Round 19 Predictions

[Ziw]

As angryduck pointed out, there's really no fun in loseing, but either eX schould not be considered actually able to win the round.
To be fair, if the rounds goes our way, the most impact we EVER could have done is partly deciding who's NOT going to win the round by joining some block.

[pig]

Like Germania said, eXilition should take it as a compliment that they are held in such high regard by members of the community.

If you get hit, who cares you arent playing seriously.

I just want to add its interesting how X (lets call me and a few others x) are coming on here and saying "Kill eXilition from t72/Ensure they dont win the round" and then we have Y (lets call eXilition members past and present) coming here and going "Don't hit us, we are only playing for fun!"

The point is Y, if you were only playing for fun who cares if you get twatted, the more Y defends itself the more X and perhaps A-Z believe that eXilition will be a threat in some form or another.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Lord^

Maybe 1up was what kept the game running, and now that it isn't Exilition left. Once they completely fold and leave, we just left with an empty shell with people just playing to play because they haven't found their new game. Or they the rats on a sinking ship.

I have to wonder that.

With 1up and eXilition, most alliances knew, in their hearts, they weren't really going to win.

And I wonder just how many of the playerbase are really into the politics and keep playing because of hte standards imposed by 1up and eXilition.

I think that even if standards are lower (Which they probably will be without an alliance as organised and motivated as 1up around), it definitely has the potential to be far more interesting to the average player as for the first time since round 11, someone else stands a chance at winning (let's ignore ascendancy for this bit). After all, it's numbers of players rather than the importance of individual players that is the most important thing in keeping PA alive; if 100 hardcore players lose interest it's financially better than 1,000 'normal' players losing interest.

We'll see, I guess.

[shik]

ask me.
eXilition can either a.) take an easy roundwin or b.) doing what they told us and make pa interesting again.
since eXiltion plays with heart, they wont do a r17-1up, and a r12-1up aint doable.
i think eXilition will really do how they said, as everything else would be contra productive if they want any competetion for future rounds or any pa at all in the future.

and, for round 19 winner predictiion, the eternal number 2 []LCH[] and the new eternal number 2 (since lch doesnt play fo real anymore) [Omen] will have a fight for that spot they want so much, and the loser will win the round.

[pig]

Originally Posted by shik

since eXiltion plays with heart

My bad bad bad hangover was almost cured by this comic line.

Thank you.

I agree witht the prediction, I see LCH and Omen fighting it out for number 1. But we will see.

[Cartman]

Originally Posted by pig

My bad bad bad hangover was almost cured by this comic line.

Thank you.

I agree witht the prediction, I see LCH and Omen fighting it out for number 1. But we will see.

how can u say thats a comic line.. u should have seen we play with heart and dedication.. if not we wouldnt have been able to beat 1up 3 times..

[MaxMilliaN]

pig has been too much brainwashed by his masters.

i think Angels will be a surprise this round.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by pig

The point is Y, if you were only playing for fun who cares if you get twatted, the more Y defends itself the more X and perhaps A-Z believe that eXilition will be a threat in some form or another.

This is stupid. Playing for fun involves things like attacking people who don't like or hitting planets sitting on the fence. It doesn't involve not giving a shit about your account, it involves not being too bothered if you don't finish #1.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Cartman

how can u say thats a comic line.. u should have seen we play with heart and dedication.. if not we wouldnt have been able to beat 1up 3 times..

I agree you are a dedicated group of players who enjoy working with each other and towards a common goal, as I believe I stated earlier probably the best group of players left in the game.

What made me laugh is not me questioning the dedication or belief and enjoyment the eXilition members and command have, but rather the tactics.

I probably should of quoted the rest of the line (apologies) but what made me laugh is at the reference that eXilition wouldn't try and do something backhanded, hidden, as in a suprise. I find this hard to believe personally.

Originally Posted by shik

since eXiltion plays with heart, they wont do a r17-1up, and a r12-1up aint doable.

Why do I find it hard to believe? Because my belief is that no matter the alliance, they will try the upmost to win. There are many examples round after round.

Once again I apologise if it came over differently than I wanted it too. I must of still been drunk.

Originally Posted by Maxmillian

pig has been too much brainwashed by his masters.

I say what I believe. No one has brainwashed me. Although I hold my HC in the highest regard.

Originally Posted by JBG

This is stupid. Playing for fun involves things like attacking people who don't like or hitting planets sitting on the fence. It doesn't involve not giving a shit about your account, it involves not being too bothered if you don't finish #1.

I disagree and agree. Playing for fun can be exactly what you have described it can also be logging in when you are drunk and crashing your fleeet somewhere. Playing for fun was in my eyes not taking the game too seriously and not caring. You can have fun, yet play seriously but solely playing for fun I thought and have done is not giving two ****s. Although lets not get dogged down with defanitions.

[JonnyBGood]

Okay, let's not. What part of receiving 24 hour incoming do you perceive as "fun" pig?

[Tomkat]

I loved being eXilition so will be very happy for them if they win.

However, I do hope that Omen/LCH/ND do heed pig's words and hit them. If eXilition then win, it'll be an admirable win and they'll be rememebred as one of the great PA alliances. If they walk through because the aforementioned 3 alliances are pansying around hitting random galaxies and all growing slowly but surely, then it won't be as great a win.

If Omen/LCH/ND do hit eXi and take them out of the runnings, it'll be very interesting to see who comes first. I consider all 3 to be contenders for #1 and I'd like to see a new era of alliances competing for that position.

For once, I'd actually like to see some sort of bookies event for this as I think the odds would be even for all 4 alliances I've just spoken about (as long as Omen/LCH/ND don't fanny about and let exi climb to the top). PA should look into it. I know that I for one would put at least £20 spread across a few different bets (top alliance, top planet's alliance, etc). It'd be a brilliant moneymaking scheme.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay, let's not. What part of receiving 24 hour incoming do you perceive as "fun" pig?

Maybe the bit where you get so pissed off you close the browser and never return to planetarion again.

That sounds pretty fun to me.

[pig]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay, let's not. What part of receiving 24 hour incoming do you perceive as "fun" pig?

The part where you steal your attackers ships, that would amuse me I guess, and equate into a certain level of "fun".

[jerome]

stop being silly

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by pig

The part where you steal your attackers ships, that would amuse me I guess, and equate into a certain level of "fun".

Dear Diary,

Today I beat pig's head in with a blunt object. I know we agreed to try and decrease our violent response to wilful stupidity but you're just a ****ing book and don't have feelings so **** you.

[pig]

Anyway back to my point, if alliances ignore the perceived threat (perceived by myself and many others of this fine and established community) then eXilition may win. If they are playing for "fun" rather than rank then I say keep an eye on eXilition, if they start growing and shooting the shit about roiding then cnut them.

The same rule goes for all alliances I am sure. Keep an eye on everyone and anyone you never know what will happen these days.

Originally Posted by JBG

Dear Diary,

Today I beat pig's head in with a blunt object. I know we agreed to try and decrease our violent response to wilful stupidity but you're just a ****ing book and don't have feelings so **** you.

I'm completly offended by that comment.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is stupid. Playing for fun involves things like attacking people who don't like or hitting planets sitting on the fence. It doesn't involve not giving a shit about your account, it involves not being too bothered if you don't finish #1.

Exactly my point. If you arent bothered to finish #1, then you really wont care if you get roided early in the round. Thus if an alliance playing for fun gets hit hard early in the round, it wont stop them from continuing to play for fun.

Okay, let's not. What part of receiving 24 hour incoming do you perceive as "fun" pig?

The part where you work hard with your alliance to defend yourselves while planning attacks on your enemies. But im not sure how this relates to the discussion. I dont think anyone has suggested that exilition or anyone else be bashed non-stop all round, just that with exilitions history of success and elite play it would behoove other alliances to test thier strength early.

As you stated earlier:

The best exilition could manage would be somewhat similar to a r17 1up scenario and to be honest if everyone fell for that again we might as well just call the game off and go back to the National Tiddlywinks Championship (I believe it's in Sussex this year!)

The way you dont fall for that again is by attacking an alliance early in the round so you can locate them, expose thier strength and deny them the opportunity to grow rapidly and without check. If it turns out that they arent in-fact that strong or arent growing that rapidly, you move on.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by K-W

Exactly my point. If you arent bothered to finish #1, then you really wont care if you get roided early in the round. Thus if an alliance playing for fun gets hit hard early in the round, it wont stop them from continuing to play for fun.

Speaking as someone who has done it, and probably a lot more often than anyone else who posts that regularly on the forum, getting hit a lot early on is no fun. In general you lose interest towards the end of the round (as the fun things get proportionally more difficult to do). If you're playing for fun you're more likely to lose interest if your planet dies.

The part where you work hard with your alliance to defend yourselves while planning attacks on your enemies. But im not sure how this relates to the discussion. I dont think anyone has suggested that exilition or anyone else be bashed non-stop all round

Well presumably considering the suggestions of three or more 60-80 man alliances "twatting" eX from tick 72 I'd rather imagine they drop out of bash some time around tick 350 or so.

just that with exilitions history of success and elite play it would behoove other alliances to test thier strength early.

Personally I'd find better things to do, as I explained above.

The way you dont fall for that again is by attacking an alliance early in the round so you can locate them, expose thier strength and deny them the opportunity to grow rapidly and without check. If it turns out that they arent in-fact that strong or arent growing that rapidly, you move on.

Attacking is different to "twatting". And your last proposal there is far different to what pig proposed, gate endorsed and you smiled benevolently on.

[lokken]

The best way to play for fun is to do well early on, gain score and use it as a platform to be less active as the round as gone, while being able to keep going.

[jerome]

why do you all care if ex win or not anyway, it's not like gangbanging them will make your respective alliance any better, nor find a more worthy winner for the round.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by jerome

why do you all care if ex win or not anyway, it's not like gangbanging them will make your respective alliance any better, nor find a more worthy winner for the round.

Surely alliances can care about trying to win? :/

[jerome]

we both know only 1up and exilition have been alliances that truly cared about winning, what's changed? that 1up aren't playing? nothing changed when 1up did but exi didn't, why now? come on guys! we all like the same formulaic sequence of events at planetarion here why change??? everything must be the same, even the pateam agree with that sentiment!

[K-W]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Speaking as someone who has done it, and probably a lot more often than anyone else who posts that regularly on the forum, getting hit a lot early on is no fun.

Getting hit alot is arguably never fun (although I enjoy war, even a losing war far more than I enjoy landing boring raids and avoiding incoming) but its part of the game is it not? Should alliances just completely avoid targetting each other because incoming isnt fun?

Speaking as someone from an alliance who was aggressively targetted early last round, I can tell you that I had fun fighting and losing the war and was still able to have a planet capable of attacking and defending and whatever else one might want to do with a planet.

In general you lose interest towards the end of the round (as the fun things get proportionally more difficult to do). If you're playing for fun you're more likely to lose interest if your planet dies.

Since when did losing some roids mean your planet was dead? What a rediculous exageration. And if you lose interest in the round because you dont have a huge value, you arent playing for fun, you are playing for rank.

Well presumably considering the suggestions of three or more 60-80 man alliances "twatting" eX from tick 72 I'd rather imagine they drop out of bash some time around tick 350 or so.

This is assuming that those alliances keep hitting exil, non-stop, regardless of thier strength, which NOBODY HAS SUGGESTED (and would never happen anyway, once the roids ran out, people would switch targets). The idea is to hit exil hard early to test thier strength, if they have any intention of winning the round or any tricks up thier sleaves they would be exposed, and the other alliances who hope to win could take that into account. If exil are truely weak, they will lose a bunch of roids, the other allies will stop hitting them to worry about real threats. At this point exilition will have no trouble playing for fun.

Attacking is different to "twatting". And your last proposal there is far different to what pig proposed, gate endorsed and you smiled benevolently on.

Attacking and twatting are not levels on a scale of attack. Twatting is a slang term used widely in PA to refer to all kinds of attacks and battles. It doesnt refer to anything precises and it certainly doesnt mean hitting exilition non-stop all round so that they cant even have fun, something that Pig and Gate obviously didnt suggest.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by K-W

Getting hit alot is arguably never fun (although I enjoy war, even a losing war far more than I enjoy landing boring raids and avoiding incoming) but its part of the game is it not? Are you seriously arguing that no alliance should target another alliance because alot of incoming isnt fun?

No. And that's the worst strawman I've ever seen.

Since when did losing some roids mean your planet was dead? What a rediculous exageration. And if you lose interest in the round because you dont have a huge value, you arent playing for fun, you are playing for rank.

You're talking bollocks son. Trust me, I've done this a few times. If you're playing for fun you need ships, in particular after a while you need new ships because you want to hit different targets. If when you login you can't really do much it's not much fun.

This is assuming that those alliances keep hitting exil, non-stop, regardless of thier strength, which NOBODY HAS SUGGESTED (and would never happen anyway, once the roids ran out, people would switch targets). The idea is to hit exil hard early to test thier strength, if they have any intention of winning the round or any tricks up thier sleaves they would be exposed, and the other alliances who hope to win could take that into account. If exil are truely weak, they will lose a bunch of roids, the other allies will stop hitting them to worry about real threats. At this point exilition will have no trouble playing for fun.

You're missing the point. How can it not be a slaughter. First you tell me you have to hit them to find them, then you have to hit them to test their strength, then if they fight back reasonably well you have to kill them? Who are proposing does this? One alliance? Two? Seven? If your primary concern as an alliance HC going into this round is EX you're an idiot, have a straightforward contingency plan if they begin to look dangerous and concentrate on acting yourself, not reacting to other people and other events.

No attacking is not different than twatting. Attacking and twatting are not levels on a scale of attack, twatting is a term used widely in PA to refer to all kinds of attacks and battles. It certainly doesnt mean hitting exilition non-stop all round so that they cant even have fun, something that Pig and Gate obviously didnt suggest.

Twatting in this case implies killing an alliance because that's quite clearly what everyone was talking about. Knocking them entirely out of the game to the point when you can be positive they won't play any more part in the round because surely that's what you're talking about anyways?

Hell, it doesn't really bother me. I'm not playing with exilition. I just think if you're going to obsess over a 30 man alliance someone's going to end up outplaying you (general you obviously).

[Tomkat]

I can't believe Germania (K-W) is trying to argue that 24 hours of constant incoming could in any way be fun. How exactly are you going to attack your enemies if you'll automatically be fleetcaught by the constant incoming you receive? The only way you could save your fleet is by having it in a constant state of prelaunch and then sending it off somewhere for the maximum ETA there and back.

I mean I know he's stubborn but that's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on AD.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by K-W

Getting hit alot is arguably never fun (although I enjoy war, even a losing war far more than I enjoy landing boring raids and avoiding incoming) but its part of the game is it not? Should alliances just completely avoid targetting each other because incoming isnt fun?

Speaking as someone from an alliance who was aggressively targetted early last round, I can tell you that I had fun fighting and losing the war and was still able to have a planet capable of attacking and defending and whatever else one might want to do with a planet.

OK, when you play for fun, being attacked all the time whereby playing is pointless because you can't actually do anything is very different to when you are playing seriously, are part of a war and actually have something to do, because you want you and your alliance to win. Being attacked all the time as an alliance player can be fun (although tremendously hard work), because of the greater challenge. What I think you're failing to understand is the difference in context, although perhaps I should be fair and throw that accusation to others in this thread.

Since when did losing some roids mean your planet was dead? What a rediculous exageration. And if you lose interest in the round because you dont have a huge value, you arent playing for fun, you are playing for rank.

To play for fun does not mean hitting newbies. For a player like JBG this is not 'fun'. 'Fun' is being able to stroll up to your planet one day, stick your fleet in a slot and go terrorise some bigger planet and see if you can get some change out of him. For this you need ships and enough rocks to fund them.

This is assuming that those alliances keep hitting exil, non-stop, regardless of thier strength, which NOBODY HAS SUGGESTED (and would never happen anyway, once the roids ran out, people would switch targets). The idea is to hit exil hard early to test thier strength, if they have any intention of winning the round or any tricks up thier sleaves they would be exposed, and the other alliances who hope to win could take that into account. If exil are truely weak, they will lose a bunch of roids, the other allies will stop hitting them to worry about real threats. At this point exilition will have no trouble playing for fun.

This is a fair point - if we're really concerned, bombing exilition isn't a bad idea, although an early hit might get people complacent as the best players can always recover. As JBG has pointed out, it can be counterproductive for the long term from the attacker's point of view (although I see it as more of a gamble). I have advocated such an approach (although i suggested somewhere nearer total annihilation) before with 1up but that was very different, because in round 11 and maybe round 12 I can't remember, 1up were more of a force to be reckoned with but I only ended up being shouted down by a mass of 1up posters, which was fair game for the forum, I guess.

That's not to say alliances this round shouldn't act with caution (as i've said there is no certainty as to what exilition we will see), it's simply a case of spotting danger, finding your arse and elbows and cooperating with other alliances without fear for a period of time. If alliances can't master this balance, they don't deserve to win, in my book.

Attacking and twatting are not levels on a scale of attack. Twatting is a slang term used widely in PA to refer to all kinds of attacks and battles. It doesnt refer to anything precises and it certainly doesnt mean hitting exilition non-stop all round so that they cant even have fun, something that Pig and Gate obviously didnt suggest.

Disagree. Attacking is taking someone's roids, twatting is more akin to doing something far more damaging - taking fleet and pretty much roiding the planet to the ground. I'd say that a more contextual approach again is helpful on this point.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No. And that's the worst strawman I've ever seen.

Im just trying to understand your argument.

You're talking bollocks son.

No you are. And I'm not your son.

Trust me, I've done this a few times. If you're playing for fun you need ships, in particular after a while you need new ships because you want to hit different targets. If when you login you can't really do much it's not much fun.

Yes you need ships, but nobody suggested that exilition be prevented from having ships. It is only in your imagination that Pig and Gate want exil roided into nothingness.

Roiding exil a bit early in the round wont keep them from building ships, it wont keep them from doing anything.

You're missing the point. How can it not be a slaughter. First you tell me you have to hit them to find them, then you have to hit them to test their strength, then if they fight back reasonably well you have to kill them? Who are proposing does this? One alliance? Two? Seven?

Slaughter? You can think of lots of words to make roidloss sound horrible, it wont change the fact that losing some roids in PA doesnt kill your planet or ruin your round.

Finding them and testing thier strength is the same thing, I wasnt suggesting multiple waves of attacks. And no, of course they shouldnt be killled for fighting back, Ive never said anything of the sort. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Twatting in this case implies killing an alliance because that's quite clearly what everyone was talking about. Knocking them entirely out of the game to the point when you can be positive they won't play any more part in the round because surely that's what you're talking about anyways?

Please JBG, please find me the post where someone suggested that exilition should be knocked out of the game or prevented from playing any part in the round. I know this is what you think people are saying, but where has anyone actually said this?

I can tell you that I am not talking about that. I absolutely abhor tactics like that. I have been, and continue to be talking about how to make sure Exil isnt pulling any tricks and how to prevent them from growing a core of huge planets that they could later build something around. Exilition should be treated like an alliance capable of winning under certain circumstances, nothing more, nothing less.

Hell son, it doesn't really bother me. I'm not playing with exilition. I just think if you're going to obsess over a 30 man alliance someone's going to end up outplaying you (general you obviously).

Good thing I never suggested anyone be obsessed with anything.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by lokken

OK, when you play for fun, being attacked all the time whereby playing is pointless because you can't actually do anything is very different to when you are playing seriously, are part of a war and actually have something to do, because you want you and your alliance to win. Being attacked all the time as an alliance player can be fun (although tremendously hard work), because of the greater challenge. What I think you're failing to understand is the difference in context, although perhaps I should be fair and throw that accusation to others in this thread.

Yes being attacked ALL THE TIME makes playing pointless. Being attacked for a bit early in the round doesnt. If exilition is just playing for fun, they will lose roids, and the big alliances will lost interest in them, they will cease to be attacked and they can play for fun. I am still waiting to see the post where anyone advocated that exilition should be hit non-stop or that they should be hit even if it is clear they are playing for fun.

To play for fun does not mean hitting newbies. For a player like JBG this is not 'fun'. 'Fun' is being able to stroll up to your planet one day, stick your fleet in a slot and go terrorise some bigger planet and see if you can get some change out of him. For this you need ships and enough rocks to fund them.

Who are you talking to? Who suggested that exilition should be reduced to a size that they can only hit newbies? Exilition can get roided for a bit early in the round and still have plenty of ships and time to have all kinds of fun.

This is a fair point - if we're really concerned, bombing exilition isn't a bad idea, although an early hit might get people complacent as the best players can always recover. As JBG has pointed out, it can be counterproductive for the long term from the attacker's point of view (although I see it as more of a gamble). I have advocated such an approach (although i suggested somewhere nearer total annihilation) before with 1up but that was very different, because in round 11 and maybe round 12 I can't remember, 1up were more of a force to be reckoned with but I only ended up being shouted down by a mass of 1up posters, which was fair game for the forum, I guess.

That's not to say alliances this round shouldn't act with caution (as i've said there is no certainty as to what exilition we will see), it's simply a case of spotting danger, finding your arse and elbows and cooperating with other alliances without fear for a period of time. If alliances can't master this balance, they don't deserve to win, in my book.

I think we are in general agreement here. I am advocating an early attack as a way to remove the uncertaintity because I want alliances to make smart decisions that give them a chance to win the round.

Disagree. Attacking is taking someone's roids, twatting is more akin to doing something far more damaging - taking fleet and pretty much roiding the planet to the ground. I'd say that a more contextual approach again is helpful on this point.

Twatting doesnt have a dictionary meaning, and is used by different people in different ways. That someone used the term twatting is not proof that they meant a specific type of attack.

[Stane]

#1: vengeance

just thinking it would be cool

i know it wont happen... well u never know......

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by K-W

Im just trying to understand your argument, but thanks for the lame accusation.

It's not an accusation it's the truth. That was not my argument. I was not arguing that no alliance should ever target an alliance heavily. I'm arguing that targetting some alliances may be counter-productive. For example I wouldn't have called it military genius if last round eX had targetted F-Crew non-stop from tick 72. And that is what this argument concerns. Is it good military sense to target eX exclusively/primarily from tick 72. This is what has been proposed, most clearly and extensively by pig.

No you are. And I'm not your son.

What will I tell your mother?

Yes you need ships, but nobody suggested that exilition be prevented from having ships. It is only in your imagination that Pig and Gate want exil roided into nothingness.

Roiding exil a bit early in the round wont keep them from building ships, it wont keep them from doing anything.

I'm just going to quote pig here.

Originally Posted by pig

My advice cannot be any clearer to alliances. Hit eXilition from tick 72.

Originally Posted by pig

If they get twatted from the start and they werent playing serious then well oops.

Slaughter? You can think of lots of words to make roidloss sound horrible, it wont change the fact that losing some roids in PA doesnt kill your planet or ruin your round.

Finding them and testing thier strength is the same thing, I wasnt suggesting multiple waves of attacks. And no, of course they shouldnt be killled for fighting back, Ive never said anything of the sort. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Maybe you weren't, but pig was. And my discussion was with pig, before you joined in. And presumably you would kill them if somehow they managed to hold off every wave sent at them in the first 48 hours. Certainly I would. I'd be ****ing terrified if a 40 man alliance could hold off three 60 odd member alliances attacking them.

Please JBG, please find me the post where someone suggested that exilition should be knocked out of the game or prevented from playing any part in the round. I know this is what you think people are saying, but where has anyone actually said this?

Originally Posted by Gate

This round will be phenominally interesting if eXilition are not involved in the running IMO. It will give others a chance and we will see how they perform at the top. If eXilition turn up with anything above half the numbers of teh other alliances, they are the most likely winners IMO and logically, it is best to destroy them as early as possible.

Did you actually bother reading this thread?

I can tell you that I am not talking about that. I absolutely abhor tactics like that. I have been, and continue to be talking about how to make sure Exil isnt pulling any tricks and how to prevent them from growing a core of huge planets that they could later build something around. Exilition should be treated like an alliance capable of winning under certain circumstances, nothing more, nothing less.

Okay, fine you aren't. However you quoted me originally responding to someone else's point who was arguing along these lines.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's not an accusation it's the truth. That was not my argument. I was not arguing that no alliance should ever target an alliance heavily. I'm arguing that targetting some alliances may be counter-productive.

Or maybe I didnt understand your argument fully and thats why I didnt express it correctly. But of course you assume I am trying a dishonest rhetorical tactic.

For example I wouldn't have called it military genius if last round eX had targetted F-Crew non-stop from tick 72. And that is what this argument concerns. Is it good military sense to target eX exclusively/primarily from tick 72. This is what has been proposed, most clearly and extensively by pig.

Perhaps you feel comfortable comparing exil to f-crew, I dont. I think its very possible they will be too small to win etc, but that it is also possible that they could with a plan or without a plan be in a position to win. But you are right, that is the argument. The argument is about the best tactics for the round and specifically how exil fits into that, not about whether exi should be driven out of the game.

I'm just going to quote pig here.

Originally Posted by pig
My advice cannot be any clearer to alliances. Hit eXilition from tick 72.

Originally Posted by pig
If they get twatted from the start and they werent playing serious then well oops.

At no point here does pig say any of the things you claim, and your argument that he must have meant those things by using the term 'twatting' is quite unconvincing.

It seems pretty clear to me that pig is suggesting the same thing I am, which is hitting them hard early, and if it turns out they are what they say, no major damage was done, say 'oops' and move on.

I really cant see what in that quote possibly justifies concluding that he wants exilition completely wiped out for the whole round.

Maybe you weren't, but pig was. And my discussion was with pig, before you joined in.

Where did Pig say that?

And presumably you would kill them if somehow they managed to hold off every wave sent at them in the first 48 hours. Certainly I would. I'd be ****ing terrified if a 40 man alliance could hold off three 60 odd member alliances attacking them.

If exilition turns out to be much stronger than they are now claiming they will be, alliances who want to win the round will probably need to attack them. Whats wrong with that?

Did you actually bother reading this thread?

Gate is saying that even if exilition have half the number of members of the other big allies, they should still be considered in the running because of thier skill, and should be hit, because the round would be more interesting if exil arent in the running.

Now this is a bit more severe than what I said, but it certainly doesnt mean that exilition should be bashed to the point where they have no ships and cant even play for fun.

Okay, fine you aren't. However you quoted me originally responding to someone else's point who was arguing along these lines.

Arguing that exilition should be prevented from winning the round is not the same as arguing that exilition should be bashed to the point where they dont even have a fleet to fly. And it is your continual equating of those two arguments that I object to. Even Gate's severe call for exilition to not have any chance to win doesnt come near saying they should be kept from playing in any way.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by K-W

Or maybe I didnt understand your argument fully and thats why I didnt express it correctly. But of course you assume I am trying a dishonest rhetorical tactic.

Why I never would! Such slander could not be further from my mind. Next you'll accuse me of saying you were in Xanadu!

Perhaps you feel comfortable comparig exil to f-crew, I dont. I think its very possible they will be too small to win etc, but that it is also possible that they could with a plan or without a plan be in a position to win. But you are right, that is the argument. The argument is about the best tactics for the round and specifically how exil fits into that, not about whether exi should be driven out of the game.

It's not a comparison, it's an illustration of the possibility of poor tactical decision-making.

At no point here does pig say any of the things you claim, and your argument that he must have meant those things by using the term 'twatting' is quite unconvincing.

Okay fair enough, I'll wait here until tomorrow and I'll see what pig says. However because I'm an incredibly sad bastard I did some research work on pig's previous use of the phrase on AD.

Originally Posted by pig

If Omen need to win they will have to twat ND, Angels and 1up so one of those alliances will end up considerably lower than Omen.

This seems to imply that twatting would necessarily involve one of those alliances finishing considerably lower than the alliance doing the "twatting". This certainly would imply more than normal targetting, which as pig well knows does not involve one alliance necessarily finishing considerably lower than the other.

It seems pretty clear to me that pig is suggesting the same thing I am, which is hitting them hard early, and if it turns out they are what they say, no major damage was done, say 'oops' and move on.

I'm not particularly pushed on whether or not exi all roll over and die. They're big boys, I'm sure they're not going to quit PA if they're bashed into the ground for one round. However I think it's a piss poor idea for anyone to start off hitting ex solid from tick 72. First of all you're talking less planets and obviously less roids so slower growth for your own alliance compared to others. Second, and speaking with the benefit of personal experience, if an alliance started intensively targetting ascendancy I'm sure we could work up a few hours in which to **** up their day. Considering how pig has lauded eX's mad skillz would you really want even half that alliance looking up to ensure you don't win the round? Best to avoid them and have an agreement with others concerning action to take if they emerge as a threat.

I really cant see what in that quote possibly justifies concluding that he wants exilition completely wiped out for the whole round.

Obviously due to the nature of PA these days you can't actually do that, you have non-destroyable score and bash limits. Perhaps if we're to be rather pedantic, complete and total removal of all military capability would be better.

Where did Pig say that?

Pardon, not so much "fight back" as "effectively resist".

If exilition turns out to be much stronger than they are now claiming they will be, alliances who want to win the round will probably need to attack them. Whats wrong with that?

Nothing, as I outlined above, a plan to counteract that scenario is precisely what I support!

Gate is saying that even if exilition have half the number of members of the other big allies, they should still be considered in the running because of thier skill, and should be hit, because the round would be more interesting if exil arent in the running.

Not hit, destroyed.

Now this is a bit more severe than what I said, but it certainly doesnt mean that exilition should be bashed to the point where they have no ships and cant even play for fun.

Maybe the word "destroyed" means something else where you come from. For your sake I'll synonymise crush, wipe out, raze, ruin, nullify, annihilate, exterminate, eradicate, erase and demolish.

Arguing that exilition should be prevented from winning the round is not the same as arguing that exilition should be bashed to the point where they dont even have a fleet to fly.

Well obviously I'd rather hope everyone's going into the round with the hope of their alliance winning. As I said this is an argument over methods. Pig's point seems to be that the elimination of exilition is paramount. Mine is that it is not.

Even Gate's severe call for exilition to not have any chance to win doesnt come near saying they should be kept from playing in any way.

Clearly I wasn't saying that. What did you think I was proposing? A few of us join pateam and delete all their planets? Presuming they haven't been caught for multiing already lolololoohjustforgetit

[K-W]

This seems to imply that twatting would necessarily involve one of those alliances finishing considerably lower than the alliance doing the "twatting". This certainly would imply more than normal targetting, which as pig well knows does not involve one alliance necessarily finishing considerably lower than the other.

It would imply nothing of the sort. How is one alliance attacking another with the goal of finishing with more score than them not normal? Pig was obviously using twatting to refer to a normal alliance war, where the two sides aim to finish with higher scores and thus higher ranks than the other side, and not some kind of super-attack aimed at destroying any chance of gameplay.

I'm not particularly pushed on whether or not exi all roll over and die. They're big boys, I'm sure they're not going to quit PA if they're bashed into the ground for one round. However I think it's a piss poor idea for anyone to start off hitting ex solid from tick 72. First of all you're talking less planets and obviously less roids so slower growth for your own alliance compared to others.

That depends on the situation. And btw I think tick 72 is too early myself partly for the reasons you mention. If you are neck and neck with some other alliances and none of you are roiding significantly better than the others and it really doesnt seem from the intel you have that exil is pulling anything than yah. But if you found yourself outroiding your competition but feared that exil was a sleeping giant, it would probably be worth the time to find out. That said it probably wont make sense to do it until there are alliances cooperating with each other, which I guess I just assume will happen early

Second, and speaking with the benefit of personal experience, if an alliance started intensively targetting ascendancy I'm sure we could work up a few hours in which to **** up their day. Considering how pig has lauded eX's mad skillz would you really want even half that alliance looking up to ensure you don't win the round? Best to avoid them and have an agreement with others concerning action to take if they emerge as a threat.

Another good point. And again it really depends on where alliances are, who's working with who, and also the stats and tactical circumstances.

Im glad this discussion is going forward, you're right that just attack exil at tick 72 isnt much of a strategy.

Obviously due to the nature of PA these days you can't actually do that, you have non-destroyable score and bash limits. Perhaps if we're to be rather pedantic, complete and total removal of all military capability would be better.

Ok, but Pig didnt say that either.

Nothing, as I outlined above, a plan to counteract that scenario is precisely what I support!

And I agree.

Not hit, destroyed.

Maybe the word "destroyed" means something else where you come from. For your sake I'll synonymise crush, wipe out, raze, ruin, nullify, annihilate, exterminate, eradicate, erase and demolish.

In my time in PA I couldnt think to count the number of times ive seen normal attacks referred to as killing/raping/twatting etc. You simply cannot assume based on one word that someone is referring to the most severe attack you can think of.

In context it seems clear to me that by destroyed he means unable to win the round, not completely wiped out or without any military power to the point that they couldnt even play for fun.

I suppose Gate is the only one who knows what he meant.

Well obviously I'd rather hope everyone's going into the round with the hope of their alliance winning. As I said this is an argument over methods. Pig's point seems to be that the elimination of exilition is paramount. Mine is that it is not.

Well if exilition is the best alliance in the game still, eliminating them from contention would be a neccessary step in the path of any other alliance, so it really all depends on how strong we thiink exilition is.

[Artanys]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay, let's not. What part of receiving 24 hour incoming do you perceive as "fun" pig?

If u want i could tell u a real funny story about 24 hours incoming....some 10 waves 45+ fleets sounds cool enough ?
it all ended really funny for some....really bad for others
:
so u see heavy incomings may be funny and challenging , anyways better then fance sitting

[furball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not particularly pushed on whether or not exi all roll over and die. They're big boys, I'm sure they're not going to quit PA if they're bashed into the ground for one round. However I think it's a piss poor idea for anyone to start off hitting ex solid from tick 72. First of all you're talking less planets and obviously less roids so slower growth for your own alliance compared to others. Second, and speaking with the benefit of personal experience, if an alliance started intensively targetting ascendancy I'm sure we could work up a few hours in which to **** up their day. Considering how pig has lauded eX's mad skillz would you really want even half that alliance looking up to ensure you don't win the round? Best to avoid them and have an agreement with others concerning action to take if they emerge as a threat.

Unfortunately as a result of the "Subh Premise" it has now been determined that it is impossible for modern alliances to follow through on such agreements

[Tomkat]

Oh great this thread has turned from something relatively entertaining with a decent post from pig and a few others into a ridiculous argument over "I'm right because I'm too stubborn to admit I misunderstood what was being said" from Germania.

Seriously guys noone gives two shits over who-said-what so-lets-quote-everyone-else-to-prove-that I-was-in-the-right-context-and-you-weren't (for what it's worth, I think JBG is right but then he got drawn into the mind-numbingly dull argument and now I don't know who's worse out of the two of you).

Can we bring it back on track?



If (for example) the main contenders do as pig says and kill of eXilition, then what? Do they slowly grow and grow? I regard the main three as ND, LCH and Omen. Surely if one hits another, then those two will lower each others score while the third grows?

[Zeke]

Bluetuba will win.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

If (for example) the main contenders do as pig says and kill of eXilition, then what? Do they slowly grow and grow?

If eXilition are out of the loop then exactly how the round goes will be interesting. It will be the first time in a long time where it will be tough to predict who will win. It will also be the first time since round 11 (excluding ascendancy here) where an alliance other than 1up or eXilition will win.

With 1up gone, and eXilition out of the frame hopefully it will allow alliances to formulate there own policies and not concur to the old groups of alliances ie 1up et al versus eXilition et al.

I reckon we could see a round with fluid politics and lets of twists etc. This is if alliances have the conviction for first and dont play for third.

Then again they can only do this (in my opinion) if alliances a) keep an eye on eXilition and b) have HC who have some balls and are willing to do the best for there alliance.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by pig

b) have HC who have some balls and are willing to do the best for there alliance.

It's not always a prisoner's dilemma game. High command staff, alliance leaders, aren't all rational agents. During two rounds, I've found my group teamed up against by other alliances, when it's been obvious and known that we're not the current leading party. A single alliance, or a set of alliances, will find it hard to do how you'd analyze as "best for the alliance" if other alliances work predatory pricing on it; ie. whenever there's someone else to step up or work for number one, they actively signal against such actions.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by K-W

Yes being attacked ALL THE TIME makes playing pointless. Being attacked for a bit early in the round doesnt. If exilition is just playing for fun, they will lose roids, and the big alliances will lost interest in them, they will cease to be attacked and they can play for fun. I am still waiting to see the post where anyone advocated that exilition should be hit non-stop or that they should be hit even if it is clear they are playing for fun.

As I said above, depends what context. If it's like the Alamo, I doubt it is pointless and boring if you are playing proper. I don't why you are waiting for a post advocating exilition should be hit non-stop, as unless they come out aggressively, that won't happen. As for 'the playing for fun' bit, there is no guarantee of this, so I certainly think it is worth having a little nibble on them.

Who are you talking to? Who suggested that exilition should be reduced to a size that they can only hit newbies? Exilition can get roided for a bit early in the round and still have plenty of ships and time to have all kinds of fun.

I was talking about JBG's concept of 'fun' - i was merely extracting the true context out of his posting, which you seemed to have missed.

I think we are in general agreement here. I am advocating an early attack as a way to remove the uncertaintity because I want alliances to make smart decisions that give them a chance to win the round.

Good.

Twatting doesnt have a dictionary meaning, and is used by different people in different ways. That someone used the term twatting is not proof that they meant a specific type of attack.

The meaning I put down is the one that instantly comes to mind. You can think another if you like, but we could argue this one all day and I'd tell you that you were wrong.

[jerome]

just because a non-exi/1up alliance might win this round doesn't mean it's any more interesting, it just means the standard of planetarion alliances has lowered even further now. this bullshit about 'With 1up gone, and eXilition out of the frame hopefully it will allow alliances to formulate there own policies and not concur to the old groups of alliances ie 1up et al versus eXilition et al.' is laughable considering last round it was subh's inability to help in taking exi down rather than pre-defined blocks, and the round before that it was omen's inability in going after 1up early enough..etc

[Shoshuro]

Originally Posted by jerome

just because a non-exi/1up alliance might win this round doesn't mean it's any more interesting, it just means the standard of planetarion alliances has lowered even further now.

And it was high when? The first 4-5 rounds with majority of players trying to figure out what a ship or a roid does. Or in the later ones with the usual blocking pairs / ahoy stagnation / boredom / etc.

The traditional "old vs new" taboo can be misleading.

[jerome]

nothing about a "high" level, just levels in terms of relativity

[pig]

Originally Posted by jerome`

just because a non-exi/1up alliance might win this round doesn't mean it's any more interesting, it just means the standard of planetarion alliances has lowered even further now.

I disagree.

I would say that the majority of the skill base was in eXilition and 1up. Now those two alliances are "weaker" and disbandaned it means the skill base will probably be redistributed amongst several alliances. Just chatting to old alliance friends they seem to be all over the shop. From Rock to Omen. Its certainly quite interesting. Instead of two big alliances I believe we will see a much more even round with 4-6 alliances fighting for the top spot.

I also believe it will be more interesting for the fact that exil and 1up don't win. The round ascendancy won was interesting for that fact. If an alliance can go forth and win then good look to them, and for me that will be quite interesting.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by jerome

just because a non-exi/1up alliance might win this round doesn't mean it's any more interesting, it just means the standard of planetarion alliances has lowered even further now. this bullshit about 'With 1up gone, and eXilition out of the frame hopefully it will allow alliances to formulate there own policies and not concur to the old groups of alliances ie 1up et al versus eXilition et al.' is laughable considering last round it was subh's inability to help in taking exi down rather than pre-defined blocks, and the round before that it was omen's inability in going after 1up early enough..etc

Oh it is not a certainty, but I would like to think it is more likely. If the opposition is less stiff one would think there would be more testicular fortitude as there was less to be afraid of, hence a more aggressive, open round.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by lokken

Oh it is not a certainty, but I would like to think it is more likely. If the opposition is less stiff one would think there would be more testicular fortitude as there was less to be afraid of, hence a more aggressive, open round.

Which is a major reason as to why I think the round will be more interesting.

Very few people wanted to **** with 1up or eXilition, and many alliances just assumed that they wouldn't be able to win against that sort of firepower.

So people didn't put their whole heart into it. Self fulfilling prophecy etc that can now be avoided.

[jerome]

i'm more inclined to think that the opposite will happen and most alliances will hope that others do their dirty work for them and effectively fencesit to the top. this is because most planetarion players are shit, including exi and 1up players, what kept those two up was the fact that they had a strong hc team, unlike well every other alliance.

[pig]

I think jerome` has no faith in the human race

[lokken]

Originally Posted by jerome

i'm more inclined to think that the opposite will happen and most alliances will hope that others do their dirty work for them and effectively fencesit to the top. this is because most planetarion players are shit, including exi and 1up players, what kept those two up was the fact that they had a strong hc team, unlike well every other alliance.

Oh but when you pass that point you might feel inclined that you can do something about it rather than be resigned to defeat.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by pig

I think jerome` has no faith in the human race

Albeit a very realistic view. While it is important not to underestimate people, it is equally important not to overestimate too. Simple tricks work on simple people (most of the PA playerbase).