Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate
i hate to defend any MHs , even if it is indirectly, but what can be done about it?
close the planets that are crashing? no, cos they wont care.
close the planet being crashed on? no, because then rivals would get someone to crash on each other to get the other person closed.
recall obvious crashers? no, because some of these are genuinely people who have lost interest in the round and just wanna go out with a bang.
maybe people should offer some solutions? personally, i cannot think of any.
|
My suggestion would be is to defuse the motive/gain for the questionable attack.
I have seen this being done by MHs like deduct the difference in salvage / value / ships to null the gains of the crash as if it never took place But not consistently applied. So there is still some incentive to try your luck and see if you get away with it.
I understand MHs being relunctant to make public their procedures (as I am sure this would mean alliances not only having HCs DCs BCs but XXXXing QCs whos job it is to exploit any loopholes in being sanctioned from MHs)
Again with the lack of clarity would also have some sort of balance / procedure change from the status quo.
I think seeking "planning permission" as I would call it from MH to launch an attack on the top planets without it being recalled is too draconian.
Also it would leave things open like 1 person in the wave for the attack *ahem* forgetting to recall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killeah
So behold paisley they actually do close a planet here and there.
|
I don't doubt they do but as you put it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
process discreptancies.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killeah
why are CERTAIN planets allowed to do it unhindered ?
|
One of the definitions I had in mind.
Edit-quote fix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Players will come up with new creative ways of 'cheating'
|
Why procedures are required to be updated to address this.
Another one I had in mind.