Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
One could say there should be limitations to donations etc. which has been put in this round, but at no way where the any questions of it beeing abuse of the EULA as in the case of out of tag support planets etc. There is a big difference on galaxy and alliance in that way. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Galaxies are allowed repeated defence, scanning etc "out of tag" and in general are setup to work like a entity too along side peoples individual alliance affiliations.
But then again anyone in PA knows this so why on earth ask... |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is, quite honestly, zero doubt in my mind that if it had been an ascendancy planet donated past a vision one that you'd still be screaming for everyone involved to be deleted for exploiting the game. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Either I misunderstood you or you don't make sense at all - hence the "Why?". |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
I'll tell you why. 1. To satisfy all the alliance crying antics. 2. To diminish one more way of winning, and try yet again to set some stupid artificial methods on how to win. 3. To tighten again the 'deemed' methods of play. I don't actually know what this method actually is, all I do know is that when someone deviates from this mythical beast, they are either thrown out of the game, or suddenly next round, the method is knobbled. Some seasoned players, alliances, and the PAteam did not like the method, and said so. They added in lots of diatribe, and abuse, and statements about how its fair, but 'cheap'. Now they killed it. Even though any one of them could have legally used it. That method and way of winning should be here today. Its not. Its been quite deliberately knobbled to stop it happening again. Pretty much anything innovative, gets killed. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Wasnt Ascendancy actually the biggest whiners over what greenhills did?
Surely doesnt lay in line with all the spam on these boards... |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
donating res for a win is equal with donating ships or roids for that matter but hey it ok for everyone i guess cept asc |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
And incredibly, what was said to me was that on the one hand, it was going to be applied like hemaroid creme and chili powder on Alliance / players who broke the section, but was never going to be applied in galaxies / players. And yet the disaster that is the EULA states that the rule applies to organisations, and specifically names *Galaxies* and Alliances. Thus scanning for your gal and being a veritable 'support planet' is legal, and wholly at odds with the EULA, where as its illegal on days that begin with 'T', if remy sees you, if you have odd shaped features. *Disclaimer* I can't flogging believe I am defending scanners and scanning activity. But I am.. Scanning. ---------- The game has scanners. Period. They do things which support other planets, galaxies, and alliances. You've allowed people to do this, now you're applying stupid arcane EULA rulings, totally at odds with the EULA. While I agree that in 'spirit', the theory that you'd not touch someone in gal scanning, but do touch those beyond is a problem. If you wish to provide things in game that would help people know about scanners, that would be great. If there is a mismatch about scanning, and balance, fix it. Scanners have *ALWAYS* been a form of support planet. The difference is that their legality was something that was deemed 'legal'. The bottom line comes with the theory that out of tag scanners are evil, and allow an alliance to have higher score. The downside of having them out of tag, to me is the strategic disadvantage that financing the scanning operation, because you can't pass them funds to cover the scanning out of tag IS reason enough to leave it alone. Its a balance issue, not an issue to throw people out of games. Final disclaimer. This game is a galactic game of warfare. You are going to get support from people, and make alliances and friends, enemies and thus, its wholly possible to have many 'support' planets helping you, deffing you, attacking with you, scanning for you, scanning against you, even in repetition. Thus the support planet rules and how they are applied in arbitration come down to 'interpretation'. I believe that alliances and players should have free unfettered access to the resources in the game and use them for any purpose (Yupp, scanning, ship factories, farming, any strategy). Those who come up with the best plans - win. The attempts to limit this, and set arcane rules is the wrong direction. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
To be fair to them, they took it like men :p
What Greenhills did was certainly an abuse of the game engine, in the sense that donations were not meant for a planet to win in this way. The galaxy fund and the donation feature were meant to help small planets catch up or bashed planets rebuild. Whether he should have been closed and deleted for what he did is questionable, since the support planet rule didn't really apply to him in that case. Neither did it apply to his galmates. It was quite cheap, yes, and many people were celebrating him for taking the #1 spot from Ascendancy (Kileman) which is still in my eyes the real winner of last round. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
1. It took great co-operation in that galaxy to pull it off. The game is meant to be based on players working together. 2. The galaxy had to be united in the aim, not easy in the PA of today. 3. It was not cheap, it was good play. 4. You and every alliance out there have every right, and ability to go wreck any galaxy at almost any time. Alliances outnumber galaxy memberships, and the fact a galaxy came together and put your noses out of joint was a damn nice move. If any alliance felt that galaxy poseda threat, they had ample ability and option to go roid the living hell out of it. 5. You and those like you have won, because PAteam have destroyed the chance to play that way, wrecking co-operation, innovation and the basis of the premise of the game at its lowest level. So you can stop bleating about it. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
There was a time when those best traditions were respected. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if you could donate resources to anyone but the fact was that due to botched game design there really wasn't a counter to it. However as I pointed out at the time the EULA doesn't say "but if you're in his galaxy it's fine". In fact given the wording of the support planet rule with the specific inclusion of the word "planet" as opposed to merely alliance one wonders what exactly the addition of that word was aimed at combatting. Which led to part MCCLXVII of my argument against the continued inclusion of the support planets rule as it stands. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
I am surely glad that PA team have destroyed that way to play, since i find it totally pointless to play a whole round to lose in the end spurt to a trick of explotation of the galaxy fund. I am sure some players have absolutely no 'ethics' to accept a win in that sense. I myself would rather end rank 1000 by my own efforts than be donated to #1 by 7 other players. It was probably fun, but that's it. Don't expect the majority of players in PA to acknowledge Greenhills victory as legitimate. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
My main problem is that the option wasn't open to everyone. The actual lesson therefore became "play deliberately poorly in order to be below your gal average value and you can be donated to #1, play well and you can't".
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
I liked the way in which Greenhills won, it was new and within the rules. Although I still agree, to some extent, with the system being changed for this to no longer be possible as these things aren't very funny/innovative/interesting/original when they're done for the 2nd or 3rd time (see 1up's round 17 win) |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
"new to PAX"
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
"New to the 17th of July 2007 between the hours of 3 and 5pm."
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
The reality is that Greenhills didn't win last round. Rather (Greenhills + Support Player 1 + Support Player 2 + ... + Support Player 7) won it collectively. Without the direct and willful sacrifice of these people it would not have been done. This is not in any way comparable to the mutual defense fleet trading and joined attacks of large alliances. Stop saying it is. That said, I think Greenhill's win was perfectly legitimate. I felt very sorry for Kileman as in my mind he deserved the victory but I don't expect that in a wargame people will always get what they deserve. No rules were broken, the fact that this is mainly because there are none governing the situation is irrelevant. It certainly wasn't Greenhill's fault that our current ruleset is completely bogus. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
But "mockery of the planet ranks if one assumes they are designed to reflect individual effort and "skill" over the course of a round." Some of you alliance whores really do take the biscuit. Seriously. Stop saying it is? No, I won't. While its not *exactly* that way, just because the method is different does not mitigate or reduce its effects. When you play in an alliance, you have numerous planets operating in support of you, be it scanning, defense, attacking, or access to tools and operations not available to 'individual' players. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
OH WAIT MINE ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. I have no idea what point I'm arguing though, I didn't actually read Kila's post :( |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
In no way did the other planets in his galaxy gain from it. They existed soley for the support of that one planet, going as far (i seem to remember) of crashing fleets to turn into salvage so they could donate more. Theirs no take in the relationship. And as far as the bollocks your talking about with allowing more ways to play, what game are you seriously wanting to play? Donating res on the last day negates all reason to actually fight for 2 months, if thats the sort of game you really want to play then you'll find yourself very lonely. All this however is rather off topic. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways going back a bit I'm still waiting on a response from red :( Going back even further I don't believe that there is a really bad attitude among the multihunters but having a system of rules which we can't understand and require extensive interpretation isn't healthy for the game as a whole. Would anyone disagree? |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
It really takes a narrow mind to not understand this, AdmV0rl0n. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...ght=Greenhills Read it. Take *careful note* of what is said by those involved. I'm not going to repeat this again. But some of you are lying in your attempts to support your arguments. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Seriously, I'm not trying to discredit Greenhills. The win was perfectly legitimate and took everyone by surprise (which I found amusing enough). But saying it took a lot of effort and such to achieve is of course pure bullshit. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Hi. |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Kileman defended me on a few occasions. I defended him on a few. We certainly didn't defend him night after night though as he got very little incoming. No-one in Ascendancy got that kind of defense last round. Unlike VisioN, we have no facility to allow for defwhoring to the extent you suggest. If a person wasn't on to ask their friends for defence personally, or have an Ascendancy galmate on to ask for them, they got nothing. Kileman was on every single night.
However, even the kind of defense that VisioN dude got isn't sacrificial in nature. No-one gave up their individual planet rank to help him thus the integrity of the rankings for best individual planet are unaffected. Alliance defences and attacks are measured in the final Alliance scores, not the final planet scores. Even a base troll like you understands that surely? Of course all this has nothing to do with whether such a tactic was legitimate. I have already said that I thought it was. I was also pointing out that AdmV0rlons analogy was exceptionally shit. edit: wrong scan |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Infact i have not seen such an utterly dumb riposte in ages. If you really do not see at least some facets of how thats different, you really should finally stop posting and making yourself look like a fool, since you have no clue whatsoever. But its not like it needed this thread to make that obvious. By now, i seriously hope you are somebody who just acts like that. And on an unimportant sidenote: where the fsck is the connection between all of this §"$% and THE TOPIC? :) |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Yes, this thread has derailed completely. I blame JBG for asking Red-'s opinion as if he was a person. Bad JBG! No biscuit!
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
The problem is that the premise, for example, that 7 guys worked a whole round to just help Greenhills is false. The choice of Greenhills and the background to it are in the threaded link I left. The galaxy had to work for success. The bullcrap some have posted here attempting to support their lame argument is not even deserving of a response really. 2 Jun 2007, 00:02 #35 Sandvold Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10 Sandvold is an unknown quantity at this point Re: Congratulations Greenhills To sum abit up as beeing a part of the galaxy and one of the contributers for this to work. First I would like to say that i feel sorry for Kile and FeniX and the rest of top10. The point with the plan wasn't to win originaly. We knew we couldn't win the nr1 gal, our alliance setup wasn't good enough to do it, activty was dropping as it usually does in the end of the round. Then mockingbird and greenhills started joking about this and me and qsp said that that sounded fun just to joke with em. Then the ball started rolling and we decided to ask the gal if we should make a little contest out of it *So the whole gal was presented with the idea and the one with the most score the last day would get the donation and we could have fun seeing how good we could boost a planet. It was no pressure on anyone to join but everyone got exited and we had loads of fun.* But if ppl think it wasn't effort involved then you're mistaking, we couldn't just sit around keeping our roids as the top planets did. We was garantueed much more inc and we needed to keep as many roids possible to manage to get a decent boost. Our planets with low enough value was alost far behind the top so we didn't expect to win or not even top 10. *Then we had alot of inc one night as appoco said. Lost extremly many roids so we had to work fast to get em back. This was the easy part of the plan.* Then the last couple of days we've been working our assess of to manage to get the resources around so we could be sure everyone would be here last day to donate. ( If someone don't know then gal fund can max be 75mill in total). We had to do it all within fewest possible ticks as we wanted it to be a surprise And you all know how it ended But i can promise that it wasn't much sleep for us either the last days *The gal did more the ever can be expected of any gal and in the end everyone showed up to help a single planet without any hope for any respectable end placement themself. You should all recive a credit if you ask me.* __A planet, which turned out to be Greenhills__ But once again, i feel sorry for the planets fighting all round for the top spot. The intention was never to rob any of you for the glory. It was just to get some fun into a rather dull round of PA. Thanks to the whole gal that made this crazy plan work. Been a plessure playing with you guys. Sandvold --------- 4 Jun 2007, 14:59 #95 Sandvold Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10 Sandvold is an unknown quantity at this point Re: Congratulations Greenhills Quote: Originally Posted by JonnyBGood One would note that if the actions are repeated how they don't qualify as breaking the support planet rule is beyond me. Jepp I would argue with you:P First of all your logic is flawed and you can't quote a part of the eula without thinking true what effects it would have. ***First of all Greenhills stocked his resources in the fund as well.**** He did not know that he was the one that was going to get the resources. So the same goes for the whole gal. >>>No one knew so they played for themself and did it for themself, but Greenhills was the one to get it.<<< 2nd thing is that the support planet rule applies if it's repeated actions. This was done once. If you start useing the support planet rules within a galaxy then you could just remove galaxies altogether. Haven't you ever had a scanner in your gal who have just built a certain type of defships? If he def you with it several times then he have broken the support rule as well. Cause the defships is just a spesific task for the gals benefit. You could probably add all def ingal in the same catagory as what we did. The same goes for attacking same gal on regular raids, or alliances for that mather. You're actually providing flak for another member of your galaxy. So i strongly disagree in your use of the support rule in this case. It would be impossible to get to work __________________ Sandvold - The puppet master Nuff said. AdmV |
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
Quote:
|
Re: Who watches the Watchers?
If you read on in that thread AdmVorlon you'd actually have seen that I responded to all of sandvold's points piece by piece. The galaxy certainly had to work for success, even viper planets had to login and send defence back when the support planet rule was introduced. The whole support planet rule is just drivel though. Everyone supports people, even directly when they're not intending to sometimes. Either hardcore things out, provide specific rules on what you can and can't do or just allow it. Also I'm going to try and go back through this thread and separate out this discussion if my direly slow internet connection would ever hurry up.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018