Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

Mzyxptlk · 21 Mar 2010, 19:22

The spirit of the game is cooperation. This can be seen from the fact that planets cannot do well without the support of an alliance, without the support of a decent galaxy and without a reasonable network of friends. It can also be seen from the fact that alliance frequently work together, which has in fact now been formalised ingame as well, with the introduction of the NAP-system. Furthermore, as Zaejii said, donations have been used in the past to give late sign ups a boost up the rankings, as well as in other situations. PA is more a game of cooperation than it is a game of combat.

I do not believe rules should not have a "spirit". If you can't rigorously define what is not allowed, it should not be defined at all. But if we for a minute assume the support planet rules do have a "spirit", it's that people without tag or in tag X cannot dedicate a significant portion of their time and effort to the furthering of the goals of tag Y. The same can be said of galaxies. However, people are entirely allowed to support someone in their own tag. And again, the same goes for galaxies.

In this particular case, the people in 10:4 are all in the same alliance as well as (obviously) the same galaxy. Therefore, the "spirit" of the support planet rule has not been violated.

The people in 10:4 have said they're doing it to show that the donation system is broken. I disagree with this assessment. There are many effective and legitimate uses for it, for example the aforementioned boosting of late sign ups. I don't see this case as being particularly different from what has happened in the past, except maybe as far as effectiveness is concerned. I do not think this will do the guy they donated to much good. He'll have a big planet for a while, but he will be unable to cap many roids because of his value, which will stunt his growth, while his galaxy's growth is also stunted because they gave away all their value and won't be able to gain roids either. In a couple of weeks the guy they donated to will be just as big as he would have been if he had played normally, while his galaxy will be smaller than they would have been if they'd played normally. And I haven't even touched on how the guy they donated to will get through the coming night.

In order for this strategy to be called an "exploit", it has to have some tangible gain for the people that use it while harming those who do not. Based on the above reasoning, I fail to see how this strategy can be said to meet either of those criteria.

**** subjectivity.

21 Mar 2010, 19:22	#32
Mzyxptlk mz. Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8,587	Re: donation whores The spirit of the game is cooperation. This can be seen from the fact that planets cannot do well without the support of an alliance, without the support of a decent galaxy and without a reasonable network of friends. It can also be seen from the fact that alliance frequently work together, which has in fact now been formalised ingame as well, with the introduction of the NAP-system. Furthermore, as Zaejii said, donations have been used in the past to give late sign ups a boost up the rankings, as well as in other situations. PA is more a game of cooperation than it is a game of combat. I do not believe rules should not have a "spirit". If you can't rigorously define what is not allowed, it should not be defined at all. But if we for a minute assume the support planet rules do have a "spirit", it's that people without tag or in tag X cannot dedicate a significant portion of their time and effort to the furthering of the goals of tag Y. The same can be said of galaxies. However, people are entirely allowed to support someone in their own tag. And again, the same goes for galaxies. In this particular case, the people in 10:4 are all in the same alliance as well as (obviously) the same galaxy. Therefore, the "spirit" of the support planet rule has not been violated. The people in 10:4 have said they're doing it to show that the donation system is broken. I disagree with this assessment. There are many effective and legitimate uses for it, for example the aforementioned boosting of late sign ups. I don't see this case as being particularly different from what has happened in the past, except maybe as far as effectiveness is concerned. I do not think this will do the guy they donated to much good. He'll have a big planet for a while, but he will be unable to cap many roids because of his value, which will stunt his growth, while his galaxy's growth is also stunted because they gave away all their value and won't be able to gain roids either. In a couple of weeks the guy they donated to will be just as big as he would have been if he had played normally, while his galaxy will be smaller than they would have been if they'd played normally. And I haven't even touched on how the guy they donated to will get through the coming night. In order for this strategy to be called an "exploit", it has to have some tangible gain for the people that use it while harming those who do not. Based on the above reasoning, I fail to see how this strategy can be said to meet either of those criteria. **** subjectivity. __________________ 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. Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 21 Mar 2010 at 19:44.