So question to exilition...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I'm not sure what the "no" was from but yes, Kaifux used Abso def whilst in 1up. He also got closed for it although he was later reopened.

I was quoting this:

No. Who do you think would defend 1up against a hostile fleetcatch?

I don't think anyone really tried to fleetcatch us in r12, and I BCed the last 'big hits' on TeK and didn't get Absolute def from Kaifux on those. So there's no direct parallel (nor did I mean to imply that there was).

1up did occasionally swap def with ND in r12 and r13. The key word here being swap. I could probably pull some 'shady' examples out of my PM logs if I were 'bitter' or 'vindictive', but the fact of the matter is that there is no real bad guy in all this.

Edit: Gate obviously beat me to this. He was usually the guy I spoke to. I don't think I ever took up his offers. I religiously hate close cooperation with other alliances and did my best to eschew contact with our 'allies' whenever we had any.

Originally Posted by Chika

Yeah, I second this. RD 12 Kaifux was sending absolute defence. (now rather he was sending all these fleets himself or the actual planet owners, is still a toss up) But thats a bit different though jester.

Different from what? The original post? Yes, but that's not what I was commenting on. I just found the lapdogs comment amusing.

A few EX appear to be stuck in the past* in thinking that blocked alliances should defend eachother. I don't think so, because it's another latch of attachment. And I think that hurts the smaller alliance. The fact is that a smaller alliance latched onto a large alliance can never outgrow their sugardaddy so long as he's around. Elysium only became 'great' once Legion and Xanadu were gone. ND could only ever threaten for first when they gave the cold shoulder to 1up. And so on.

You've enjoyed bringing up LCH, so I'll go on with them. LCH of round 11 and 12 threatened for first, but LCH of r13 was a lapdog to the greater cause of beating 1up, and in my opinion it showed in their crumbling after they lost in round 14.

So while I don't think it's 'evil' of EXilition to receive defense from outside the alliance, nor do I think it violates the EULA**, as these planets are not dedicated to repeatedly saving EX's ass. In fact, so long as they don't completely abandon their tagged alliance while also defending EX, I don't see the 'ethical' dilemma. I do, however, see alliances being stupid.

* Or maybe that other game.

** (f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

[Alessio]

I think it should be kept in mind that the only reason that rule exists is to stop support planets*
So using that rule for any other random purpose is just an act of total gayness**







* Their is a big difference between support planets and alliances cooperating
** gay as in happy

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Banned

I was quoting this:

I don't think anyone really tried to fleetcatch us in r12, and I BCed the last 'big hits' on TeK and didn't get Absolute def from Kaifux on those. So there's no direct parallel (nor did I mean to imply that there was).

1up did occasionally swap def with ND in r12 and r13. The key word here being swap. I could probably pull some 'shady' examples out of my PM logs if I were 'bitter' or 'vindictive', but the fact of the matter is that there is no real bad guy in all this.

Yes, you're absolutely right but I was principally discussing this round and, in particular, the involvement of 1up/ND/Angels. For the record I got def from all over when FAnG retalled me for calling thier HC 'bitches' in round 10.5 - god bless Gate

My reason for posting wasn't to instigate a 'good guy, bad guy' scenario but to drill holes in the 'eX are pwning 1up and other top alliances' rubbish I invarably see in various threads and all over the gray blobs I repeatedly get. eX are a superb alliance but by no means have we ever seen them work 'alone'. Politically, of course, they don't have to answer to me or anyone other than thier HC but to claim single superiotiry is just plain cobblers.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

My reason for posting wasn't to instigate a 'good guy, bad guy' scenario but to drill holes in the 'eX are pwning 1up and other top alliances' rubbish I invarably see in various threads and all over the gray blobs I repeatedly get. eX are a superb alliance but by no means have we ever seen them work 'alone'. Politically, of course, they don't have to answer to me or anyone other than thier HC but to claim single superiotiry is just plain cobblers.

Tbh, I suspect Kaifux picked up a few tricks from his stay in 1up in r12.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by Phil^

So thats a yes.
Just as its conveniant that fleetcatching with more then one alliance isnt forbidden in the rules, but repeated out of gal, out of alliance defence is?
In the same way exilition found a way to use support planets before forcing the creation of the very rule thats been broken here in one case?

Well congratulations, he defended more then once out of ally and out of galaxy/cluster. Thats one symptom. Having itchy balls doesnt mean you necessarily have the scabs.

Just because you think its true, doesnt make it ACTUALLY true

Where you get it from that eXilition "found" the way to use it(whatever the hell that means)? You must be a member I guess knowing all those thing about them

Originally Posted by Phil^

Just as its conveniant that fleetcatching with more then one alliance isnt forbidden in the rules, but repeated out of gal, out of alliance defence is

Once again its stated the rule is used to counter support planets.
Now in what way is one alliance sending def to another alliance connected to beeing a support planet? If your closing planets who are well known not to be support planets by regularly attacking with there ally and regularly defending there ally, but def someone else out of gal/alliance more then 4 times. Then whats the point of the bloody rule in the first place. Why the hell do you even comment on these situations. I dont recall you beeing a PA-admin at the moment and thus dont have the tools to have the facts needed to make such judgements.

Originally Posted by Phil^

In the same way exilition found a way to use support planets before forcing the creation of the very rule thats been broken here in one case?

Please back up with a little more then simply defended more then once out of alliance/galaxy, maybe it was a simular situation as Gate described with icewind. Maybe yes, maybe no. Difference is I dont start labeling it as "support" planet. I sincerely hope not everyone is as gulable as you are

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Did I say anything about a fleetcatch? There been more than one instance of it. It just happens that this was on a much larger scale. As I've already said, 1up are not at war with eXilition and I can guarentee you can't show me proof of 1up specifically targetting eX other than in gal raids for the past week and a half*.

You didnt, but I did. And since this thread started about the fleetcatch isnt it fair for me to assume you mean this? Your point beeing... I know that Angels deffended ND on more then one occassion and you know what(I could get u a newsscan if you want). Good for them. They're friendly to eachother, have a commen enemy and help eachother in times of need. Isnt that the whole idea of one side fighting another and isnt that the current situation? Please tell me again what is so dishonourable and low about this?

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

* Other than the obvious fleet catch and then 1up were only retalling defenders who we now know weren't eX thus emphasising the point

Now this doesnt strike me as particularly friendly/neutral while u obviously stated you were retalling defenders which you at first assumed were eXi.

[HK]

Originally Posted by Banned

I do, however, see alliances being stupid.

Well I see also some alliances being stupid, instead of caring about their position in top5, they just keep attacking a certain other alliance just out of grudge and hatred, this is not logical. On the other hand eX has 90% of the round attacked the most dangerous alliance at a given time. But heh, it's better for ND to win the round than eXi, right? Great logic you guys have :)

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

Well I see also some alliances being stupid, instead of caring about their position in top5, they just keep attacking a certain other alliance just out of grudge and hatred, this is not logical. On the other hand eX has 90% of the round attacked the most dangerous alliance at a given time. But heh, it's better for ND to win the round than eXi, right? Great logic you guys have

1up were really that dangerous with half the roids of the number one alliance and in 4th place?

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

1up were really that dangerous with half the roids of the number one alliance and in 4th place?

We both know its not about roids, no need for further comment really

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

You didnt, but I did. And since this thread started about the fleetcatch isnt it fair for me to assume you mean this? Your point beeing... I know that Angels deffended ND on more then one occassion and you know what(I could get u a newsscan if you want). Good for them. They're friendly to eachother, have a commen enemy and help eachother in times of need. Isnt that the whole idea of one side fighting another and isnt that the current situation? Please tell me again what is so dishonourable and low about this?

So you quote one of my posts and you decide the meaning by way of assumption? You're either beyond arrogant or beyond stupid. I can't decide which at the moment. The original thread wasn't about the fleet catch, it was about out of alliance defence.

I'd be happy to take a look at your news scan and showed flawed intel.

I didn't say it was dishonourable you imbecile, I said it proved eX have never done anything alone. If you're going to try and point score then you could at least have the decency to read mine and everyone else posts first.

Originally Posted by KweKwek

Now this doesnt strike me as particularly friendly/neutral while u obviously stated you were retalling defenders which you at first assumed were eXi.

People with roids and fleet out are people with roids and fleet out. Targets presented themselves by way of an offer. Would eX have turned it down on the basis of not targetting a singular alliance? I think not. Now let's try the next lameass effort at trying to prove something.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

So you quote one of my posts and you decide the meaning by way of assumption? You're either beyond arrogant or beyond stupid. I can't decide which at the moment. The original thread wasn't about the fleet catch, it was about out of alliance defence.

No need for the name calling now is there...
The fleetcatch, alliance crossdef/out of alliance def are part of the same issue where the fuss is about. Dont think Ska started the thread out of boredom when there was a fleetcatch going on including 5ish or more alliances. I dont think there was any other situation today for any large scale alliance crossdef as you so nicely put it.

Originally Posted by ska

List for defenders for an exilition (fc nonetheless) planet in cluster one. I normally don't get into politics on AD and I have quite a few friends in ex, but I do find this rather rediculous:

Defending 1:X:3

12:X:X hostile LCH
10:X:X hostile LCH
9:X:X hostile LCH
13:X:X neutral HowlingRain
6:X:X hostile Vengeance
19:X:X hostile HowlingRain
3:X:X hostile Vengeance
10:X:X hostile Vengeance
3:X:X hostile HowlingRain
4:X:X hostile Vengeance
15:X:X hostile Vengeance
2:X:X hostile LCH
10:X:X neutral HowlingRain

Anyone care to explain? Seems rather against EULA as well. OOGOOA.

Coords are available upon request ofc.

mmmm this looks alot to be part of the jpg I made to check how that fleetcatch is going. Wait a minute.... isnt this the FIRST post of the thread thus setting the topic. Yes, yes you'll start calling me names again etc. but what Ska failed to mention was that this happened BECAUSE of a fleetcatch of multiple alliances in the first place. So lets lets simply put it as it is. This was just simply a case of alliance cross def. Doesnt look like any support planets to me tho Phil^ might disagree with me on this . which brings me back to your first thread about commenting the way eXi plays and makes me ask you this question. I cant reckon on any other alliance winning a round without outside help, do you? And lett me ask you a question. What in your eyes is a decent played round and which ally accomplished it since PAX was implemented?

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I didn't say it was dishonourable you imbecile, I said it proved eX have never done anything alone. If you're going to try and point score then you could at least have the decency to read mine and everyone else posts first.

Well its not like 1up single handedly won for example r14 ( doesnt mean I have alot of respect that you won it) I'm just trying to point out that hardly anyone can clame that. So no need to even go there.

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

People with roids and fleet out are people with roids and fleet out. Targets presented themselves by way of an offer. Would eX have turned it down on the basis of not targetting a singular alliance? I think not. Now let's try the next lameass effort at trying to prove something.

Not at all, but then my question to you is. Why did you target eX instead of ND or Angels, they surely had fleets out beeing busy with a fleetcatch and all? You say 1up isnt at war with eXi yet that surely looks like an act of war if you retal targets you then thought were eXi.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

For the record I got def from all over when FAnG retalled me for calling thier HC 'bitches' in round 10.5 - god bless Gate

Remind me to repeat that just cause you once said all that nasty stuff about us !!!

[lokken]

I read this thread and i still can't figure it out.

What are support planets? Attack? Defence? The ND HC who i happen to advise are quite frankly confused by this rule. I'm not actually sure from some people's comments from this thread what precisely we can or cannot do.

ND don't defend out of tag, any planets out of tag can't do anything for them because if they do they get deleted, yet there are planets in the game who can defend each other out of tag because their HC told them to do it. I see little difference between the first and the latter, yet the latter is open which I do not understand. If cooperation in attack is not permitted as I infer, what do we do next? Are all politics from the game eliminated? Are planets of ND/Angels/1up/exiltion/lch/vgn/subh/anyone else under threat?

This is a bizarre, hastily conceived rule. I am not happy with it, simply because its application is thoroughly inconsistent and more importantly, it is not a workable rule. However, as a player i have no choice but to demand its enforcement, because if I do not, my opposition or someone who agrees with it certainly will or at the very least try to benefit from it one way or another.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

Well I see also some alliances being stupid, instead of caring about their position in top5, they just keep attacking a certain other alliance just out of grudge and hatred, this is not logical. On the other hand eX has 90% of the round attacked the most dangerous alliance at a given time. But heh, it's better for ND to win the round than eXi, right? Great logic you guys have

Stupidity is everywhere. In EX too.

[Ska]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

It's a first offense for all but one of them. If you read the thread here it does mention that that's allowed, it's just people repeatedly defending while not in an alliance that becomes an issue. It is, literally, to stop "support" planets from existing with their sole purpose to build certain ships (e.g. vipers) and repeatedly defend an alliance / certain set of planets.

Also, I think you neglected to mention it's quite a big fleet catch
If you want, we can check the attackers to see that they're all in the same alliance and not attacking with other alliances more often than "proper".... ?

So the correct course of action for an alliance to take is to have their support planets make a seperate alliance, and then they can defend the "mother" alliance as much as they want?*

I gotta agree with lokken on this one, it just seems very subjective.

*This is obviously the extreme case etc

[HK]

Originally Posted by lokken

I read this thread and i still can't figure it out.

What are support planets? Attack? Defence? The ND HC who i happen to advise are quite frankly confused by this rule. I'm not actually sure from some people's comments from this thread what precisely we can or cannot do.

ND don't defend out of tag, any planets out of tag can't do anything for them because if they do they get deleted, yet there are planets in the game who can defend each other out of tag because their HC told them to do it. I see little difference between the first and the latter, yet the latter is open which I do not understand. If cooperation in attack is not permitted as I infer, what do we do next? Are all politics from the game eliminated? Are planets of ND/Angels/1up/exiltion/lch/vgn/subh/anyone else under threat?

This is a bizarre, hastily conceived rule. I am not happy with it, simply because it's application is thoroughly inconsistent and more importantly, it is not a workable rule. However, as a player i have no choice but to demand its enforcement, because if I do not, my opposition or someone who agrees with it certainly will or at the very least try to benefit from it one way or another.

I'm afraid that multihunters will try to solve these situations where an alliance HC/officer tells the members of the alliance to send def ships out of alliance/out of cluster/out of galaxy by the book. This would result in the deletion of those planets and a rather angry alliance command. In my humble opinion this should never happen. Pa crew with it's multihunters should do their very best to make this game fair and enjoyable for all alliances and thus this rather vague rule should be changed or removed in the future rounds. If the MH team would really want to 'show' their power then I'm afraid not just some people will quit PA because of it's tyrannic leadership but whole alliances. Let's hope that in these last few days of this round the MHs won't ruin one of the most interesting and intense rounds in PA history by doing something rash and stupid.

[Tis]

I cba to read it all in detail, but just so im clear when planning for next round. Its now perfectly fine for me to have all my friends and relatives sign up def planets for me, as long as they 'join' another alliance?

And where the hell did all this talk of cooperative attacks show up? Are you all ****ing dense?

[KweKweK]

I completly agree with you lokken. This rule brings to many problems around, tho the reason why it came to life was ment well, it completly backfired simply because there is a real big grey area because the boundries of what can and cant be done is not really clear. Mostly because the makers didnt take the time to see what side effects it would have. In the end we're all equally misserable without the rule and it saves everyone alot of problems, time and irritation if it were scrapped and totally thought over about what the rule should actually accomplish imo.

[HK]

Originally Posted by Tis

And where the hell did all this talk of cooperative attacks show up? Are you all ****ing dense?

Well it is a bit weird, is it not, that a number of alliances can gang up on one planet and only the alliance of that planet is allowed to defend (not talking about ingal/incluster). Or is this another way to make PA even more attack-biased. Like these completely INSANE stats were not enough. Will any1 even build def fleets next round and will this game change into 'whoroidsmostwillwintheround'? Come on :)

[Ska]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

mmmm this looks alot to be part of the jpg I made to check how that fleetcatch is going. Wait a minute.... isnt this the FIRST post of the thread thus setting the topic. Yes, yes you'll start calling me names again etc. but what Ska failed to mention was that this happened BECAUSE of a fleetcatch of multiple alliances in the first place. So lets lets simply put it as it is. This was just simply a case of alliance cross def.


Not at all, but then my question to you is. Why did you target eX instead of ND or Angels, they surely had fleets out beeing busy with a fleetcatch and all? You say 1up isnt at war with eXi yet that surely looks like an act of war if you retal targets you then thought were eXi.

1. The fleet catch happened because of irritation about continued muppetry from alliances supporting exilition. VGN in particular can't possibly have any self respect left.

2. I dont think anyone would argue that those planets are "support planets" in the multi/cheat sense of the word. I was simply pointing out that this "we are winning on our own" was either a lie or there is some grand odd coincidence.

3. We have been targeting whoever we feel like, including full galaxies. Not to mention why would we want to hit Angels and ND when its exilition 'pets' that target us every night.

[HK]

Originally Posted by Ska

*snip*
continued muppetry from alliances supporting exilition. VGN in particular can't possibly have any self respect left.
*snip*

No disrespect but if all alliances which are below yours can be called muppets then can I call 1up and Angels ND's muppets? Please stop insulting alliances which are weaker than your own. Thanks to them we have had an interesting round which didn't end 2 weeks after the tickstart. Oh and it's not their nor eXi's fault which side they chose or how they have played this round. If they didn't choose a side you would whine at them for being fencesitters or just afraid of real wars. Imo it's better to have war with multiple alliances then just to sit in a top position in the alliance rankings and roid the latter part of top10 alliances.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

Well it is a bit weird, is it not, that a number of alliances can gang up on one planet and only the alliance of that planet is allowed to defend (not talking about ingal/incluster). Or is this another way to make PA even more attack-biased. Like these completely INSANE stats were not enough. Will any1 even build def fleets next round and will this game change into 'whoroidsmostwillwintheround'? Come on

Weird or not, its the Rules.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by Tis

Weird or not, its the Rules.

Tho rules arent necessarily good rules and bad rules dont make a game more fun to play. And if we dont play this game for fun then why should we stay here? Certainly not to keep filling jolt's wallet

[Tis]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

Tho rules arent necessarily good rules and bad rules dont make a game more fun to play. And if we dont play this game for fun then why should we stay here? Certainly not to keep filling jolt's wallet

So basicly, if you dont like the rules, you dont follow them? What an asshole.

I'd much rather pricks like you who think they can do whatever they like DIDNT play, it make the game better for everyone else.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by Ska

1. The fleet catch happened because of irritation about continued muppetry from alliances supporting exilition. VGN in particular can't possibly have any self respect left..

Well same applies here as what I told mazz really, this doesnt make you look to good either doing retals for ND. Maybe the reason why you hit us is the same reason why those so called "eXi muppets" hit you. Could you please care to explain what VgN's self esteem got to do with this?

Originally Posted by Ska

2. I dont think anyone would argue that those planets are "support planets" in the multi/cheat sense of the word. I was simply pointing out that this "we are winning on our own" was either a lie or there is some grand odd coincidence.

Who said this???

Originally Posted by Ska

3. We have been targeting whoever we feel like, including full galaxies. Not to mention why would we want to hit Angels and ND when its exilition 'pets' that target us every night.

Same reason probably goes for every alliance in the universe, despite what u might think.

[-Blue Moon-]

or perhaps those people trolling eX are angry that they (themselves) are such bad negotiators/'politicians' (regarding alliance politics) that they couldn't persuade another alliance to actively help with defending a fleet-catch?
in lehman's terms:
Aren't they just pissed that they have no friends? lol

tbh, if a friend in any alliance came to me and said "tux mate, i need anti-FR eta8 for a fleet-catch from a few ND/Angels/1up planets" I would help (if i could) for 2 reasons: to help a friend, and to lay waste to a few 'enemy' fleets.

In conclusion : stop whining. it won't make people like you any more than they do or (seemingly) don't now.

[Tis]

Were talking about DEFENDING here.
All you can bring up for examples are ATTACKING.

Or maybe your arguement is that VSN members are so dense they cant tell the difference, and thought they were attacking the EX planet?

Good grief.

[KweKweK]

What is it with the names really?

Originally Posted by tis

I cba to read it all in detail, ...

That says it all tbh.

Where did I ever state I just do what I want exactly? What I have been saying already that this fuss is about nothing. Nothing new or extra ordinary happened today. A couple of people just want to take advantage of a badly formulated rule.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

Tho rules arent necessarily good rules and bad rules dont make a game more fun to play. And if we dont play this game for fun then why should we stay here? Certainly not to keep filling jolt's wallet

Following the 'bad' Rules makes the game Unfun. You would not play the game if it was Unfun. You play the game, therefore you do not follow the rules.

If my logic are wrong, let me know.

[KweKweK]

Originally Posted by Tis

Were talking about DEFENDING here.
All you can bring up for examples are ATTACKING.

Or maybe your arguement is that VSN members are so dense they cant tell the difference, and thought they were attacking the EX planet?

Good grief.

Please start reading the whole thread before commenting in a manor like this. saves us all the grieve

Originally Posted by KweKweK

I know that Angels deffended ND on more then one occassion and you know what(I could get u a newsscan if you want). Good for them. They're friendly to eachother, have a commen enemy and help eachother in times of need. Isnt that the whole idea of one side fighting another and isnt that the current situation?

Originally Posted by gate

And this round, icewind (the guy I've known longest in PA) defended me once

Read the thread and if u want to continue this we can talk on IRC if u want

[Tis]

Originally Posted by KweKweK

Please start reading the whole thread before commenting in a manor like this. saves us all the grieve

My POINT is that most of the thread is irrelevent because it got hijacked by you lot into a completely irrelevent discussion on joint attacks. My only real interest here is the event that occured today that started the thread.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by -Blue Moon-

Aren't they just pissed that they have no friends? lol

tbh, if a friend in any alliance came to me and said "tux mate, i need anti-FR eta8 for a fleet-catch from a few ND/Angels/1up planets" I would help (if i could) for 2 reasons: to help a friend, and to lay waste to a few 'enemy' fleets.

In conclusion : stop whining. it won't make people like you any more than they do or (seemingly) don't now.

This does not look like "tux mate I need anti-fr eta 8 for fleetcatch from a few hostile planets". Tbh, it looks more like eXiliotion players who are in other tags.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by -Blue Moon-

Aren't they just pissed that they have no friends? lol

While this is an argument that could have been raised when the rule was made in the first place, the problem is it has been applied now, in unequal measures.

Having friends is not an issue. Defending out of tag? Unfair advantage? Deletion.

Easy peasy, really.

[KweKweK]

What u seemed to have missed out on is that this is one of the problems this badly formulated "rule" has.

Lett me quote some more posts:

Originally Posted by lokken

I read this thread and i still can't figure it out.

What are support planets? Attack? Defence? The ND HC who i happen to advise are quite frankly confused by this rule. I'm not actually sure from some people's comments from this thread what precisely we can or cannot do.

ND don't defend out of tag, any planets out of tag can't do anything for them because if they do they get deleted, yet there are planets in the game who can defend each other out of tag because their HC told them to do it. I see little difference between the first and the latter, yet the latter is open which I do not understand. If cooperation in attack is not permitted as I infer, what do we do next? Are all politics from the game eliminated? Are planets of ND/Angels/1up/exiltion/lch/vgn/subh/anyone else under threat?

This is a bizarre, hastily conceived rule. I am not happy with it, simply because its application is thoroughly inconsistent and more importantly, it is not a workable rule. However, as a player i have no choice but to demand its enforcement, because if I do not, my opposition or someone who agrees with it certainly will or at the very least try to benefit from it one way or another.

Originally Posted by redcrab

I'm afraid that multihunters will try to solve these situations where an alliance HC/officer tells the members of the alliance to send def ships out of alliance/out of cluster/out of galaxy by the book. This would result in the deletion of those planets and a rather angry alliance command. In my humble opinion this should never happen. Pa crew with it's multihunters should do their very best to make this game fair and enjoyable for all alliances and thus this rather vague rule should be changed or removed in the future rounds. If the MH team would really want to 'show' their power then I'm afraid not just some people will quit PA because of it's tyrannic leadership but whole alliances. Let's hope that in these last few days of this round the MHs won't ruin one of the most interesting and intense rounds in PA history by doing something rash and stupid.

Originally Posted by kwekwek

I completly agree with you lokken. This rule brings to many problems around, tho the reason why it came to life was ment well, it completly backfired simply because there is a real big grey area because the boundries of what can and cant be done is not really clear. Mostly because the makers didnt take the time to see what side effects it would have. In the end we're all equally misserable without the rule and it saves everyone alot of problems, time and irritation if it were scrapped and totally thought over about what the rule should actually accomplish imo.

You just make me wonder what parts you did read

[Treveler]

Did you think that out of ally def was excluded from PA? If you take 2/2*1 you’ll find the average IQ of those who made that rule. If you find the loophole you’ll get another point. Let the games begin....

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by lokken

I read this thread and i still can't figure it out.

What are support planets? Attack? Defence? The ND HC who i happen to advise are quite frankly confused by this rule. I'm not actually sure from some people's comments from this thread what precisely we can or cannot do.

ND don't defend out of tag, any planets out of tag can't do anything for them because if they do they get deleted, yet there are planets in the game who can defend each other out of tag because their HC told them to do it. I see little difference between the first and the latter, yet the latter is open which I do not understand. If cooperation in attack is not permitted as I infer, what do we do next? Are all politics from the game eliminated? Are planets of ND/Angels/1up/exiltion/lch/vgn/subh/anyone else under threat?

This is a bizarre, hastily conceived rule. I am not happy with it, simply because its application is thoroughly inconsistent and more importantly, it is not a workable rule. However, as a player i have no choice but to demand its enforcement, because if I do not, my opposition or someone who agrees with it certainly will or at the very least try to benefit from it one way or another.

Noooo, dont say stuff like that. Now that they see logical and good arguments against having such a rule they are just gonna ignore you.

[Ska]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

No disrespect but if all alliances which are below yours can be called muppets then can I call 1up and Angels ND's muppets? Please stop insulting alliances which are weaker than your own. Thanks to them we have had an interesting round which didn't end 2 weeks after the tickstart. Oh and it's not their nor eXi's fault which side they chose or how they have played this round. If they didn't choose a side you would whine at them for being fencesitters or just afraid of real wars. Imo it's better to have war with multiple alliances then just to sit in a top position in the alliance rankings and roid the latter part of top10 alliances.

1up and Angels dont have someone telling them what to do, when to do it, and who to do it to. There are alliances on the 'side' of exi that I have respect for such as subh. I singled out VGN due to them being completely directed by exilition.

On a side note, no one started any sort of blocking wars, it was everyone for themselves;( I know we hit ND and angels a LOT throughout the round....)except it seems, for ex.

[BaSSe]

By the logic of this you can basicly not defend your galmates/cluster/anyone not in tag. But the "accusers" friends can ofc cooperate their attacks together etc. Personally I see alliances offering external defence as a sign of respect and devotion. It is a very nice logic to prevent this as long as you`re on the attacking side though.

Afaik I`ve seen no command or anyone that can really represent eXilition in a public way say we`ve fought our wars 100% alone. And I truely believe no alliance can really say they have. Leading alliances will always be the leading alliances due to politics, friends, active bp/gal mates etc supporting. There are too many factors in this game to have one alliance`s pure roiding skills win. If this game was based purely on activity and roiding skills(read no wars as wars involve politics) the most active alliance would probably win without any competition. But I really see no fun nor glory in outroiding anyone without war, and from my point of view it would be dull.

This game is about community. When I used to play I`d do my best to involve cluster/gal to defend me so I wouldn`t have to rely on alliance def. To even have a chance of getting a decent amount of new people you need more gc`s caring about their gal mates and cluster. Instead of only their alliance and by now rather closed communites. Ofc not only as socalled "defwhores", but by attacking and defending they`ll eventually learn the game and care.

PS Ska: You`re arranging attacks and haven`t even noticed you`ve been mainly avoiding Angels targets the past weeks(not always though so not accusing 1up of having any agreement and I`m not really too into intel this round to know) But truely shows you pick anything you want.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

1up were really that dangerous with half the roids of the number one alliance and in 4th place?

Sadly, you probably were. I dont think its a coincidence that 1up perform worse during rounds they fight an enemy with a competent military. All alliances do.

[cypher]

Cba to most of this as obviously people don't care what's true and what isn't anyways, but to redcrab you say other alliances don't attack for their own benefit.... you guys hit (or had allies hit) 1up constantly while we had no roids/score and tbh 1up was shit heh. So don't say others do such things while you do this yourself aswell. Just because you didn't want to target ND too fast. It's funny as it's actually quite close to fury tactics you use hit one alliance at a time from your own friends..

and basse as for your post i 'think' ska meant at the start... when we still hit angels.. later on we obviously got a nap. i think that's what he meant. Also seeing as exi hit 1up from basically tick 100 or earlier we hit you back, can hardly blame us for that.

Last but not least you can all verify with your own HC that you blocked first (with subh for example who approached 1up first but got refused there) note this all happened before tickstart or around tickstart.

[Felagund]

Dont know why ppl is surprised 1:5:x get other allies defence , we have saw this all round.
As ND or Angels we have suffered the incomings from exi flaks , is funny see how hr/vgn /subh jump targets when exi does , If Exi needs take down Angels , they sent flak and then exi waves , Same happened with nd and 1up. this is my gal banner and explain quite good whats going on :P
http://www.progression-uk.com/pa/R15_001.gif

if angels got a fleetcatch we will never ask other alliances for defence to cover it . as heart said i will hardcore defence rules just for ally and ingal ,why we want alliance limits if the fleets can be launched elsewhere, now u will tell i want defend my friends , ok then join their ally :/

i only feel sorry for all those flak alliances and their weak hcs that cant manage their own alliance without somone telling them what to do, u will never reach nothing important this way :/

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Tis

Were talking about DEFENDING here.
All you can bring up for examples are ATTACKING.

Or maybe your arguement is that VSN members are so dense they cant tell the difference, and thought they were attacking the EX planet?

Good grief.

that vsn-comment wasnt really "dense".

no need to get cocky.


ps. i felt offended

[Goodfellah]

the rule is uther crap and should be removed from the eula

[Foxman]

ch34ts: have you been brainwashed? or just became totaly retarded? your "intel" and "knowledge" are far worse then mine, and i retired more then 2 rounds ago,

for the love of me, get a clue or stfu

[Veedeejem!]

So what if eX gets def from their friends? Aslong as the planets defending them aren't support planets, but planets that are attacking & defending with their alliance normally but send out def to ex just this once then they don't really break the new rule do they?

I mean, i have friends in other allies aswell, & if they ever asked me for def and i could help, i wouldn't hesitate to do so caus imo that isn't cheating, that's helping out a friend.

PA-Team needs to clarify this new rule of theirs or either remove it entirely...

[lokken]

Let me stress, the actual point of this thread is not about alliances when you think about it, it just stemmed from an alliance based discussion. This probably belongs to PD, but the very nature of this rule is related to what alliances can and cannot do so I'm keeping it here.

The facts as I see them are thus:

- whatever alliance is behind this is irrelevant.

- planets with no tag cannot defend alliances, yet people within a recognised tag can, resulting in a totally unfair application of the rule, because in reality and theory there is no difference whatsoever in application of the rule.

- it appears manifestly wrong not to delete these defending planets, when the rule itself has stopped alliances making it's own arrangements yet suddenly it is ok if they get other alliances to sort them out.

- i don't disagree with anyone that this rule is absurd. But it must be applied, and then removed from the game for good until it is properly formulated.

[Samandmel]

People, keep refering to if it was "there Alliance fleetcatch". This wasnt 1 Allaince fleet catch, it was a number of Allainces who must have co-operated to arrage the fleet catch.

As stated when a number of Allainces target 1 planet, no Allaince is going to be able to cover so help was asked for and I for 1 sent help. I am not a cheat, I didnt think about this new rule thingy (why should I, I am no support planet). I am just a normal PA player which this game needs more off, and to think that I should\could be deleted would most certainly lose me for good.

You people are just trying to twist things in your favour, the rules where made up to stop support planets, the MH will be looking at this, other then that, it was just a acase of people idling with fleets who sent to help friends or cus they have taken a side in the war, bit blue\red.

I sent because it was my gal mate, also a gang up of Alliances but I would probarly have sent if out of galaxy too cus of the blue\red thingy, the BIG BR which always interests and like to be part of (especially the winning side) but the whole point being, I didnt even think I was doing an action that could close me....

If this rule isused in the context that most know it wasnt done for, it would mean anytime you want to take out an hostle planet, just go to other Allainces and gang up, they cant do nothing.

[robban1]

are you gonna talk eatchother to death or actually do something?

if i want to def a m8 and i can send in right eta whats the problem?

you 1up goons shot yourselves in the foot then whineing so the rule came up tough luck a normal player isnt a "defplanet".

bah ad sucks

[PureviL]

You can go by the book and ruin the round, sure. (if you go by Lokkens interpretation)

But if this rule is supposed to be read as no defending out of tag, they should have just coded it that way.

obviously players from other alliences aren't support planets, they are only normal playing planets who support eX (on this occasion). If they do not play for the sole use of aiding another allience and not themselves or their own allience (and don't anyone go call them muppets and say they do this now) they should be free to choose who they defend. As this rule is not ment to target them but only the multi/support only planets.

You could go by your interpretation yes, and I see a lot of people who's alliences benefit from this and people with grudges argue for deletion. I wonder if they would honestly say the same if the tables were turned.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And exil had vgn and subh in thier pocket a long time before that. Keep going and you might make a point that counts.

HC bit.
Time to clear up the myth with subh... Start of the round subh was undecided on who to nap with as there was sympathies/supporters towards both exil and 1up.
Also to assess the political landscape of PA. We knew fine that TGV were going to be hostile just a question of when (the No tgv/subh buddy packing was a big give away). ND was an unknown factor as was angels but we did know these allys would be gunning for 1st place. LCH,Insomnia,xVx, Vgn, f-crew were regarded as a "neutral" as there wasnt an obvious intention of hostility at the start of the round.
We know that subh couldn't take on 1up, exil, ND or angels on a 1v1 basis if either decided to go hostile on Subh. So what do you do... you play the politics. Call it support ally or flak if you want but tactically it makes no sense to take on a "superior" ally or to have a prolonged war.


My bit.
Subh got the agreement for a NAP with exil. Subh did want a NAP with 1up...1up did say whilst yous are NAPed with exil it is a no go. It was pretty certain that these 2 allys were gonna go to town regardless and subh didnt want to take sides but given the choice of exil or 1up we had chosen exil. Subh didnt target 1up no where near as much as other allys (believe me exil wanted us to hit 1up alot more) as their is still that sympathy/support towards 1up with some members. Angels probily had seen us as easy roids and the incs keep coming in. Hostilities started with ND because subh hit a few ND members on a standard gal raid. Despite subhs best efforts to talk to ND. ND decided to go all out on us. Judging by certain indivials comments on PMs or joining the subh public channel to say hows the roids doing. ND wanted to make an example of us or teach us a lesson call it what you will.

So when you have a group of allys with similar aims to hit allys... yous team up. Tactically more sound than a 1v1 war.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by PureviL

You can go by the book and ruin the round, sure. (if you go by Lokkens interpretation)

But if this rule is supposed to be read as no defending out of tag, they should have just coded it that way.

obviously players from other alliences aren't support planets, they are only normal playing planets who support eX (on this occasion).

If they do not play for the sole use of aiding another allience and not themselves or their own allience (and don't anyone go call them muppets and say they do this now) they should be free to choose who they defend. As this rule is not ment to target them but only the multi/support only planets.

The logic of this post is as bizarre of the rule itself.

What you are suggesting is that we shouldn't apply the rule, because it leads to absurd deletions. The problem is, that is exactly how it functions and therefore it's only right to apply it equally to ensure there is no unfairness to one group or another and then to disapply it.

Then you go to say that players from other alliances aren't support planets, yet they should be allowed to support exilition which results in no benefit for them whatsoever. The rule now prohibits anyone playing solely for someone else's benefit per se. They did this by defending someone in an another alliance to help them achieve a number 1 ranking. Their alliance and personal rank gains nothing from this.

I agree, they should be free to choose who they defend. But the rule now prohibits this and has been applied very widely. These defences fall directly under this application, yet somehow because alliances are involved, they magically are not against the rules.