the NEW exeption system!

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by xontas

we dont close without good reson, sometimes there might be a explination for that reson, and that person get reopened.
there is a diference there!

I think he was talking about the ones who make up the reasons... well enough to sound legit. (As popular opinion seems to go: Exilition members were proficient at this.)

But in all fairness... How exactly DO you tell which is bogus and which isn't?

"I can't write this final... I've got a massive migraine and can't concentrate. Can I write it tomorrow?"

How do you tell if I've got a migraine or not? Sounds a little too convinient, but how do you prove it?

Give them a break fs...

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by xontas

there needs to be a lookup option
or you should be able to ask a admin to check

but we have no process yet so i cant give you a awnser yet
but i will before the round starts

The admins here are useless... and the computers are used by random people daily. I'm kind of up a creek without a paddle here Maybe I should be voting for option 5

[hylands]

i don't know if other people play at school and i certainly don't know what coords they have but i think i am clean but not totally sure

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the analysis tool i wrote doesnt rely on direct ip addresses but analyses times and ip ranges as well. you wouldnt be able to avoid that part of it by reconnecting

That is, at a max, up to ~25 kilometers radius from the dialin server (at least in Germany).
So if I get a few people (let's say 15) within this area to play that way you are once again in a difficult situation. Ban all of them? How can you be sure they cheated or misbehaved?

They do not even need an exception because they ain't playing from the same ip.

IP based systems are flawed.

[xontas]

ok, you lost me

let me explain about evidence
evidence is stuff we can actualy see in the logs
so, if you sign in and 2 min later your "gf" signs in to lauch her ships @ your target and 2 min later you do again
that would be a clue
when you do that every attack and your "gf" never logs in for anything else exept building and supporting you
thats a other clue

stuff like that we can see in the logs and there is actualy a lot we can see ( no its NOT all IP based)
but we are not gonna tell you what it is because multi's also read the forum

anyway, to make a long story short
this is not about MH tactics
its not about the game rules
its not about closed accounts
its about the new MH system we will be using the next round

what settings would you guys like :-)

[wakey]

Originally Posted by xontas

what i dont get, is that the same people complain that we close people that do the exact same thing as multi's
interact on the same ip
you tell us that we need to find a way to make it possible for 2 people on the same ip to interact
without the change of getting closed & without making multi legal (not easy to do)

ok, good point,

we go to work and come up with a system

and the same people start flaming again?

what DO you want, we hunt multi's but alowe your friends to interact 20 times a week from the same ip
lets be realistic, that would make multi legal
we do need to set limits, and to ALL things that we used to hunt for anyway!
limits set are for everyone from the same ip, multi or not (we are not telepathic!)

so stop flaming the system we came up with, and think WITH us
if you have a suggestion fine
but please no " it sucks becuase of this"
not usefull and not constructive!

this tread is about what settings we want, so i am asking you what setting you want on the system the community suggested?

ok?

lets get on with it

Not contructive! Do you really want me to not be contructive because I can do that if you want. I'm pointing out how your system is flawed and the reasons its flawed WHICH IS BEING CONSTRUCTIVE.

And am I saying "let people cheat". No i'm not, i'm asking for you to do what your hired for and use the intelligence your supposed to posses to catch the multies rather than implement systems with arbitary limits that are just not realistic. This game lacks players and as such it lacks targets, its also a game which has a a galaxy setup thats somewhat random and has alliances which arent tied into your galaxy and thus members are spread out across a large number of galaxies. It means that even if your not interacting on purpose the chances are extreamly high that you will scan, defend or attack a galaxy which someone else on your ip will have also done one of these actions on.

Your problem xontas is your viewing interaction as a black and white thing, where as its something thats many shades of grey. As such it cant be handled by a bunch of simple rules, it requires some inteligence behind it to differntiate whats interaction thats actually cheating and hence having an adverse effect on the game and whats harmless accidental interaction. If two people from the same IP but differnt alliance for example defend the two seperate planets in the same galaxy and both of these planets are members of their respective alliances then thats hardly an alarm bell for cheating and shouldnt go down as one of their interactions because unless something else suggests otherwise its clearly unconnected and probally isnt known about by either side and ultimatly it isnt interaction thats bad for the game. Same with the scanning if two scans the same planet or galaxy its hardly a sign of cheating, ok if they do it at almost the same time then maybe but if theres hours between them it stands a good chance of being them just mass scanning while looking for tragets.

Now if that action is them constantly attacking the same target at the same time or as part of a wave attack then thats differnt this is less likly to be a coincidence and ultimatly is an action that damages the game and thats when action needs to be taken

You are basically trying to implement whats a basic system to manage whats an extreamly complex situation and its simply inadequate for the job under the current conditions and all your going to do is harm legitimate players while letting the cheats whom cause the real gaming problems get away with still cheating as they are ultimatly smarter than you and the tools put in place

[Phil^]

all of which gets piped through the isp's ip range. usually a class-b subnet or several thereof.
the geographical location doesnt matter since they all end up in the same subnets

[xontas]

Originally Posted by hylands

i don't know if other people play at school and i certainly don't know what coords they have but i think i am clean but not totally sure

again hunting is not totaly ip based
we do see when its a school or some othert big network
thats why we check on about 20 different things and you need to break a couple before getting closed

also, no-one ever said that mailing us and explaining this would get you in trouble
we can add info to your planet that every MH sees before closing :-)

[edmoo]

Sounds like a fairly tight system to me...
I'm with option 2 also, btw.

[xontas]

wakey, you say we see interactions as black and white
thats because they are
you interact or you dont
we hunt in the same way as we did last time, but the people under a exeption are free of the risk of closure for interaction because they can not go over the set levels
people without one can, but will get closed if they do (same limits)

this system is NOT up for debate, its already coded into the current code
we are talking about the limits we want to set so multi's cant cheat but you CAN play normaly
and i would like your input on that

if you only want to flame the system i would ask you to do that elsewhere because you keep taking the discussion off topic
topic = what settings!!

[wakey]

Originally Posted by edmoo

Sounds like a fairly tight system to me...
I'm with option 2 also, btw.

2) Moderate system
You get no attack options but some defence, waves and co-ops are set to 2 a day, limits reset every week

Everyone saying #2, just read that again. You get 2 scans of the same galaxy a day., now think about how hard it was to find a good target at the end of the round and how many planets you had to scan to find one. Two active players on the same IP will go over this limit without much trouble. Then you get attacked and you need to scan your attacker, but guess what you can scan your attacker as that galaxies been scanned by somoen sharing your IP already and you dont have any exceptions left today.

[xontas]

thanks

[Phil^]

as if scan planets wont be used in target hunting

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Phil^

as if scan planets wont be used in target hunting

Yes scan planets might be used, but at the same time not everyone is in a position to be able to be in a situation where they have access to a Scanner who can scan anyone at any time of the day or night. And I dont know about you but I perfer scanning for myself if i can and i'm sure alot of others do, its just safer in case for whatever reason you cant get a scan from your scanner.

[Sebos]

Ok i might have missed a point here but can people that are on the same ip be in the same allaince? As this would mean potentially that interaction would be required.

[MegaNova]

what about friends who live really close and on occasion log in at eachothers place, while being in the same alliance, and thus having interaction between the planets.

[Jester]

I think there are several quite obvious flaws with the system. I also think that the multihunters consider themselves intelligent enough to enforce this fllawed system in a reasonably fair fashion. The problem is that the current system makes things difficult for a great deal of legitimate players while not providing any significant obstacles for someone who is intent on cheating.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by xontas

wakey, you say we see interactions as black and white
thats because they are
you interact or you dont

Sort of like how we see cheating.

You either cheat. Or you don't.

Etc.

[Jonas]

This is too harsh the real cheaters wont be caught in by IP sharing anyway, you only hurt the people going to same schools etc...

Now ive always been anti cheating etc, and still think the system is somewhat a good idea, but cmon dont make it f00king strict or it will kill the game. If this had been implemented last rounds when I went to school with a few people I play with, and it would mean I couldnt def them visa versa I would prolly not had played at all... considering my RL m8s r the most trusted ones etc, and I can call em etc. we work alot together and organize stuff. bah! Use it more as a working tool than a set ingame limitation thing o_O

ah well..

[noah02]

But like I said above in a army camp of 1000+ how can i know who is playing to get an exception with?
I aint gonna knock on every room and ask "excuse me do you play a game called planetarion i need an exception in case i scan you or attack you"

If i missed something and your gonna gimme co ords of the person who I dont know to put in my preferences to get an exception then sorry.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by MegaNova

what about friends who live really close and on occasion log in at eachothers place, while being in the same alliance, and thus having interaction between the planets.

Thats a good point actually, if you apply for an exception for one weekend of being at another players computer you limit yoursef for the rest of the round for no reason

[xontas]

OK to adress the army, school issue

1 the biggest pile of same ip accounts was 16 last round
and that was the AOL proxy (something AOL users have no control over) we so check those but we ignore the ip issue!

that same thing goes for all schools and other places that are ovious shared ip's

BUT

private ip's (yes you can check that more then one way) dont have this so dont come claiming it when not true, it doesnt work :-)

consider this, hunting will still be done by hand and it will still follow the same rules, just that we are more strikt in inforcing the line (as the exception system gives you the option to prefent it)

so not having a exception while being on the same ip and then claiming you interacted by accident and didnt know.
those people will be out of luck!
no second changes on those cases!

[xontas]

the exception system can be aplied to the 3 days you go stay at a friend who also plays PA on the other side of the country

you give us a start and a end date
and it clears after the reset date

and you can interact again

minimum = a day
max = whole round

[Judge]

you can implement any system you like as far as I am concerned as I will be playing solo next round, my 2 sons have quit PA, one hasnt played in a year and the other doesnt have inet anymore (skint)

As far as hard coding the exceptions goes, I would suggest the counts are reset on a 72 tick cycle rather than a weekly/daily cycle.

IE: the first interaction triggers the timer, and adds each subsequent one untill the limits are reached, then it auto-resets 72 ticks after the first interaction regardless of whether the limit has been reached.

[xontas]

we gave 5 options and to keep the discussion clear please chose from those

[bwtmc]

You know something's either brilliant or failing when two pages of replies appear in two days between rounds.

Many people bounce around IP's hour to hour let alone day to day, often on public networks so that they can be online much of the day. Honestly, I have no idea how you'd implement any of those policies. Immediate closings on players using various public networks, and the constant attention you'd have to give them for them to have any kind of round. Good luck :\

New players or those blissfully unaware of the rules outlined above will need attention too (and it'll take quite some time for the playerbase to actually take notice of it), I think it's great how there's all this time available to guide them.

Attending to players like Noah who need a good idea of who's in their exception list will be great too. I can't imagine the chaos that'll arise when this comes to play with alliances.

Defence call covered. No wait, I can't send to bw, sorry mate, unlucky.
Sure i'll claim that target three hours in advance.
No wait, I can't, it's now four in the morning i've interacted with the galaxy too much already. I don't have a target and my alliance attack is somewhat flawed.

Scans, should not, surely come into play. If you can't fleet scan a retal/incoming because you've interacted too much with a galaxy.. I'd fall to my knees for quite a moment

My only slight reassurance is what I think was Phil^'s post about identifying and looking at .edu/.ac networks etc. Not that it matters in the situations above, attacks/defences will still be buggered.

It's a lovely idea. But i'm sure it won't be effective. I'm really worried about the community, and the fact that hardcoded interaction restrictions really will discourage new players and that's how they all come about. We're hardly all over mmorpg any more.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Scans, should not, surely come into play. If you can't fleet scan a retal/incoming because you've interacted too much with a galaxy.. I'd fall to my knees for quite a moment

And as a DC, no doubt consider my time better spent sleeping!

[Judge]

Originally Posted by xontas

we gave 5 options and to keep the discussion clear please chose from those

Perhaps if the 5 options were not PANTS people would be inclined to accept one of them?

Basically it is flawed and has been rumbled.

[xontas]

if you want to talk about MH tactics, you need a new tread

this one is about the settings people!!!!!!!!

[Judge]

Originally Posted by xontas

if you want to talk about MH tactics, you need a new tread

this one is about the settings people!!!!!!!!

Yes, and I made it clear I dont like the settings period

[bwtmc]

Okay, though surely that's a waste of time if nothing i've just said can be addressed?

[xontas]

guys, we have a system and you get 5 potions to chose from
if we dont do it that way we will have 4000 options as everyone in here has his own opinion

this tread is not here to reform MH, thats my job
this tread is here for questions about how the MH system will be next round (this part is set done and coded) and your opinion on the 5 setting options given

a choise to start from will be made from those 5
then after a week of play we will look at the settings and make changes if needed
this will continue untill the system works as it should

so you have a voice withing those lines
if you want to discusse something else, please ask in a other tread and keep this one clear

[wakey]

Originally Posted by xontas

if you want to talk about MH tactics, you need a new tread

this one is about the settings people!!!!!!!!

The discussions are on the settings still. People may not being going "I vote for #2" but its still a discussion on the settings of the system. If people have issues with the settings they arent going to come out and support that setting and you should be looking to listen to their issues rather than saying "this is how we are going to do it, if it doesnt work we might change it after a few weeks"

[bwtmc]

Okay, consider that we're discussing everything associated with the system, and giving people some kind comprehension why some settings might be better than others. Which is surely, the point of the thread, as we're all intelligent individuals.

Moreover, make a poll, or you'll never get answers because there doesn't seem to be any options more equitable than R13's. And for kicks, why not add some kind of allowance for a disagreement with the system and settings on offer.. and IF, let's just say, a majority seem to go for it. Perhaps ask them why.

[Judge]

perhaps a poll would be more appropriate with the thread locked to stop replies (if that is possible ?)

But with your 5 options and a further option NONE OF THE ABOVE X

(beat me too it ^^^ see above)

[xontas]

i was thinking the same thing, just was under the impression that we could all just give our opinion
guess i was wrong:/

[wakey]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Okay, consider that we're discussing everything associated with the system, and giving people some kind comprehension why some settings might be better than others. Which is surely, the point of the thread, as we're all intelligent individuals.

Moreover, make a poll, or you'll never get answers because there doesn't seem to be any options more equitable than R13's. And for kicks, why not add some kind of allowance for a disagreement with the system and settings on offer.. and IF, let's just say, a majority seem to go for it. Perhaps ask them why.

[sarcasm] Ah polls always a great way to find out things from the PA community ]/sarcasm]

Quite frankly polls are utterly worthless as you always see by the responces to them. They get dominated by lurkers whom vote with with no reasoning behind the vote, whom dont read the discussion so dont often understand things like the implications of their choice ect. Its so much better when people post and supply a reason for a choice so that others can discuss the merits of their reasoning

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

You know something's either brilliant or failing when two pages of replies appear in two days between rounds.

Many people bounce around IP's hour to hour let alone day to day, often on public networks so that they can be online much of the day. Honestly, I have no idea how you'd implement any of those policies. Immediate closings on players using various public networks, and the constant attention you'd have to give them for them to have any kind of round. Good luck :\

New players or those blissfully unaware of the rules outlined above will need attention too (and it'll take quite some time for the playerbase to actually take notice of it), I think it's great how there's all this time available to guide them.

Attending to players like Noah who need a good idea of who's in their exception list will be great too. I can't imagine the chaos that'll arise when this comes to play with alliances.

Defence call covered. No wait, I can't send to bw, sorry mate, unlucky.
Sure i'll claim that target three hours in advance.
No wait, I can't, it's now four in the morning i've interacted with the galaxy too much already. I don't have a target and my alliance attack is somewhat flawed.

Scans, should not, surely come into play. If you can't fleet scan a retal/incoming because you've interacted too much with a galaxy.. I'd fall to my knees for quite a moment

My only slight reassurance is what I think was Phil^'s post about identifying and looking at .edu/.ac networks etc. Not that it matters in the situations above, attacks/defences will still be buggered.

It's a lovely idea. But i'm sure it won't be effective. I'm really worried about the community, and the fact that hardcoded interaction restrictions really will discourage new players and that's how they all come about. We're hardly all over mmorpg any more.

And there was crazy me thinking that was in fact some opinions

[bwtmc]

Exactly wakey, but, as far as I can tell any sensible pointers or suggestions don't really have a place in this thread. And at least with a poll the outcome would satisfy the objective of the thread --> obtain some numbers.

[xontas]

yes, its again about how wrong this (untried) system will be
nothing is changing exept that the limits we now inforce by closing people will be inforced by hardcoded limits
thats all
and we are relaxing those limits from 0 to whatever we deside as a community

but i give 5 options to chose from for a reason
its gonna be done
and just asking for opinions would be like the stats
everyone thinks stats are always wrong and should be done X way

there will be no 6th option

as soon as i can find a forum modd to make it the poll will be up

[Judge]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Exactly wakey, but, as far as I can tell any sensible pointers or suggestions don't really have a place in this thread. And at least with a poll the outcome would satisfy the objective of the thread --> obtain some numbers.

Which was the impression I got from Xontas, (either chose or shut up)

So give him the numbers, then he can justify whatever wins regardless of why people voted

[wakey]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Exactly wakey, but, as far as I can tell any sensible pointers or suggestions don't really have a place in this thread. And at least with a poll the outcome would satisfy the objective of the thread --> obtain some numbers.

A poll which will stick us with some more poor hardcoded limits in the game for some players and no doubt at some low level due to people whom either a) vote randomly b) vote on gut instict without any thought or c) decide that as they wont have to share an ip they can ignore the bigger picture and instead will just go the way to 'get rid of more cheaters'

If anyone has thought about it and decided that one of the 5 is best then they should post and state why, otherwise anyone who isnt happy with any of the 5 options should be able to say why like we currently are

I have to say this is reminding me of r3 with the private galaxy discussions. An idea that some can see will set the community back a number of rounds which is pushed through by PACrew/team. Only differnce seems to be that Private Galaxies did seem to have a majority support for it and thus they had their hands tied , this just has PATeam claiming that theres majority support but no real evidence

[bwtmc]

What's the point of limiting scans on a galaxy. Find me an answer for that one some time. And find me an answer next round when I can't Fleet Scan my incoming because I actively scan planets / search for targets.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by xontas

as soon as i can find a forum modd to make it the poll will be up

I wonder which poster whos name begins with W is a forum mod

Oh and once again things are changing ffs, Its putting artifical limits that block actions that are deemed interaction by the code but which a human being wouldnt consider interaction because its clearly not connected to the others actions. As I said on IRC is it fair if we are allowed 2 interactions a day on scanning which accedently get used up scanning for targets and then we find we get attacked by someone from a galaxy the other person on the IP has scanned and we dont have an interaction slot left. I mean you wouldnt delete the person for those innocent interactions but the system considers them guilty

[xontas]

Originally Posted by Judge

Which was the impression I got from Xontas, (either chose or shut up)

So give him the numbers, then he can justify whatever wins regardless of why people voted

if i wanted to push things true you would have found out about this system @ signup!
with option 5 as settings (if it was up to some admins)

so be glad your getting asked and respect that i need to keep some order in the discussion
thats why we have 5 option

if you dont agree, then dont give me a number
that way you do force me to chose myself

[bwtmc]

Wave Limit:
How many times you may wave the other accounts in your exeption
Wave Same Galaxy Limit:
How many times you may wave 2 different planets in the same gal with other accounts from your exeption
Wave Same Planet Limit:
How many times you may wave the same target as others accounts in your exeption

I think i'll hope that means wave, as in, attack in waves

Or if it IS indeed talking about scanning, slowly come to realise someone somewhere's been drinking too much =)

[bwtmc]

A few answers to the following points would probably clear up the thread and the difficulties people have accepting and understanding your system:

Surely this is bad for the community, hard-coding direct restrictions to players actions in a game which requires timely performance from players. The emphasis seems wrong, imposing limits on defending players, especially in your buddypack / galaxy is directly holding back the enjoyment of the game for individuals, and any hope they have of playing a round effectively. The fact that players generally join upon recommendation from friends, and really DO have to spend some time interacting with those players to get into the game. That really IS relevant, the direction of the game is completely lost if that's not at least considered.

Some kind of system as outlined by Noah giving players a realistic up to date documentation of the players associated with their IP would be great, preferably Automatically.

4,000 Players interacting, and surely all of them will wander onto large public networks they wouldn't normally on occasion. Active players, play by the hour, they're going to wander onto such networks by the hour not by the weekend, they'll need some allowance with regard to the closing of account that don't apply for exceptions.

Uncertainties with alliances not being able to forecast attacks/defences as expected because of hardcoded restrictions on players. (that perhaps they're unaware of)

Scans.. What?

Lastly, I think attacks should be bared altogether in any such system between players in exception lists. One attack a week is plenty for someone deliberately attempting to gain salvage/farm ships yet it's not really a big deal to the community barring it. The point here is players who do share a flat with another player, or a more public network can't support each other adequately, and that's much more important.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by xontas

yes, its again about how wrong this (untried) system will be
[...]

Smarter people don't have to try jumping out of a window on the 10th floor to see that it will hurt them when they crash on the ground.

Also, playing through AOL makes cheating all easy again as you already stated. It might be doubtful that suddenly a larger part of PA's playerbase is using AOL, but hey - you cannot ban one of the worlds biggest ISPs no?

On a sidenote, German Universities are using simple .de domains, there goes the .ac / .edu check for non-angloamerican Universities.

[derry]

only people who will be caught by this are those that are living together.....

ohw well, if next round has any of these settings i geuss i can't play, no fun to play PA if you can't play with the people you want to play (in this case my brother) seeing we even play in the same alliance, are both active players, and are even together in an attack group, geuss we'll hit the limit soon enuff...

i'll be able to afford 3 extra beers every 3 months now tho yey me

-derry

[edit for bwtmc] well, 5 dollar divided by 1.50 euro's is arround 3.x, so 3 beers [/edit]

[bwtmc]

Gonna have to be Carling though at that price