|
|
15 Mar 2009, 18:44
|
#51
|
Tides of Fire
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 318
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Pretty epic post.
Obv got plenty of time on your hands, heh.
Everyone's talking about CT's well played politics but in latter weeks I think ND has been most impressive. I mean, they've stayed just behind CT without ever really being hit hard (AFAIK, I may be wrong). They've obviously been in on the on going war, but they seem to have played it well so they're on the winning side more often than not, whereas CT - well.... haven't.
__________________
Quote:
"Hold the newsreader's nose squarely, waiter, or friendly milk will countermand my trousers."
|
|
|
|
15 Mar 2009, 19:40
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 401
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
In all fairness, I think he was joking.
|
Orbit have expressed this opinion before. Either he's using the same shit joke twice or he's not joking.
|
|
|
15 Mar 2009, 20:39
|
#53
|
Fook Yu
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Looked pal
Posts: 383
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newt
Do they have automatic scan answering shit? So scanners just click a link, nothing else. Or if your nick is devlin, you don't even click a link
Anyway **** you hk, we are over!
|
Yes, i believe they do!
And yes let's discuss our relationship on AD. Great way of breaking up with me
__________________
HEROES - It's not cheating if you admit to it
|
|
|
15 Mar 2009, 22:16
|
#54
|
Orbit HC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 184
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellonweb
Orbit have expressed this opinion before. Either he's using the same shit joke twice or he's not joking.
|
I like to milk what precious little material I have.
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 08:31
|
#55
|
Finn.. who's drunk.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 285
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
To OP:
You actually think there's something to analyze in alliance politics.. u can't say the playing by instict is related to skill at all.. It's just certain people's way of thinking how the allies work.. know the people and you know how they'll react.. The mass or whatever behind every alliance means nothing if your target picking is dominated by 1-2 people every round and they always do the same thing inside certain parameters...
Anyways Asc is best roiding alliance this round, But for politics wise.. dunno I'm too busy to bother watching the game as my prediction since week 2 of this round still holds strong. DLR.. they'r doing good, it's easy with good players not to mention whatelse they have done politics wise to ensure it. Anyways all alliances are playing as they see it.. aka doing their old stuff, only bright spot is the fact that DLR seems to be showing people that you can do well with a BG group if u'r not playing to ally win just planet ranks.
It's just too lolz to see if this ends as I guessed just by taking a look at who the "HC's" of alliance where and what they had done that far in the round(aka week 2). If it does.. just analyze the HC's and you'll well into learning how pa alliances work as it's all about personalities even in RL.
__________________
r2 Thieves
r3: top100(p0rks0da rox) r4: top400(excadrix, pcmaster+me=gal 99th) r5: top150(before giving up, nocex didn't rock) r6:evu and drunk dwarf (top50)
r7: wasted c27 gal, sucky luck in clus. r8: In real Finnish infantry.. 270days r9: boring round as hell
r9.5: Top60(small playerbase=easy)
Few won R's in PIA, r26 top15 First/Last Pax round.
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
10 lines max for signature I heard.. so
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 11:56
|
#56
|
BA :P)
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 76
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
DLR give a good reasoning for Alliance limits to be set to the 25 mark !!!.
This would make this game far more interesting.
__________________
BA - Æ Sports it's in the Game
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 13:19
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
i agree with ally limits being reduced.. to 50 for instance.. more alliances, i know there might just b like CT1, CT2, CT3 in that case, but imo its still more fun..
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 13:27
|
#58
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordNieminen
To OP:
You actually think there's something to analyze in alliance politics.. u can't say the playing by instict is related to skill at all.. It's just certain people's way of thinking how the allies work.. know the people and you know how they'll react.. The mass or whatever behind every alliance means nothing if your target picking is dominated by 1-2 people every round and they always do the same thing inside certain parameters...
|
Yes I think there's alot to analise in alliance politics. In you're post you are kind of contradicting yourself. Knowing people and how they react contributes to how politics are played. The "mass" being every alliance means ALOT, with other factorys combined. The more people that involve themselfs with target picking, thinking for others, becomming for self sufficent, is a great contributing factory to a success of an alliance. The more, in my words, "willing", people in each alliance to assign, organise, will allow that alliance to stride. My simple opinion is that Ascendancy is the best alliance for allowing this and ofcourse you see alot of great organised because of the this, the way other alliance are run dont necessarily adopt these type of adventures peoples playing styles and there coordination skills are not used, therefore invalid. Its important more people step up, in my opinion but it makes morale there even when it should be seemingly low, simply because plans are being done, people think they are doing something, people ARE doing something good for the alliance. These sorts of players helps alliances loads as long as that alliance is acceptable to these players. Which is not often the case. To many alliances of a lower tier category hold these sort of players back and there abilitys, 'on and off the pitch', if you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordNieminen
Anyways Asc is best roiding alliance this round, But for politics wise.. dunno I'm too busy to bother watching the game as my prediction since week 2 of this round still holds strong. DLR.. they'r doing good, it's easy with good players not to mention whatelse they have done politics wise to ensure it. Anyways all alliances are playing as they see it.. aka doing their old stuff, only bright spot is the fact that DLR seems to be showing people that you can do well with a BG group if u'r not playing to ally win just planet ranks.
|
DLR politics is good ofcourse, basically because of lack of stupidity, and perhaps if DLR have x4 the members they have allready got, they could of done well this round, in the top scoring alliance sort of rankings.. but to be honest, with too view members its hard to tell, oh and just to let you know DLR will win!
The stupidity in some politics played by certain alliances this round has been very funny. For example, as I can only really relate to my alliance, my self. DLR MAY of helped out in beating Ascendancy down IF it wasn't for the fact Conspiracy hit a DLR galaxy a day or so before, 'the big takedown', therefore DLR fleets were flying at any old fat targets, many of which being Conspiracy because of the amount of hostiles recieved from CT. Omen are another one, who have hit DLR galaxys and DLR planets far too much, forcing us to retaliate, causing there members to defend, and be recalled/relaunched against continuously, weakening morale, aiding Omen's downfal at particular times this round. Non related to DLR, there seems to be alot of problems with alliance politics compared to Ascendancy politics for example. Ascendancy think about there actions rarther then, eyeing up some juicy candy and taking the first bite, they wait it out, knowing how to win, how to accomplish their goals without being retarded. Conspiracy cancelling ND nap?? Well I'll like others imply their thoughts and opinions on that.. but common...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordNieminen
It's just too lolz to see if this ends as I guessed just by taking a look at who the "HC's" of alliance where and what they had done that far in the round(aka week 2). If it does.. just analyze the HC's and you'll well into learning how pa alliances work as it's all about personalities even in RL.
|
Agreed to an extent but please read above to see my discussion on members, 'stepping up', but that too is a result of good leadership to adopt a playing strategy that will allow this.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 14:19
|
#59
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
That may be the way that you do things, but in VGN a planet with insufficient def points gets no defence - whether it has 300 rocks or 3,000.
|
I didnt say we sent fleets to ppl who dont deserve it; we also had a floor below which def was not sent to planets; however by the very nature of DCing some ppl are net contributers and some are net leechers, add to this simple fact that big fat ppl get huge waves requiring relatively more def, their high roid counts are more worth defending, they are on more to provide i scans nag/help DCs or DC themselves and they attack more to become big automatically reducing the def they can send. Ergo it is a nonsense to talk about an alliance that does not flagship, it is only a matter of degree, and im afraid VGN is rather notorious (not so much as CT perhaps ), notoriety is simply the combined experience of the community.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 14:41
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 460
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaster
good point. In omen we also got players like that, our problem is that they are TOO laid back! And dont generate score / crash. Asc got a nice proportion of players playing fairly decent and without crashing, not careing too much about their own planet. Imo I m a perfect example of such a player this round if we had 100 Wishmasters we would win yo!
|
if u had two Foxman's we would have disbanded by now
__________________
Alliance whore.
Attention Whore.
God.
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 14:50
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 460
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
That may be the way that you do things, but in VGN a planet with insufficient def points gets no defence - whether it has 300 rocks or 3,000.
|
Me and Dreamz was ALWAYS on when being attacked, we made our own calcs, helped out with running the alliance on a daily basis, defended and pulled our own weight, Audentes had no flagshipping tactics, but due to this facts, we got defence easier then the slightly smaller players that liked their sleep, had a few defpoints less and did not always pull their own weight, It was never intended to be flagshipping, but for ppl on the outside, it sure looked like it.
__________________
Alliance whore.
Attention Whore.
God.
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 15:48
|
#62
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Everyone looks at Flagshipping as a bad thing: certainly in war certain planets taking excessive defence is a strategic problem - an asset to the enemy. But in peace time it may be helpful - remembering an alliance like VGN has the luxury of choice whether to be involved in wars because no one considers them a serious contender - Planets with a reputation as flagships quite probably get fewer incs because some ppl dont bother as there is no strategic advantage in trying to climb that mountain of defence while not at war.
ofc as this is a negative I have no way of working out if this is actually true.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
16 Mar 2009, 15:53
|
#63
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
I have no problem with flagshipping in the game, though I would have a problem with flagshipping in my alliance. If everyone agrees with that, then flagshipping will cease to exist. Since flagshipping is still alive and well, this must not be the case. You get what you deserve.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
17 Mar 2009, 04:02
|
#64
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
I didnt say we sent fleets to ppl who dont deserve it; we also had a floor below which def was not sent to planets; however by the very nature of DCing some ppl are net contributers and some are net leechers, add to this simple fact that big fat ppl get huge waves requiring relatively more def, their high roid counts are more worth defending, they are on more to provide i scans nag/help DCs or DC themselves and they attack more to become big automatically reducing the def they can send. Ergo it is a nonsense to talk about an alliance that does not flagship, it is only a matter of degree, and im afraid VGN is rather notorious (not so much as CT perhaps ), notoriety is simply the combined experience of the community.
|
Thanks for explaining to me how my alliance works - I don't know how I could have been so misguided.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
28 Mar 2009, 02:26
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
I think the major difference between the alliances has to be how successful they are at running a tight ship. As within any association weather its in a game, organization, military or business, it all comes down to how you are able to keep everything running smoothly. It all starts at the top, if you are weak on top then the bottom will be weak. Its vital that you have people on top who understand what needs to be done to suceed. But they also need to be able to deliver that information effectively down to the lower levels. At the lower levels they need to be held accountable to their team for their actions weather that is possitive or negative. If you look at the top 5 alliances they are for the most part able to control their lower levels and have them be accountable to their team but if a new alliance was to be able to start even with newbies you could achieve top results but having a top team of a few players who can keep the team on course and the lower levels being told this is how you will have to be to be apart of this group and if not you will either be sentenced to something with a negative result to make them realize they need to follow team rules at all times. And not allowing different rules for different people everyone falls under the same rules.
|
|
|
28 Mar 2009, 02:29
|
#66
|
Non directed and witty
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #ascendancy
Posts: 814
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
People spend far to much time analysing things like this and not enough time actually planning decent attacks/defence and making sure allymates dont crash
__________________
CATHAAAAAARGH
I've won 4 rounds.
I'm kinda a big deal.
|
|
|
28 Mar 2009, 02:46
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
All that stuff would be done effectively as long as you have the alliance focusing on keeping the alliance on track. because if your defence fails then your alliance will fail and the same goes with attacks. if your attacks are done effectively then you will fail to achieve the top positions.
|
|
|
28 Mar 2009, 13:09
|
#68
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Essex
Posts: 98
|
Re: Difference between Round 30 Alliances
Quote:
Originally Posted by fattymatty
All that stuff would be done effectively as long as you have the alliance focusing on keeping the alliance on track. because if your defence fails then your alliance will fail and the same goes with attacks. if your attacks are done effectively then you will fail to achieve the top positions.
|
Ever though of changing career to become a life coach?
__________________
MY SMILE ONCE BROUGHT A PUPPY BACK TO LIFE.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03.
| |