926

(405 replies, posted in Universal News)

deletor yikes

927

(405 replies, posted in Universal News)

I doubt flashy's in my fam, still a good pvc though! thanks wink

928

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

Wrong, not both, it was caused by us hoarding strong players from the round before (stay in fam round) so we just plainly had more talent in our fam than any other fam tongue.
So in fact it was the second, except we were just more competitive than anyone else.


I agree with you on starting positions though tongue

929

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

That was the same 2 rounds ago, Flashy, except we chose not to farm.

Still, I did experience that same boredom tongue.

However, was that boredom caused by the idea behind the galaxy being uncompetitive or just the lack of other, organized, strong alliances?

930

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

Flashy, you are right, most fams will nap whole alliances at a time. However, when fighting a well-organized alliance, I'd say the difficulty of winning the war adds a layer of competitivity rather than taking one away because of a lack of allies: the quantity of fights is less important than the quality.

That still leaves the disorganized alliances, which may be a bit of a let-down, but making the next round no-allies is not going to help the people in those fams come up with better communication or strategies and will not benefit this round in any way, rather affecting it negatively as people may not take it as seriously as they are looking forward to next round (since mods promised them it would be without allies, so why bother to play this one?).

931

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

Render, intra fam fights, not intra alliance.

How would a pnap with my allies stop my own players from getting into arguments with each other and 1 deleting and 2 others asking to be killed off (leaving their planets defenseless just when we are about to be cancelled on)? tongue

932

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

The me-not-playing part is more as an indication that in my opinion a round without allies is too boring and not worthwile of spending my time. I did not mean it to be childish, not as childish as the basis of this whole thread at least.

933

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

last round you cuold drop allies, as proven.

2 rounds ago you couldn't, as proven as well.

934

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

Render, am i the one being an arse, or are you just being whiney cry babies?

Sorry, but this is something i feel i have to say.


And again: permanent allies didn't stop pw 2 rounds ago from being a complete domination, only hampered slightly by deletions resulting from intra fam fights due to boredom (in my fam).

935

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

Flashy, there is no one who is going to tell you to nap both parts of an alliance when you've only fought/skirmished with one of them.


I played 2 rounds ago, in which i was in the top alliance, ran the infra in the early round, organized the SoR round on the other top alliance, attacked with Hoity for most round until hoity went inactive and SLS joined. How did we become top alliance? We slowed down the other top alliance early (since they didn't have each other covered enough which allowed us to SoR raid). Furthermore, we paved the way for our allies to catch up (up until mid-round their infra was a chaos) by clearing all close intruders, and later we worked together with allies (even though it wasn't the best cooperation) to take out the final targets, who by then weren't even competitors any longer. Why did my fam not win the round if we carried our allies? Because our allies decided to rape 3 tiny fams when we let them off even when we could hit them, and even when they stupidly tried to hit us.

plus 2 rounds ago it wasn't possible to switch allies, you couldn't even break alliance. The leader of our allies (accidentally) and some rogue VL (who was never found out) tried to do it plenty times. Did you even play that round?

936

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

you mean 15 fams, assuming you're not going to attack your own fam.

say 15 fams is 100 %, then 14 fams is 93 1/3 %. OMG a drop of 6 2/3 % in the amount of families you can attack! Now this round is going to be boring!
if we take 14 fams as 100%, then 15 fams is 107.14 %. An increase of 7.14%! amazing! that is definitely going to make the game a lot more interesting!


as i said, an unsubstantial increase/drop, hardly relevant or at the very least not enough to justify taking away allies

937

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

How does not having allies make a gal more competitive? Not having allies only adds 1 fam to the pool of fams you can attack, which is an unsubstantial increase in the total amount of fams.

Plus most fams will have one or more naps made beforehand. I assume the situation in s1 makes them almost neccesary, in the eyes of some ( i havent looked at map yet ). Instead of those naps, why not just ally one?

In my opinion allies add a layer of depth to this otherwise boring game. It adds difficulties in necessary intra-alliance communication: only those capable enough are able to work together with their allies. A certain amount of chemistry is needed in the alliance, for if not the alliance is doomed to fall apart, work as 2 seperate fams and eventually weaken to the point where both of the members of the alliance fall behind other fams.

I'll state it again: communication is necessary. Those alliances who fail either failed in communicating properly, or attempted to work as 2 seperate fams rather than 1 alliance. It is not the system that is at fault and that makes the gal uncompetitive, it is the players who are not able to adjust to the extra layer of depth. Dont hate the game, hate the player (in this case i dont mean the players who ARE able to adjust, but you, the ones who voted yes to no allies!).



Maybe instead of whining about others using the system at hand to gain an advantage, blame yourself for not being able to do so and falling behind!



If this round is changed to no-allies, i wont be playing.

938

(44 replies, posted in Universal News)

No.

939

(405 replies, posted in Universal News)

In!


btw i see a lot of accounts that have only joined today... mods, check for multis? yikes

940

(9 replies, posted in Universal News)

57 planet(s) involved in the raging conflict.

mostly empty planets expo'd in awkward places.

941

(29 replies, posted in Politics)

that's a lot of words you use to attack your opponent, without giving arguments, and advertising your own party, without giving reasons.


Why would a person who isn't sure of who to vote for vote for you? do you really think a program of slander and no input of its own is going to persuade people to help you win your elections?


"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!"
Empty slogans like these make me puke.

Although somewhere it does sound vaguely like a cheap rip off of some of the slogans mentioned in George Orwell's "1984"
"War is peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is strength!"


Just remember, Big Brother is watching you...

942

(100 replies, posted in Universal News)

omg they cleared a planet my fam had in their core, VULTURES!!!


(me has no idea how it really went, but you get my drift tongue)

943

(100 replies, posted in Universal News)

1 to 5516? omg, that's brutal!

944

(6 replies, posted in Drafting)

ugh Aleph, stop going to the beach with sexy ladies and spend your time usefully already! wink

945

(13 replies, posted in Politics)

this is all a joke, right.



right...?


right?


RIGHT???

946

(5 replies, posted in Universal News)

> cheyanne wrote:

> i think 12 went looking for trouble and found it so u cant call it farming u guys wanted this u got it



^this

947

(6 replies, posted in Drafting)

Looking for someone to play as a sexy, slender camaar as back up for our fat custom attacker (me D:)!


interested? send a message to Jah in 5515 or find me on irc! i'll be idling in #mod, #pinwheel, #icsr, #ifail and a bunch of other useless chats

948

(10 replies, posted in Politics)

(almost) all european countries run a far more "socialist" health care system than the USA, so how do you explain making the american system less "socialist" rather than more, when European (more "socialist") countries provide better healthcare at lower costs?

Doesn't this mean the "socialist" healthcare system is more efficient? Are you trying to make your healthcare system less efficient by de-"socializing" it?

949

(9 replies, posted in General)

This... Is... AMAZING

950

(10 replies, posted in Politics)

If you're talking national healthcare programs, I'd say Scandinavian (for instance Denmark) & Dutch. I've heard Denmark has decent healthcare and the I live in the Netherlands myself

"Denmark spends 9.8% of GDP on healthcare. The life expectancy in Denmark is 78.6 years. There is 1 doctor for every 294 persons in Denmark.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Denmark

"In 2006 bedroegen de uitgaven aan gezondheidszorg in ons land 8,9 procent van het bruto binnenlands product (bbp)."
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2009/2009-2901-wm.htm
Translated: In 2006 the expenses on healthcare in our country [the netherlands] were 8.9% of the GDP.

Interesting graphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_(2005-2008).JPG
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/BE2F1DD9-AD82-4796-9126-19AFA8E4FEBC/0/2901g1.gif


although i doubt you as a Republican Conservative would like to use these "socialist"countries as examples for reforms wink