonging to all these alliances.. ;/ so bullocks!

Don't be ridiculous. Every decent alliance can tell who their incomings are coming from, and whether or not they're being specifically targetted or not.

Any more than 15-25 incomings from an alliance and they're targetting you. Obviously this assumes that you have at least 80% of an alliance's co-ords.

Jonas · 27 Apr 2006, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

There hasn't been (so far) a single cooperation between Angels and Omen, nor concerning attacks nor concerning defence.

If you claim differently then I call you, and quote me on that, a liar. Either that you have no clue and speak bollocks.

You can quote me (timestamp: 27/04/2006) on this if you like.

However, being the first(and as far as I know, at the moment, the only ones) to nap another (top 5) alliance, you are forcing alliances to react.

Jonas · 27 Apr 2006, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

I thought it was ND/Ins v. Omen.

But Keizari, what about the flak? What about the Angels nap and what about you stop telling lies.

JonnyBGood · 27 Apr 2006, 12:09

I split the thread to avoid off-topic badness. New thread!

Proxi · 27 Apr 2006, 12:20

In old AD spirit: Lets all gang Omen, their average is leik, really heigh omg.
[/end12yearoldreasoning]

OlaTa · 27 Apr 2006, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proxi

In old AD spirit: Lets all gang Omen, their average is leik, really heigh omg.
[/end12yearoldreasoning]

Well, after reading this thread it sounds like that.
No matter of the excuses.

Mek · 27 Apr 2006, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by OlaTa

Well, after reading this thread it sounds like that.
No matter of the excuses.

thats a very immature responce from you olata and it strikes me as very "throwing the dummy out of the pram" ont he part of omen if that is the general consensus among the HC/Members

you tried to NAP your way up the rankings ND style

unfortunately ND were good at it...Omen, were frankly a bit shit at it

Tietäjä · 27 Apr 2006, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

you tried to NAP your way up the rankings ND style

unfortunately ND were good at it...Omen, were frankly a bit shit at it

Does that now say, that ND managed to NAP Insomnia? Oi lord Mek, you for one should've probably also just kept your mouth shut. So, once your block (the striving to create one and the existance of which has now been publicly admitted, in a fashion of both Non Aggression Pact and attack coordination)is done with Omen, is it Angels or 1up next?

OlaTa · 27 Apr 2006, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

thats a very immature responce from you olata and it strikes me as very "throwing the dummy out of the pram" ont he part of omen if that is the general consensus among the HC/Members

you tried to NAP your way up the rankings ND style

unfortunately ND were good at it...Omen, were frankly a bit shit at it

Well, mature or not that's yours to decide my young friend.
And besides, if you find anyone in the universe who i have approached with a NAP proposal, then direct him/her to me. I would like to see that person

But i still remembered with what Gate started his post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

From my point of view.

I felt Omen were growing too quickly early on (Congratulations, you obviously have an excellent memberbase, officer structure and organisation <3 ).

So if you want to discuss it, then you know where to find me.
*hint* look below you in your ralliance public channel *hint*

With best regards,
OlaTa.

Alki · 28 Apr 2006, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

thats a very immature responce from you olata and it strikes me as very "throwing the dummy out of the pram" ont he part of omen if that is the general consensus among the HC/Members

you tried to NAP your way up the rankings ND style

unfortunately ND were good at it...Omen, were frankly a bit shit at it

when was Mek allowed to take the high ground?

Jonas · 27 Apr 2006, 12:24

I was looking for replies on the other thread, immideatley struck me that lokken had gone nazi on it :P JGB this time tho :s

<3 active mods

JonnyBGood · 27 Apr 2006, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonas

I was looking for replies on the other thread, immideatley struck me that lokken had gone nazi on it :P JGB this time tho :s

<3 active mods

The beatings will continue until morale improves

Kargool · 27 Apr 2006, 12:57

Just want to explain two terms for people who might be in the dark about what is what.

A nap is an agreement between two alliances not to target eachothers and more or less nothing more.

An alliance between two
alliances is to secure common goals and achive that.

If you claim to have a nap but are doing joint attacks with another alliance, I think that you should call it what it is.

The_Fish · 27 Apr 2006, 13:07

And on a totally unrelated point.

Well done 1up on managing to avoid all this early trouble, nicely growing out of tag (although I don't know how you are still managing to not get roided)

Jonas · 27 Apr 2006, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

And on a totally unrelated point.

Well done 1up on managing to avoid all this early trouble, nicely growing out of tag (although I don't know how you are still managing to not get roided)

Ingal and Buddypack defence + saving up resources. By this time their big players get enough res each day to build themselves out of most of the trouble they get at night. Simple but effective tactic. They played it well.

TheGoaT · 27 Apr 2006, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

And on a totally unrelated point.

Well done 1up on managing to avoid all this early trouble, nicely growing out of tag (although I don't know how you are still managing to not get roided)

Who says we arent getting roided?

JonnyBGood · 27 Apr 2006, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoaT

Who says we arent getting roided?

elviz's enormous stockpile :(((

TheGoaT · 27 Apr 2006, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

elviz's enormous stockpile

((

He has to stockpile we cut him off from deff leaching!

Proxi · 27 Apr 2006, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoaT

He has to stockpile we cut him off from deff leaching!

But the fact that he hasnt had to spend them indicates that he hasn't had severe incoming yet <3

The_Fish · 27 Apr 2006, 13:23

So Angels are Omen are napped. So my original statement was correct? Just because you arent officially co-operating, you are hitting a common enemy and avoiding each other. Of course opponents are going to retaliate, fight fire with fire innit blockers.

(blocking common wasnt serious)

Kjeldoran · 27 Apr 2006, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

So Angels are Omen are napped. So my original statement was correct? Just because you arent officially co-operating, you are hitting a common enemy and avoiding each other. Of course opponents are going to retaliate, fight fire with fire innit blockers.
(blocking common wasnt serious)

Just because nobody has denied nor confirmed there is a nap, means there must be one? ...makes no sence really.

We don't hit any common enemies, unless fat galaxies, these days, are considered 'common enemies' ...

Don't worry, if we'd be hitting an alliance, like ND/anyone else, don't you think you'd NOTICE it?

JonnyBGood · 27 Apr 2006, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Just because nobody has denied nor confirmed there is a nap, means there must be one? ...makes no sence really.

Now you're just being obtuse. However just to humour you I humbly request your most magnificent self to inform the poor unenlightened masses as to whether or not a NAP exists. If you don't want to confirm or deny it STOP POSTING ABOUT IT.

Quote:

We don't hit any common enemies, unless fat galaxies, these days, are considered 'common enemies' ...

Consider, alliance x naps alliance y and alliance as is allied to alliance b. Alliance a and b alternate roiding alliance x and y with varying frequency. Alliance x hits alliance a. Alliance b becomes a better target than alliance a. Alliance y roids alliance b as it is a better target. In a limited universe, 3k as opposed to 30k playerbase, rationally speaking alliance y will be left with very few other targets bar alliance b. This is how your NAP turns into a strategic alliance. The universe is too small for "fencesitting".

Incidentally did Angels naping omen precede ND allying insomnia?

voodoo · 27 Apr 2006, 13:27

first time when 'coincidentally' nd together with insomnia hit omen, omen had decent advantage.both in average roids and score. was last saturday i think.and ever since......well lets just say i wonder how YOU would cope with this many fleets. im rather proud of the way were handeling it...

Proxi · 27 Apr 2006, 13:31

What was the "coincidentally" remark for? I don't see any ND or InS posters denying the fact they they are co-operating.
Besides, it must be fairly easy to keep your average up when you steal back all the roids you lose, mainly by exploiting smaller alliances and using them as flak.
Well done you.

voodoo · 27 Apr 2006, 14:15

to all fighting atm, just try and imagine the laughs 1up is having.
heh
pld 1up!!!

Achilles · 27 Apr 2006, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by furssie

The fact that you block first (i bet you'll classify it in a milder sense)

A NAP is not a block. If the sole extent of Angels/Omen co-operation is that they are not attacking one another then you guys are over-reacting. It's just common sense to avoid incomings from every top alliance.

p.s. Angels ftl, boo KJ, etc. etc.

TheGoaT · 27 Apr 2006, 14:17

Im hardly laughing. I still get plenty of incoming. I dunno where the misconception that we are kicked back relaxing comes from.

TheGoaT · 27 Apr 2006, 14:27

no one seemed to be complaining the last several rounds when we were the ones getting teamed up on. You wanna be in the number spot, take your blows like a man.

Tietäjä · 27 Apr 2006, 14:28

First things first.

It must have been one of the moderators who started the thread. If the person responsible of it would contact me on IRC, I would be glad to have a discussion over it.

Orbit? To be honest, the first time I heard of the alliance was when Lurch (Blade of Scythe HC) came for a chat with me yesterday. So let's clear that off, shall we. Flak alliances? I reckon a lot of time we're hit there are small alliances hitting our galaxies the same time we're being hit. So, most evidently, Insomnia and NewDawn are using these alliances to flak their attacks.

No, I am not denying a non-aggression pact with Angels. A lot of you know why, and the reasons aren't militaristic or political to me. The first alliances to start coordinated attacks together, were ND/Insomnia.

To get to it, the first time Omen received coordinated incomings it was ND/Insomnia on last Friday (to Saturday) night. We were normally revolving at around 40-60 incoming fleets per day, and that night it bounced up into fairly more than a hundred. The incomings were by vast majority NewDawn and Insomnia, and there was no overlapping between these alliances - in no case did an Insomnia pig a NewDawner or vice versa. The fact that they hit a lot of Omens across the universe that night made me first look into it as coordination.

Talking to Insomnia, they naturally denied it, and I said, guess future will show, as NewDawn incomings were quite common to us already (a lot of you may have heard Gate stating early round about NewDawn not going to allow a new alliance to win a round, hence setting against them. So, I figured, let the time pass and we'll see if it really was coordination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonas

And Omen being about the same size/average as Insomnia, a bit higher than NewDawn, they start hitting on NewDawn, using flak to help them.

Our measures were retaliative by nature, and we did not use flak - in fact, we got piggied on several occasions (I was quite wasted having a lot of members PM me for who the FK is piggying me after a long night of assigning) attacking NDers. These measures were taken to shake off ND after they've had their go at us on Friday-Sunday night, as a combined effort with Insomnia. We were forced to react on military scale after a tactical attack on our planets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kargool

A nap is an agreement between two alliances not to target eachothers and more or less nothing more.

An alliance between two
alliances is to secure common goals and achive that.

If you claim to have a nap but are doing joint attacks with another alliance, I think that you should call it what it is.

At this point, we were moving on to be non-aggresion pacted to Angels. Reading Kargool's definitions, our foes had formed an alliance together. As a common goal to destroy Omen, and they've been on their goal for two nights now, and I see no end to it. There has not been any coordination between Omen and Angels save the few times I've PM'd to Kjeldoran or Sjor asking for certain Angels people to recall their fleets from our planets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Omen approached us to do joint attacks. We kindly declined that.

After Saturday's events, we did approach Angels to give us a hand as we were obviously facing two alliances of the top3 coordinating attacks on us. They didn't want to help, and so far there has been no agreed military coordination or cooperation between Angels and Omen. This is NOT the case with Insomnia and NewDawn, though.

Last night, we had another run of tactical attacks, this time targetted at Insomnia (for obvious reasons). We, at the same time, received hostile incomings from both Insomnia and NewDawn, additionally from certain smaller alliances that, if you look at things paranoid, may seem "flak".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proxi

In old AD spirit: Lets all gang Omen, their average is leik, really heigh omg.
[/end12yearoldreasoning]

.fixed quote.

Jonas · 27 Apr 2006, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Orbit? To be honest, the first time I heard of the alliance was when Lurch (Blade of Scythe HC) came for a chat with me yesterday. So let's clear that off, shall we. Flak alliances? I reckon a lot of time we're hit there are small alliances hitting our galaxies the same time we're being hit. So, most evidently, Insomnia and NewDawn are using these alliances to flak their attacks.

Seems awkward that we got "smaller" alliances fakeattacking us, the ticks before and/or the ticks after the Omen fakes had started. For what logical reason would theese peopel send fakes, if they hadnt been appointed by a higher power. And for what reason did the "smaller" alliances only hit the Insomnia in the different gals? The exact same targets that Omen was coming for later. If it was a random galraid, I would assume the gals would be hit aswell, not only the Insomnia...

Afaik the only random galraid incs we got last night came from Subh and HR.

Something dodgy going on here. Never expected you to go brave on us tho, considering you had already napped Angels before round start.

You even asked us for a nap earlier... So that would leave NewDawn your only top 4 target.

We are indeed attacking Omen atm, we got no nap whatsoever but we feel we have to do something about Omen because you're already got the fence so far up your ass you cant get off it unless we break it for you.

Tietäjä · 27 Apr 2006, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonas

And for what reason did the "smaller" alliances only hit the Insomnia in the different gals? The exact same targets that Omen was coming for later. If it was a random galraid, I would assume the gals would be hit aswell, not only the Insomnia...

Afaik the only random galraid incs we got last night came from Subh and HR.

To be honest, I have no idea why smaller alliances would only hit Insomnia in different galaxies. Scanning some of your "top roided" galaxies, though, I see alliances other than SubH and HR galaxy-raiding galaxies with one or more Insomnia in them too. Maybe you should get help with your arbiter, or then just look closer? We have smaller alliances randomly attack f.ex. our larger planets each day, SubH, F-Crew, and HR randomly have been taking down our bigger cathaars for a few times now. Even in a few different occasions. Strange, isn't it, that fat planets gain attention.

Jonas · 27 Apr 2006, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

To be honest, I have no idea why smaller alliances would only hit Insomnia in different galaxies. Scanning some of your "top roided" galaxies, though, I see alliances other than SubH and HR galaxy-raiding galaxies with one or more Insomnia in them too. Maybe you should get help with your arbiter, or then just look closer? We have smaller alliances randomly attack f.ex. our larger planets each day, SubH, F-Crew, and HR randomly have been taking down our bigger cathaars for a few times now. Even in a few different occasions. Strange, isn't it, that fat planets gain attention.

To be honest, I dont think you're being honest.

Kjeldoran · 28 Apr 2006, 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonas

We are indeed attacking Omen atm, we got no nap whatsoever but we feel we have to do something about Omen because you're already got the fence so far up your ass you cant get off it unless we break it for you.

Excuse me?

You're avoiding eachother AND do cooperated attacks. Imo, these days, there is no possible form of closer cooperation. You're indeed not napped, you're allied.

Angels and Omen are only NAPPED and there hasn't been the slightest cooperation or even remote exchange of targets between the 2 alliances.

How can you "accuse" us for napping while you're going a step further, aka allying?

On a sidenote, nothing wrong with a NAP nor with being allied etc, but don't throw stones at us for being napped when you're doing the same and even go a step further.

JonnyBGood · 27 Apr 2006, 14:28

It turns out family guy was right all along. In planetarion wars win you!