powerblocking in r9.5

[Salomo]

and once again there are powerblocks... nope, perhaps this time not directly through alliances, but at least through battlegroups:

An "independent" battle group often enough has to watch out that it doesn't target those alliances most of it's members are in. As more and more people join such battlegroups, more and more firepower from the theoretically unallied and un-NAPed alliances moves away from the alliances and into the bg's, where through the relationship of the bg to the various alliances this firepower becomes combined and NAPed/allied again. Hardly any difference to alliances directly allieing and forming blocks, except perhaps for the fact that these new blocks are "sliding" blocks in the sense that there are no clear lines of hostilities between alliances anymore, just concentrated power and quasi-NAPs.

Why is it that people just can't resist this blocking?

Why don't alliances simply take back their firepower and play on their own, at least for this one short and very last of the old rounds of PA?

[K-W]

Simple answer, players like battlegroups and join them, alliances are forced to deal with them. Thus it has nothing to do with alliances.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by K-W
Simple answer, players like battlegroups and join them,

Ok, this I understand

alliances are forced to deal with them.

This I also get...

Thus it has nothing to do with alliances.

....but you utterly lost me in your conclusion.



Care to explain? (if not, I'm sure I'll live though, so dont feel obliged )

[Aryn]

alliances can't control the battlegroups.
they could kick out members who join them.. but why would they do that?

[K-W]

Simple, alliances cant stop members from being in battlegroups really. Most players refuse to be that controlled by thier alliance. Plus alot of alliances have lost the structure to organize attacks since bg's took it over. I hated bg's in round 7. They really hurt alliances. But in the end the only choice we had was to accomidate them. They became like galaxies to people.

[RexDrax]

This is the same issue that was discussed during round 8. I am specifically refering to Plush and NoS. NoS took the stance that you are either with the alliance or with a BattleGroup and members of a BattleGroup had to choose. Some choose NoS others choose Plush. The choice is irrelevant and so are the parties involved, but the above illustrates what can happen. NoS did have a point since they where losing quite a bit of firepower that was not under their control. That is what BattleGroups can lead to, the loss of control if your are not careful.

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Aryn
alliances can't control the battlegroups.
they could kick out members who join them.. but why would they do that?

to preserve the integrity of the power of the alliance and to prevent the offensive power being drawn away from the alliance , leaving only an empty shell responsible for providing defence and defensive NAPs. Another reason ofc would be "because it is the right thing to do to stop blocking in all of its forms" but thats more for the idealists among us.

[Psi_K]

Originally posted by K-W
Simple answer, players like battlegroups and join them, alliances are forced to deal with them. Thus it has nothing to do with alliances.

Agree.
EEEEK what's happened to me

[xtothez]

It just an extension of the problem caused by alliance blocking, expecting on a much smaller scale. Caused by the basic will to win, people will do it if it gives them an advantage. Alliance powerblocking wasnt stopped so much by all HCs deciding to play honourably, but rather some singling themselves out by going alone and the rest forced to follow or be demonized for blocking.
While it is simple enough to get the major alliances to follow in this manner, you will not get every single player in the game to do it. Although I can quickly see this becoming the new evil of PA now that powerblocks seem to have subsided. "You beat me because you have more BGs" will replace the traditional "you beat me cos you have more NAPs".

[Maddix]

I wouldn't personally call it 'powerblocking' - in most cases of battlegroups I am aware of the alliances within them avoid their fellow members but not the alliances as a whole - if they did that who would they hit?

Maybe a few battle groups are under the thumb of certain alliances but as a whole I don't think its enough of a problem to class it in the 'powerblocking' category.

[K-W]

Originally posted by xtothez
It just an extension of the problem caused by alliance blocking, expecting on a much smaller scale. Caused by the basic will to win, people will do it if it gives them an advantage. Alliance powerblocking wasnt stopped so much by all HCs deciding to play honourably, but rather some singling themselves out by going alone and the rest forced to follow or be demonized for blocking.
While it is simple enough to get the major alliances to follow in this manner, you will not get every single player in the game to do it. Although I can quickly see this becoming the new evil of PA now that powerblocks seem to have subsided. "You beat me because you have more BGs" will replace the traditional "you beat me cos you have more NAPs".

Heh, not in the slightest. Battle Groups started for several of reasons, the most important three being alliance expansion, alliance recruitment, and sister galaxies.

As the rounds went on alliances like Legion and Fury changed from a close knit group to a larger group that was constantly recruiting. Youd come on and see new faces all the time, your old friends had quit, alliance channels became very impersonal. Channels of friends, old gal channels etc became more important for chatting.

Also, as soon as private gals became the norm, people began attacking as galaxies, this was the beginning of the end for alliance attacks as the primary offensive force. Galaxies of mixed alliances attacked together. Then came sister galaxy setups. It was only a matter of time before people began to turn these into battle groups which differ little in functionality from a galaxy attack.

This is what caused battle groups to start to spring up, and because groups like T&P were the first to do it, and they contained such high profile gals and players and did succceed to an extent, it became en vogue to get batttle groups. And as the players with such connections or who imitated them began doing it, it got to the point that without one it was hard to find attacks.

Thus it reached the point where allainces either had to include battle groups in thier attack plans, or not have any control over thier members. Ordering members to stop attacking with a BG would be rediculous. It would be like ordering them to stop attacking with their galaxies. It might work with a small dedicated allaince, but with a larger allaince it wouldnt. Members dont want thier alliance regulating everything they do. Plus battlegroups arent that different from gal attacks so its hard to justify stopping them.

But then battle groups got out of control. They basically turned into alliances in many senses. Some allainces tried to eliminate them. And now we see that aftermath, battlegroups now are basically second alliances in a sense.

They have absolutely nothing to do with blocking, or at least no more than anything else in this game.

The way to stop this problem is for alliances to start organizing effective attacks so that people dont feel the need to seek attacks elsewhere as well as introducing more controls over battle groups. Any allaince that lets its members attack in groups that dont take targets from it might as well kick that member IMO.

[Jackal2112]

Originally posted by K-W
Simple answer, players like battlegroups and join them, alliances are forced to deal with them. Thus it has nothing to do with alliances.

BS

You join an alliance to fight with your alliance. This means attack and defend with your alliance. Any proper alliance will give their members tools to attack and defend *inside* the alliance.

Battlegroups, in a 'non blocking round' therefor should not cross the thin borders of alliance space and stay within alliances. Any BG created with another purpose is a BG created not just for attacking, but for political gains.

If the HC of alliances who have members in 'multi alliance' BG's approve of this behaviour, go look for their double agenda, because they will have one. Cowards.

[Jackal2112]

But Hey,

If it makes Pack members happy to powerblock...



Where did the chicken go ffs?

[K-W]

Originally posted by Jackal2112
BS

You join an alliance to fight with your alliance. This means attack and defend with your alliance. Any proper alliance will give their members tools to attack and defend *inside* the alliance.

Battlegroups, in a 'non blocking round' therefor should not cross the thin borders of alliance space and stay within alliances. Any BG created with another purpose is a BG created not just for attacking, but for political gains.

If the HC of alliances who have members in 'multi alliance' BG's approve of this behaviour, go look for their double agenda, because they will have one. Cowards.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why dont you try actually finding out what happened in the top alliances from rounds 4-7 when BG's developed instead of coming in with your unfounded assumptions and rediculous, conspiricy theory type explenation.

[Salomo]

Much of what you wrote makes a lot of sense, but:

Originally posted by K-W
Ordering members to stop attacking with a BG would be rediculous. It would be like ordering them to stop attacking with their galaxies. It might work with a small dedicated allaince, but with a larger allaince it wouldnt. Members dont want thier alliance regulating everything they do. Plus battlegroups arent that different from gal attacks so its hard to justify stopping them.

It's not like ordering them to stop with their galaxies at all. Galaxies are not only about attacking, they are just as much (if not more) about defense. Promoting galaxy attacks hence not only serves the purpose of adding the firepower of galaxy-mates to that of the galaxy-dominating alliance(s), galaxies also provide the alliance with defensive assistance for the alliance members in those galaxies. Galaxies share the duty of defending their members together with alliances, and both bring unique advantages into the relationship: Thealliance brings it greater political, organisational, and military weight, the galaxy provides faster attack detection trough galaxy status and last minute defence through lower eta. So strengthening the galaxy with galaxy attacks is also in the defensive interest of the alliance.

Battlegroups do no suich thing. Even if they do perhaps help defend the alliancemembers a little, they have none of these special advantages that they can bring into the relationship with the alliance. All they do is compete with the alliance over controll over the alliance's member's firepower, taking away more and more controll over offensiv firepower in return for uncertain controll over aditional firepower. In adition through their gained firepower the bg's even start to beome real political players.

So while allowing people to attack with galaxies brings unique advantages to both sides, allowing them to attack with bg's does not, but rather add competition to the alliance. Hence it would be very justified for alliances to prohibit it's members attacking with bg's.

Originally posted by K-W

They have absolutely nothing to do with blocking, or at least no more than anything else in this game.

That last part of that sentence is a nice salvatorian clause, but it doesn't save the sentence from being wrong. bg's create relations that prevent attack for large groups of members since every alliance tries to excercise controll on the mixed bg's and by not targetting the alliances with most influence on them they have to make a concession to those "donor"-alliances (they donate their firepowers and members to the bg). That creates the same situation alliance-powerblocks do: Large parts of the pa-comunity are prevented from attacking each other and instead have to focus their firepower on the remaining few alliances they can attack without problems.

Originally posted by K-W

The way to stop this problem is for alliances to start organizing effective attacks so that people dont feel the need to seek attacks elsewhere as well as introducing more controls over battle groups. Any allaince that lets its members attack in groups that dont take targets from it might as well kick that member IMO.

exactly!

and more than that, just as alliances (at least officially) decided to not block so much at least for this last one of the old rounds they should decide to withdraw their members from bg-created powerblocks. It helps the alliance regain it's real power, stop them being reduced to mere defensive helpers of the bg's, and hlps the game, and therefore is the best thing to do for the individual alliance and for the comunity as a whole.

[Jackal2112]

Originally posted by K-W
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why dont you try actually finding out what happened in the top alliances from rounds 4-7 when BG's developed instead of coming in with your unfounded assumptions and rediculous, conspiricy theory type explenation.

I played during these rounds and I am not saying your theory on how BG's were formed is in any way wrong. What I *am* saying is that BG's should not have to be around right now and that any current HC and alliances allowing their members to be in ones are caused either by gaining a political advantage, or are caused by the inability or fear of an alliance of losing to much members if they deny their members BG membership.

The part where I disagree with you is where you claim alliances are forced to having to deal with members participating in BG's. That depends on the goal of the alliance, the political agenda of the HC, and the authority of the HC. I say KICK THEM OUT!

[waassaa]

we have set up "attack groups" for this round, with only alliance members, if ppl wanna attack with thier own bg's we asked them to leave the alliance.

The bg's abuse the alliances, normally using them for def (also giving def ofc (when it suits them, ie when they ain't out attacking with all slots) and taking alot of firepower in attack away.

And what makes the whole thing worse, certain bg's after having help from thier alliances all round, then tag as a bg at end of round and expect to be hailed as l33t.

If they are not 100% with the alliance KICK THEM OUT.

[skipper]

What about LDK, i've always thought they're attacking with the alliance or are they spread on bgs also? MIght be that LDK just did the last massive allianceraids..

[K-W]

Salomo

People attacking with thier galaxies isnt about strengthening defense. One would assume that galaxies that dont attack together still defend each other. It comes down to the fact that its very easy to just organize attacks with the group of people you know, trust, have worked with before and have been handpicked to be in your galaxy. You can plan more intricate attacks, there is less competition for targets, there are numorous advantages for both the individual and the alliance. Battlegroups share all these advantages.

Originally posted by Salomo
All they do is compete with the alliance over controll over the alliance's member's firepower, taking away more and more controll over offensiv firepower in return for uncertain controll over aditional firepower. In adition through their gained firepower the bg's even start to beome real political players.

Well, this is whats wrong with BG's when they become alliances. When a BG is just a group of players who organize raids together its one thing. When they elect commands, have policies, and start demanding loyalty, they become psuedo, or even real alliances. This is not something that is inherent in the idea of battle groups, but something that many alliances have allowed to develop, and something I think alliances need to put a stop to. Its no different than allowing dual alliance membership. But alliances are used to sharing loyalty with galaxies, so you can see how this loyalty sharing didnt seem so bad at first.

Originally posted by Salomo

That last part of that sentence is a nice salvatorian clause, but it doesn't save the sentence from being wrong.

The last part of the sentance was my point, not a salvation, but it was hardly wrong. You could link anything in this game to anything else. But while they may cause similar problems, BG's are not in any significant way related to powerblocks. IE this round where there are no blocks, but thier are battlegroups. Just because two things have similar results doesnt mean they are related.


Well as much as I struggled with BG's when I was with Fury, most of those BG's were run by and took targets from us, so it wasnt as big a problem as I imagine it is for many medium sized alliannces who get thier members poached. If my members want to have a BG and take targets only from us, thats not particularly bad, its up ot the med alliance to insist on similar policies.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Jackal2112
I played during these rounds and I am not saying your theory on how BG's were formed is in any way wrong. What I *am* saying is that BG's should not have to be around right now and that any current HC and alliances allowing their members to be in ones are caused either by gaining a political advantage, or are caused by the inability or fear of an alliance of losing to much members if they deny their members BG membership.

The part where I disagree with you is where you claim alliances are forced to having to deal with members participating in BG's. That depends on the goal of the alliance, the political agenda of the HC, and the authority of the HC. I say KICK THEM OUT!

Well you are making a similar mistake that many make with blocks. Blocks themselves are not bad inherently and niehter are battle groups. A group of players who attack together is not bad. But like blocks, battle groups have developed in ways unhealthy for the game, so just calling them bad leaves us with an inadequate basis for trying to affect change.

Well you last paragraph makes it clear that you dont understand what it means to be a HC. You cant run around just changing policies and ordering members around etc. You have to make reasoble policies and take into account what your members want. Well you dont have to but you do to be a good HC. BG's developed very naturally and now are important to people. So you dont just come on one day and scream STOP BEING IN BATTLE GROUPS. I wouldnt stay in that alliance and I wouldnt expect anyone else to either.

Having your alliance members attack in groups and even include some friends or wahtever is a perfectly valid attack strategy. Other people hit the nail on the head, all alliances have to demand that members are attacking and defending with them. Whether it be with a group that takes targets from them or in organized raids.

[Griffin]

Originally posted by Salomo
[B


Why is it that people just can't resist this blocking?

[/b]

Because people are afraid of loosing, afraid of others blocking and not them.
To sum up, people are pussies.

[Cicada]

I agree with Germania

[Salomo]

after some length discussion i have come to the conclusion that in fact one needs to distinguish between 3 cases:

1) The BG belongs to one alliance. It then is basically jut an extension of the alliance, is no pseudo-powerblock, and helps the alliance get more firepower. If it is not strongly attached there is ofc the danger of it leaving the alliance at some point, but thats the same risk the old wing system has that rarely manifests itself as long as the alliance is doing well

2) BG's that contain multiple alliances and hence avoid hitting those alliances that make up the majority of the bg. These are quasi-powerblocks in the sense that for them the members of many alliances are untouchable and hence firepower is focused on those not belonging to the bg-quasi-block. This is not too bad for the alliances with members in it except that they loose controll over part of their firepower, but the effcts are the same as those of blocks, but perhaps on a smaller level depending on the BG size and the size of its members' alliances

3) BG's that don't care about alliances at all and hit who they please. These are more like alliancs hiding behind the bg name and any alliance letting its members join them is absolutely foolish, as it gains them nothing at all

[K-W]

I dont see why you insist on labling them as power blocks. THey are completely different things.

No alliance is going to avoid going to war with another alliance because a battlegroup shares members, at least I hope to god not. That would be pretty rediculous. Battle groups have alot more to do with fence sitting than with powerblocks.

As far as your catagories, thats fair.

[Ditcher]

I wonder how alliances started in the first place..
Bad thing is that people dont want to let their former group/alliance of people go and go on with the new one.

BG's are like todays "elite" alliances.

[N0VA]

The largest factor missing from Battle Groups to support the arguments in this thread is that of diplomacy. Battle Groups are not recognized as political entities, nor do they attempt to engage in political activities such as NAP's, Alliances, etc. There may be some exceptions to this rule, but those exceptions I would hestitate to label Battle Groups.

This is significant because you really cannot have a power block without diplomacy, extensive arrangements, etc. It is possible that the alliances present in a Battle Group can influence the politics of those alliances overall, but the same can be said of Galaxies (both random and private) and Clusters/Parallels - but I do not see any sane person screaming on the boards how Parallel 1 is powerblocking.

[Salomo]

Originally posted by K-W
I dont see why you insist on labling them as power blocks. THey are completely different things.

No alliance is going to avoid going to war with another alliance because a battlegroup shares members, at least I hope to god not. That would be pretty rediculous. Battle groups have alot more to do with fence sitting than with powerblocks.

As far as your catagories, thats fair.

i do not insist on labeling them powerrblocks, i have now labeled category 2 bg's quasi-powerblocks as indeed certain elements of a powerlock are missing. The main component of a powerblock, a larger number of targets unavailable to members and hence firepower being focused on the remaining targets, is still present.

To hopefully make what i mean more understandable i shall try to give an example: BG alpha has 60 members. 20 of their members are from alliance A, 18 are from alliance B, and 10, including the BC's, are from alliance C. The alliance A members refuse to attack alliance A and are only allowed to remain in BG and alliance as long as this does not damage alliance A (which would be the case if bg alpha targetted alliance A). The same applies for the members of alliance B and C. Therefore the BC's, that try not to have their bg target their own alliance anyway, avoid alliance A, B, and C as targets, since otherwise they might loose many or important members of their BG. Now basically all of te BG can not target these 3 alliances, being in a semi-NAP situation with them.

Of course one can say, "BG alpha has only 60 members, big deal if 60 people can't attack certain alliances." The problem is, that there also is BG beta, and gamma, and epsilon. The result is, that you have many smaller groups that wont target several larger groups (the alliances with members in it). As things progress more and more people join BG's (at least i have seen this trend of more people having BGs for a while now), so more and more people are restricted in their targets, very muich like they would be if there were powerblocks. Of course they could attack the alliances their BG's can't target on their own, but if you have a nice BG that gives you a nice and successfull raid every night why would you?

[Salomo]

Originally posted by N0VA
The largest factor missing from Battle Groups to support the arguments in this thread is that of diplomacy. Battle Groups are not recognized as political entities, nor do they attempt to engage in political activities such as NAP's, Alliances, etc. There may be some exceptions to this rule, but those exceptions I would hestitate to label Battle Groups.

This is significant because you really cannot have a power block without diplomacy, extensive arrangements, etc. It is possible that the alliances present in a Battle Group can influence the politics of those alliances overall, but the same can be said of Galaxies (both random and private) and Clusters/Parallels - but I do not see any sane person screaming on the boards how Parallel 1 is powerblocking.

You seem to underestimate the many types and layers of diplomacy. The arrangements may not be as extensive and detailed as between alliances, but simple dimplomacy in the style of "don't target our alliance or we have to ask our members to decide between BG and alliance" or "yo, our alliance needs to be represented in the command somehow" in the various shades and colours these diplomatic efforts come are diplomacy (or political activities) as well.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Salomo
snip

I completely and totaly understand your point, but you need to stop using the word powerblock.

BG's do create odd webs where members of alliances are, through thier BG's connected to other alliances. And it does create tangles in the game. its a topic that deserves more discussion and to be looked at carefully, But it is not like, related to, or anything to do with powerblocking. Its not a good comparison and why throw that word into the discussion, when its obviously a whole issue unto itself.

Inter-alliance battlegroups, and battlegroups that walk that fine line where they become psuedo alliances is the issue.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Salomo
You seem to underestimate the many types and layers of diplomacy. The arrangements may not be as extensive and detailed as between alliances, but simple dimplomacy in the style of "don't target our alliance or we have to ask our members to decide between BG and alliance" or "yo, our alliance needs to be represented in the command somehow" in the various shades and colours these diplomatic efforts come are diplomacy (or political activities) as well.

How does this or anything else you've described differ from galaxies? Members try not to attack the alliances of other galaxies present - alliances afford limited protection to non members in the galaxy, etc. Alliances try securing GC/minister positions, etc. Instead of booting a BG member, you can either exile a galaxy member or allow him to be roided into the ground.

Battle groups, especially in randomized universes, are politically equivalent to private galaxies of yore - the only real differences are that they don't have decreased eta's amongst each other, and they are a lot harder to take down.

[K-W]

Originally posted by N0VA
How does this or anything else you've described differ from galaxies? Members try not to attack the alliances of other galaxies present - alliances afford limited protection to non members in the galaxy, etc. Alliances try securing GC/minister positions, etc. Instead of booting a BG member, you can either exile a galaxy member or allow him to be roided into the ground.

Battle groups, especially in randomized universes, are politically equivalent to private galaxies of yore - the only real differences are that they don't have decreased eta's amongst each other, and they are a lot harder to take down.

The mui important difference is that they are bigger, thus issues that are too small in galaxies become much bigger in BG's and become problems.

[Hardin]

Originally posted by K-W
The mui important difference is that they are bigger, thus issues that are too small in galaxies become much bigger in BG's and become problems.

Such as? (not ironic)

[K-W]

Originally posted by Hardin
Such as? (not ironic)

Well, the things weve been talking about.

Mixed loyalty. Alliances run into gal/alliance loyalty clashes fairly often, hostiles in gals among other things. Its problematic, but BG's also create loyalty issues of a larger scale due to size and less localization.

Loss of military control. Members attacking with thier galaxies is a decentralization of military control, but since galaxies are small its manageable. BG's not only are larger, but they demand more military authority themselves. And even in def. Members defending thier galaxies is not a big deal. Usually when their gals are hit so are they, and its just def swapping. But with BG's youve got more people and they are spread out, so members defending people in thier BG's drains ships from alliance defence.

Those would be the two biggies. BG's are just like galaxies. Another group that the player belongs to that make demands of them.

[Hardin]

Thanks!

Back to the original topic.

Not all BG's are necessarily tied into alliances...

In R7 I helped found and run Lost Avengers - a small BG of approximately 15/20 members many of who were unallied and the rest from whole variety of allies.

Targets were picked simply on the basis of roidability and rewards - normally through Sandmans/Pilkara and subsequent scans. It didnt matter what alliance the target gal was.

Members who had a conflict with the target selection either because they had allies in the gal or friends were not obliged to attack.

The only rule was that members NEVER EVER gave an advance warning to their gal / alliance about the impending attack.

AFAIK no one ever did!

Very rarely would any attack be cancelled for alliance/friends reasons.

We would have a target a day and usually if a member could not attack one night for whatever reason they normally could the next.

On many many occasions our attacks resulted in the target gal having the distinction of being 'most owned' for that day!

The main problem we faced was that some of our members grew massively... and because many were unallied and in the same gal they were often as likely to lose roids as steal 'em

We are reforming this round...and as I am no longer allied I have freedom to pick targets from anywhere in the universe simply on the basis of collecting the most roids most easily.

Point is that not all BG's are necessarily tied to alliances and the 'powerblock' thing.

- some like Lost Avengers will simply play for the roids and their members - sod the alliances (except Oly ofc )...