So we held a little poll on AD

[lokken]

And this is what we came up with.

A response from PA team would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[Kal]

the poll is pretty evenly split.

As far as the game is now I think the eula is sufficient and I agree with the posts wakey made in that thread.

If we were to hardcode it so people can only defend their galaxy and alliance it would be part of a wider decision to focus the game play purely on thoose two groups. And might then include other additions such as an allianc status screen similar to a galaxy status screen. But I get the impression that a lot of people do not want us to focus purely on alliance and galalaxy game play - though I could be wrong.

[furball]

Personally I voted for keeping things the same, so I agree with Kal and Wakey. I don't want an alliance status screen, and directly focussing on alliances and galaxies only would be a bad thing for new players.

[mist]

lokken: how reflective of the wider audiance do you think a poll on AD is?

[Remy]

No - it's fine as it is 14.63%
Yes - hardcode it so planets in a tag can't defend/be defended outside of alliance and galaxy 41.46%
Yes - limit the current rule to defending 3.25%
Yes - just get rid of it 39.02%
Other 1.63%

If you look closer,the vote isnt really as close as it looks.

39 % want to get rid of it
16 % want to keep it like it is
__
55 %

41% wants to make it very strict

So the majority either wants to ditch it OR at least not make it more severe.

This calculus puts it in a kinda different light

Personally, i think it wud make the game very uninteresting if you limit possibilities too much. The fun of this game is not to be limited by limiting rules. The rules are there to prevent ABUSE only.

I think its perfect politics to have another alliance defend you, even repeatedly. For those that would like to make it defend only, i say: then it should also be forbidden to attack with 2 or more alliances on one single planet or even galaxy, otherwise it wud be unfair. You cannot implement one without the other. I do not see the difference bewteen multi alliance defense and multi alliance attacks: its BOTH interaction outside the alliance.

Also, what about players who are friends but in different alliances (don't tell me that doesnt happen, it happens a lot). They like to play the game and defend their mates.

Please, do not limit players too much, let's keep it fun, and simply ban those who abuse the game.

[Kal]

or you could look at it entirly differently

and bundle the strict and keep it as ti is together and say most people are in favour of the rule and its enforcement.

there is no clear outcome form this poll other than that opinion is entirly split and that regardless of what we do people will get pissed off.

[Phil^]

its a simple choice - scrap it and allow support planets to be abused, or keep it ( or hardcode it ) so that they cant

which do you think would be worse for the game?

edit : and before anyone says " hardly anyone will abuse it " ( or similar ) , need I remind you that this rule exists BECAUSE people have already abused support planets.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Kal

the poll is pretty evenly split.

As far as the game is now I think the eula is sufficient and I agree with the posts wakey made in that thread.

If we were to hardcode it so people can only defend their galaxy and alliance it would be part of a wider decision to focus the game play purely on thoose two groups. And might then include other additions such as an allianc status screen similar to a galaxy status screen. But I get the impression that a lot of people do not want us to focus purely on alliance and galalaxy game play - though I could be wrong.

You claim the poll is evenly split - how is 15% for and 85% against 'evenly split' and how does that justify keeping the status quo?

You chose to enforce an alliance limit and you chose to do it with an absurd rule that can circumvented, abused yet consider it perfectly justified to discourage joe player (who you seem to be overly concerned with) defending their mate on two occaisions which has a relatively minimal effect on the game.

The fact is that very few alliance players are happy with this rule lumbered over their head simply because it is so wooly. They are simply asking for full enforcement or none at all. Wakey's post is made up of things that quite frankly aren't proposed whatsoever and others that are quite frankly, presumptions.

Originally Posted by wakey

So what happens when you hardcode the feature to prevent defence support planets and instead of supporting them that way they start turning these people in to escorts to help with their attacking. Are you then going to call for a hardcoded block on attacking planets that are being attacked by those people outside your tag.

Simply put we dont need further hardcoded attack/defence limits. If people want to defend people outside their tag then fine let them as some cooperation is good for the game and then leave it to the MH to deal with those whom take the piss with it and are clearly abusing the system

No one even wants to suggest hardcoding preventing attacks. Everyone knows that politics is vital the game and attacking with someone else is not abusing the 80 member limit that you so passionately wish to enforce. The difference between attacking and defending, is that when you attack, you gain roids and XP, while with defending, you don't gain very much at all. A planet who attacks, attacks to gain something and therefore gets something for himself. The 'slippery slope' argument is simply proposterous. An alliance 'status' screen? Who suggested that? No one wants that. Galaxies can still play together.

Another presumption he makes is that players have a vague idea of what "takes the piss" and what doesn't by defending out of tag. Defending your mate twice does not take the piss in my eyes. Other activity that is legitimate, most certainly does, when you look at the very reason this rule was supposedly implemented. You have simply chucked this rule over our heads and given us no explanation whatsoever about how it is going to work, other than "if we think it's cheating, we'll delete you". How is relying on someone else's discretion viable when working out a strategy? Why should your discretion determine whether defending a friend was justified?

So far, despite having people with vastly different views on the subject, one theme has been clear amongst competitive players in planetarion from all sides: that they want a clear, workable position on this. To top this off, I have suggested a workable compromise on this hardcoding - that like with recruitment such hardcoded limits would only be effective for the top 5 alliances, so that while new players would have a substantial pool of defence and that the universe could defend as it pleases, the top alliances who are most prone to abusing their defence limit couldn't do it and thus the alliance ranking shows a true picture.

How reflective is a poll on AD? While we don't have stacks of users, we've got players who have got stacks and experience and knowledge. We are also probably the most fiercely moderated forum to ensure that reasonable discussion is maintained. They've seen how people have cheated in previous rounds and could probably think of several ways to cheat.

So what if the poll is inconclusive? It certainly implies that the status quo shouldn't be allowed to continue. Essentially this poll presents a choice: keep it and enforce it properly or scrap it.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by lokken

You claim the poll is evenly split - how is 15% for and 85% against 'evenly split' and how does that justify keeping the status quo?

the poll results can be interpreted other ways too. such as 59.34% want some means to prevent support planets from being abused.
as with all things, its how you interpret the raw data which counts

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the poll results can be interpreted other ways too. such as 59.34% want some means to prevent support planets from being abused.
as with all things, its how you interpret the raw data which counts

Lets keep it simple then:

only 15% polled want to keep things as they are. Does that sound like a ringing endorsement of the current situation to you?

it's up to PA team to think up something that's better than what we have. Just because people prefer one option, doesn't necessarily mean they won't accept another. I'm trying to interpret the data not just by reading the data but by reading the posts that go with it. There is one recurring theme: the want for certainty.

I have made a suggestion: one that prevents a substantial amount of abuse, abuse that is connected to ensuring that we get a fair result, gives a fair deal of certainty because the parameters to which it applies are clear, yet preserves the very idea that people can defend who they like in planetarion because quite frankly top 5 alliance players generally have little business in defending new players out of galaxy. I think it's one that people could tolerate, at least.

I think at the very least PA team should put forward various acceptable alternatives to what we have at the moment, simply because I think we can do a lot better than what we have at the moment.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by lokken

Lets keep it simple then:

only 15% polled want to keep things as they are. Does that sound like a ringing endorsement of the current situation to you?

Indeed, its not exactly a vote of confidence in pateams ability to catch people who abuse it, or confidence in the rule itself

Originally Posted by lokken

I have made a suggestion: one that prevents a substantial amount of abuse, abuse that is connected to ensuring that we get a fair result, gives a fair deal of certainty because the parameters to which it applies are clear, yet preserves the very idea that people can defend who they like in planetarion because quite frankly top 5 alliance players generally have little business in defending new players out of galaxy. I think it's one that people could tolerate, at least.

that sorts new players getting defence from the top5 alliance players, what about in reverse? i presume it applies that way too - ie top 5 alliance players can only get defence from either their galaxy or alliance

[mist]

i notice that there was no 'clarify the workings of the rule, but keep the spirit the same' option.

tbh, it's not a great poll, and as people have demonstrated can be used to say a veriety ofthings.

if, for instance, the rule were 'changed' so that a planet was considered guilty if it defended one alliance (or block?) more than 25% of the time then it would be considered in breach? this seems fairly clear, and seems to do what you want yet wasn't covered by the poll, which some could argue would force people to the two extremes that show prevelance.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by mist

i notice that there was no 'clarify the workings of the rule, but keep the spirit the same' option.

tbh, it's not a great poll, and as people have demonstrated can be used to say a veriety ofthings.

if, for instance, the rule were 'changed' so that a planet was considered guilty if it defended one alliance (or block?) more than 25% of the time then it would be considered in breach? this seems fairly clear, and seems to do what you want yet wasn't covered by the poll, which some could argue would force people to the two extremes that show prevelance.

problem with that is that its trivial to launch defence fleets randomly as to avoid being above the magical 25%, and still act as a defence farm

[lokken]

Correct, top 5 alliance players couldn't be defended by anyone outside their tag or galaxy nor could they defend anyone outside of their their tag or galaxy.

Outside the top 5 alliance players, the rule wouldn't apply in any shape or form which would allow the smaller planets the freedom to survive.

Scan planets could continue out of tag, but they wouldn't get any defence from their alliance. So any worries about that are removed also.

[mist]

i would hope that our intrepid team of multi hunters could tell a real launch when they see one?

with any kind of rule like this there's going to be ambiguity - i'm all in favour of a simple rule, along the lines of "play in the spirit of the game or we'll start deleting stuff". anyone who's playing properly will be able to justify their actions, the innocent have nothing to hide, etc.

[Phil^]

the data available to them ( at present ) isnt extensive enough to know for certain, they can see which fleet was launched , where, etc but not what was in the fleet at the time it was launched.
they'd need to catch it before the fleet got back and could be swapped with other ships, since fleet transfers arent logged either

[lokken]

Originally Posted by mist

i notice that there was no 'clarify the workings of the rule, but keep the spirit the same' option.

tbh, it's not a great poll, and as people have demonstrated can be used to say a veriety of things.

There is an other option, for "shit I couldn't think of at the time". People haven't gone "these are crap options" and clicked other, they selected the options provided.

But way to go at addressing the problem by criticising the poll and not addressing the issues. Did you take the time to read the posts contained? Perhaps you would like to make your own contribution to the AD thread. It would be most welcome.

[Seth Mace]

I voted the "Yes - hardcode it so planets in a tag can't defend/be defended outside of alliance and galaxy" option but have to admit that i personally made the decision without taking much time to consider the consequences. Im not suggesting other voters did this (im unwell atm so lack concentration) but what ive realised since then, is such a hardcoding would indeed remove an important aspect of PA and thats networking.

We've all got friends & contacts outside of our alliance/galaxy and while i've never really used such sources for defence, i know many players actively persue such arrangements and find it adds an exciting dynamic to their game.

Having read all the comments on both threads, for me the best solution is to simply makesure MH's get the tools that Phil has mentioned.

Because if im being honest here, from my experience i think for all their hardwork & effort, the MHs are f#cking useless. God ive lost count of the times i reported multis over the rounds, only to see said planets reopened a week later. Hopefully the new game engine will provide the MHs the tools they need but as with all new systems, the new bugs will likely increase abuse in the short-term.

[Phil^]

its less the tools, and more the restrictions placed upon them for "beyond reasonable doubt" , imo

edit : and also because people can come up with very convincing excuses

[mist]

Originally Posted by lokken

There is an other option, for "shit I couldn't think of at the time". People haven't gone "these are crap options" and clicked other, they selected the options provided.

in my experience, polls arn't a great indicator of what people really want, as they don't tend to think about them that much - a stated option will pretty much always get more support than it's due vs an 'other please state' type option.

having read the thread to refresh my memory (yes, i had read it) the general message does seem to be that clarification would be nice, and that the way people can see things being definate is to either abandon the rule or make it hardcoded (there also seems to be a fair bit of schepticism over the multihunter's ability to apply the current ruling properly), which seems to have left the middle ground rather threadbear. there's also the usual newbie friendlyness vs exi bashing that seems to go with this issue? however, it doesn't appear that anyone's really thought about alternative solutions, such as having a point at which a planet is considered to be a support planet.

But way to go at addressing the problem by criticising the poll and not addressing the issues.

perhaps questioning the 'correctness' of the poll wasn't wise, however your origonal post asked for a respone to the poll, not to the problem itself, and as such questioning its accuracy seemed perfectly valid.

[Remy]

also, polls arent neccesary a guarantuee that its the best thing. There is something called the 'tiranny of the majority' (freely translated from dutch)

What the most ppl want isnt neccesarily the best

[mist]

Originally Posted by Phil^

edit : and also because people can come up with very convincing excuses

they can? they must have a low opinion of the MH then, with some of the ones they use

[ComradeRob]

My reading of the results is that players simply want clarity. The current rule is a bit too vague and open to interpretation. A stricter rule would be clear to all, whilst abolishing the rule would get rid of the problem entirely. Personally I'd prefer either of those two options to the status quo.

I don't think that it's accurate to say that people voting for the status quo and people voting for hardcoding were voting on the same "side". Viewing it as a "clear rules" vs "arbitrary judgement" vote, there is a clear majority in favour of clarity, either by abolishing the rule or making it watertight.

[Kal]

I personally don't really understand what isn't clear from the eula other than it doesn't specifically say what the absolute maximum of things you can do is. But if we set an absoulte maximum then it would make sense to hard code that (like the exceptions system).

As long as someone isn't repeatedly defending a planet or alliance etc he shouldn't have a problem.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Kal

I personally don't really understand what isn't clear from the eula other than it doesn't specifically say what the absolute maximum of things you can do is. But if we set an absoulte maximum then it would make sense to hard code that (like the exceptions system).

As long as someone isn't repeatedly defending a planet or alliance etc he shouldn't have a problem.

the eula doesn't specify how often the multi hunters and/or biffy going off on one will cock things up. on the happy side, people seem to be willing to fill in the blanks on this one.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Kal

I personally don't really understand what isn't clear from the eula other than it doesn't specifically say what the absolute maximum of things you can do is. But if we set an absoulte maximum then it would make sense to hard code that (like the exceptions system).

As long as someone isn't repeatedly defending a planet or alliance etc he shouldn't have a problem.

Whether you understand or not, people aren't willing to take their planet into someone else's hands (i.e. your discretion) when they go out defending someone else. Some people don't even want a mark against them saying they've got one defence left or something. Then on the other hand, this rule allows other alliances to defend in large, key, one off battles which have far more wide reaching effects than people defending each other from time to time. The purpose of this rule was supposedly to enforce the alliance limit. It's not a consistent rule in it's application and logic. I am a planetarion player that has played since round 1. I feel it's essential that we have crystal clear rules so we can launch fleets legitimately and know for sure that we're not cheating.

And quite honestly, even if you like this rule, don't you think you can do a lot better than what you've given us, a rule that clearly a large amount of people are unhappy with? Is it a matter of pride that you are 'right'? I didn't post here to be 'right', i came here to try and thrash out a better rule for planetarion. As with Rob, i don't give a monkeys which way you go as long as there's a better situation than what we have now.

All I've got from you so far is an "i'm right so there" or a "people who don't understand the rule are stupid". You've never actually had any debate on what the rule should be, simply because you had it after the rule was implemented. You've not even analysed the proposal i put forward. From what I can see you just want to be right. I believe it is a workable solution. Phil^ believes it is workable from having talked to him. I certainly think it should be something it should be something up for discussion that you take seriously.

[mist]

is this cunning plan on the aforementioned thread, or something else?

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by lokken

You've not even analysed the proposal i put forward. From what I can see you just want to be right. I believe it is a workable solution. Phil^ believes it is workable from having talked to him. I certainly think it should be something it should be something up for discussion that you take seriously.

The proposal he's on about ( for those who havent read it ) is for the top 5 alliances to be subject to a hardcoded limit for who their members can defend, and who they can get defence from
The top 5 alliances would be prevented from defending outside of their galaxy or alliance, and similarly cannot recieve defence from outside of their galaxy or alliance.
This should cut down on the scale of abuse possible from support planets, while leaving the rest of the universe to "defend their mates"
forcing the top 5 alliances to "play fair" is better then a free for all where "whoever has the most support planets, wins"

Personally, i think it would be MUCH better if there was no need for such a rule in the first place, if certain alliances ( *cough guess who cough* ) didnt have such a desperate "win at all costs and to hell with the consequences for the game" mentality.
Need i remind people that the only reason the support planets rule even exists today is because certain people strted to abuse them, even though they werent specifically defined in the EULA, it went against everything that fair play stands for - and was subsequently banned.
The same thing happened when farming was a "legitimate tactic" back in the old days before it too was subsequently banned.

Such a mindset is destructive and if that is what constitutes players nowadays, kindly fo and go play/ruin other games instead.
Dont drag PA down with your misguided impression of what it is to "play fair"

[mist]

why do you need to stop people in the top 5 alliances defending others?
the not being able to get defence from outside is fairly obvious

[Phil^]

because they can impact the outcome of wars outside of the top 5, say the #6 and #10 alliances go to war and alliance #2 supports #10, it has a significant impact on #6's chances to win the war.
plus it covers the case where an alliance kicks a member in order to have other alliances defend him too.

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Phil^

because they can impact the outcome of wars outside of the top 5, say the #6 and #10 alliances go to war and alliance #2 supports #10, it has a significant impact on #6's chances to win the war.
plus it covers the case where an alliance kicks a member in order to have other alliances defend him too.

Isnt that one of the fun parts of the game?

[Phil^]

would you consider roid farming to be a "fun part of the game"?
would you consider defence fleet farming to be a "fun part of the game"?
then why would it suddenly be fun for alliance #2 to defend #10 , while #10 goes all out attacking on #6?

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Phil^

would you consider roid farming to be a "fun part of the game"?
would you consider defence fleet farming to be a "fun part of the game"?
then why would it suddenly be fun for alliance #2 to defend #10 , while #10 goes all out attacking on #6?

Farming and having support planets is one thing,
but a diplomatic victory or actually getting alliances to be willing to help eachother in such a way and make it work is quite an achievement imo
If an alliance defends the other they leave themselfs open to attacks

[Phil^]

imo support planets are little more then farming defence fleets - which is why i compaired them to farming.
in order to prevent support planets/def farms from being abused , restrictions are required.
either that or for a large chunk of the player base to suddenly grow a moral backbone and play for the benefit of the game instead of themselves

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Phil^

imo support planets are little more then farming defence fleets - which is why i compaired them to farming.
in order to prevent support planets/def farms from being abused , restrictions are required.
either that or for a large chunk of the player base to suddenly grow a moral backbone and play for the benefit of the game instead of themselves

How about this.

Alliances can only get defended by alliances with a minimum of 65% of their alliance size (membercount)
Allianceless people cannot defend alliances with more then 40 members



(just trowing in some random stuff)

[Kal]

I have absolutely no problem what soever with alliances forming poltical relationships to aid in them meeting their objectives providing thoose relationships are dynamic and not fixed.

The issue of support planets in in my opinion entirly separate so I am against any of the hard coding schemes suggested. I might however be in favour of a "soft" hard limit which limits the amount of defence in a "cunning" way to non alliance/galaxy planets - i.e. a rule which supports the spirirt of the eula.

such a limit would be based around repeated defence of specific planets/alliances.

[Phil^]

kal, a "soft hard limit" would be utterly useless. take the blinkers off and see the whole picture fs
either you have a hardcoded limit, it is specifically forbidden, punishable by closures, or you have it removed completely - there isnt a middle ground
removing the limit would open the game to horrendous abuse of these support planets and would ultimately be a disaster for the game.
any limit which is done based on a percentage or number of times to defend a certain alliance in a given time frame is defeatable in such a blatantly obvious way im surprised you hadnt realised what it is.
defend your "masters alliance" a few times, send the occasional dummy defence fleet out to random people, send the occasional attack out and laugh as the multihunters are unable to pin you for breaking the rules.

Lokkens suggestion is the best ive heard yet for a hardcoded limit, and as such im rather disappointed you cant see this

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Alessio

How about this.

Alliances can only get defended by alliances with a minimum of 65% of their alliance size (membercount)
Allianceless people cannot defend alliances with more then 40 members



(just trowing in some random stuff)

defence planets form small alliances lower then 65% of their masters alliance membercount, and get around the first suggestion
the second suggestion doesnt even need to be considered since they all just form small alliances on their own

[mist]

i can vaguley understand kal's opposition to a hard coded limit, as it does appear to be the least shit of a fairly shit range of options, tbh.

that said, i'd have thought it was reasonably easy to detect fake defence/attacks?

-mist

[Phil^]

not from what i know of the multihunting tools data source. as i said in another thread somewhere they cant see what a fleet has in it at a particular time, only what fleet slot it takes up and where it is going. ( other things too ofc but these arent useful for catching fake defence and attack fleet )

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Phil^

defence planets form small alliances lower then 65% of their masters alliance membercount, and get around the first suggestion
the second suggestion doesnt even need to be considered since they all just form small alliances on their own

Small allliances can 'handled' and 'targeted' as alliances

I mean lets say u got a 70 member alliance and a slave alliance
(70 / 100) * 65 = 45.5
Then the slave alliance has at least 45 members..... I'd say welcome the new alliance


and If you create 2 'half' alliance, then that wouldn't be very profitable since u don't get the eta bonus
And we can attack them then anyway, while we DO have the eta defence bonus

[mist]

Originally Posted by Phil^

defence planets form small alliances lower then 65% of their masters alliance membercount, and get around the first suggestion
the second suggestion doesnt even need to be considered since they all just form small alliances on their own

minimum... they'd have to form alliances 65% or more of the alliance they want to defend, surely? i'm assum,ing that the thinking behind this is that noone will bother playing their support planets that much, or if they do then the hunters will catch them for multiing.

for the second one, do you mean that all of the alliances would break up in to wings with 40- members? wouldn't that be blatantly obvious?

[Phil^]

problem is alessio, theres no limit to the number of 'new alliances' which get created. one alliance with say 10 ( stupidly large number i know but not impossible ) flak alliances is blatantly unfair to the other alliances who play by that the rules and what they consider fair

[mist]

Originally Posted by Phil^

not from what i know of the multihunting tools data source. as i said in another thread somewhere they cant see what a fleet has in it at a particular time, only what fleet slot it takes up and where it is going. ( other things too ofc but these arent useful for catching fake defence and attack fleet )

given that they're working on a rewrite, it would seem simple to inclue whatever grabs are neccessary. with a full set of pa data, i think it'd be fairly trivial to spot fake launches

[Phil^]

given the short timespan they have to rewrite the whole game from scratch again, i seriously doubt that multihunting will be high on the priority list, it wasnt back in r10 after all and multihunting additions took several rounds to get bolted on for the mh to have an acceptable datasource to catch cheats with

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Alessio

and If you create 2 'half' alliance, then that wouldn't be very profitable since u don't get the eta bonus
And we can attack them then anyway, while we DO have the eta defence bonus

you dont need the eta bonus to be effective as a support planet / def farm
look at vipers, vsh and frigates this round after all

Originally Posted by mist

minimum... they'd have to form alliances 65% or more of the alliance they want to defend, surely? i'm assum,ing that the thinking behind this is that noone will bother playing their support planets that much, or if they do then the hunters will catch them for multiing.

for the second one, do you mean that all of the alliances would break up in to wings with 40- members? wouldn't that be blatantly obvious?

they dont have to, so long as they are under the 65% membercount limit they can continue to defend.
it very well may be blatant also, but if it is "within the rules" there is sod all the MH can do about it

as for the second point, i was more saying that it wouldnt come up since they'd all be in their smaller alliances defending each other anyway

[Alessio]

My two suggested limits are one suggestion btw
both limits should be operational at the same time

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Phil^

you dont need the eta bonus to be effective as a support planet / def farm
look at vipers, vsh and frigates this round after all

Well then, I bet MH can catch the obvious organised abusers with ease then.
Since they have to structurize their alliance towards it. (which also gives them some big penalty's)

All we need is a decent definition of support planet then

[Phil^]

its not quite as simple as just looking at fleet compositions.
people on the whole arent ( and havent been ) as stupid as to have fleets entirely composed of vipers for instance ths round and theres no reason that would change for next round
( yes theres been the odd one or two who have though )
and - what would they close them for - "inappropriate fleet composition" ?

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Phil^

its not quite as simple as just looking at fleet compositions.
people on the whole arent ( and havent been ) as stupid as to have fleets entirely composed of vipers for instance ths round and theres no reason that would change for next round
( yes theres been the odd one or two who have though )
and - what would they close them for - "inappropriate fleet composition" ?

'Abusing the alliancesize limits'
By continuously playing as a member of a certain alliance without joining them.


And when they actually start organizing as wing alliances it could have positive results for the game anyway.