New Rule

[lokken]

Personally, I am against this rule.

While exilition's strategy is very much against the spirit of alliance tags, the alliance tag limit was there to provide the benefit of alliance ETA defence. Support planets do not have this benefit. They do not get defended more easily. They can only defend with limited numbers of ships (because there is few people to defend them) in certain limited situations.

The odd thing is that I have 2 friends (also eminent PA people) who are independent. They have no tag. I have no tag. If we defend each other, we could end up with our accounts being closed. If we set up an alliance first, go together in tag, then it's OK.

This may be 'levelling the playingfield' but in an unfair sense. Exilition may have brought people in (and paid for them) at the start of the round on the basis it could use support planets. Now this rule has been changed. This in my view is no different to changing stats mid round and ranks pretty close to not giving people something that they paid for i.e. a planet to attack and defend with as they pleased.

What I am annoyed about, is that there are planets that I (along with others, I'm sure) have brought casefiles on fleet movements and alliance associations and galaxy channel cooperative that have stayed open (when there's been stacks of evidence) yet people are prepared to close a legitimate planet, simply for defending another. This is not how PA should work. If PA team want to prevent people from setting up a support planet system in future, I suggest they do it by setting limits as to what tag you can defend in a certain time period, and flag up those who contravene this limit from the start of a round. Even so, this is a game about being able to choose who you attack, and who you defend.

Like i have said - i do not agree with the spirit of a dedicated out of tag force purely for defence (if that's what a 'support planet' is) but this in my view is not the way to deal with something where people have organised themselves in a legitimate way within the rules, which don't prohibit planets from defending each other.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

Removing the aspect that has been one of the main reasons people won rounds. Removing the importance of establishing contacts and friends. Believe it or not, but most #1 players knew ALOT of people outside their alliance willing to help them.
People willing to help you out even if not in your alliance. People helping you when your alliance is dry.

Indeed. You are absolutely correct.

There is just one small drawback. Some people cheat. Over and over again. So to stop that one has to limit they way they can cheat. So instead of blaming PATeam, you can go blame the cheaters. Since you share(d) alliance with some people we all know have cheated alot in the past, you can go blame them. Just pm them on irc and start harrasing them now. Then post link to the logs here. Then you have the right to complain.

In the meantime, F*** OFF.

ta.

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by Jumo

And I'm arguing that you cannot prove anything from your single case. But let's stop this as we're going nowhere, I'm sure the MHs will fairly investigate all the alliances

True, they won't find anything with ex-Ministry though.

[Benneton]

im sure i must be missunderstanding this, cos this rule makes no sense as i see it. You are now saying that you cannot reapeatedly defend a friend in another alliance, and if you do you will be closed? even if the planet is not a multi or has violated any rules set out at round beginning?

This makes no sense to me, it is not the players fault that the Viper can makes defences outside of alliances and happens to be the best anti-fr ship around. I really dont think that changing to such a debateable rule mid-round is fair on anyone. Lets be honest we all know its mainly Exilition doing this, but fair play to them they saw the opotunity pre-round and have people willing to spend a little time to help them out. This is a strategy that seems to have paid off, i know for 1 thing these planets have driven me nuts and prevented me capping a few times.... but still it seems to me as soon as a strategy is found and proved effective the creators shut it down with yet more rules as they have done in the past with fleet escorts, limiting the gameplay features (not that limiting escorts was a bad move...). As far as i can see Exilition and others have broken none of the basic rules, and they are now facing closures because they thought the round through better than other alliances. True its a pain in the arse, but if one player decides he wants to build 1 type of ship and defend a friend then i cant see whats wrong, and changing this mid-round i find unfair!

Maybe next round if you are determined to stop this you can hardcode that def can be sent to galaxy and alliance only, tho that stops inter-alliance BG's and groups of friends, and will probably hurt the game more than it helps....

For those of you who dont know me im a officer in Angels, nuttin 2 do with exilition. If you wanna sort the game look @ the ship stats, cos this round is a joke, xan fr just own everything and tbh its stupid. I hope there are some people that agree with me cos Exilition have put alot of work in to get to where they are and are getting punnished for it. Id rarther beat them properly!

Benneton

[wielklem]

Originally Posted by lizardking

Whoever chose to play scanner this round just got wtfpwned by PA crew.
Thx for making it less fun for us, the minority. Sad u forgot we r customers as much as the rest of them.

dont realy see this problem i scan and am ingame tag all our scanners are ally should just take there scanners in there tag or not and then they cant be used as def planets.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Indeed. You are absolutely correct.

There is just one small drawback. Some people cheat. Over and over again. So to stop that one has to limit they way they can cheat. So instead of blaming PATeam, you can go blame the cheaters. Since you share(d) alliance with some people we all know have cheated alot in the past, you can go blame them. Just pm them on irc and start harrasing them now. Then post link to the logs here. Then you have the right to complain.

In the meantime, F*** OFF.

ta.

I am absolutely correct. But I should F*** OFF.

So I make a valid point, but because I know a certain someone or a certain someone I know might have known a certain someone or may have cheated or broken the rules a certain round by a certain someone which is most likely a biased MH, I should stfu.

OK, I c ur point.

: I agree with u, u scum! But fk off because u aint spose to make me agree with u.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by lokken

Personally, I am against this rule.

While exilition's strategy is very much against the spirit of alliance tags, the alliance tag limit was there to provide the benefit of alliance ETA defence. Support planets do not have this benefit. They do not get defended more easily. They can only defend with limited numbers of ships (because there is few people to defend them) in certain limited situations.

The odd thing is that I have 2 friends (also eminent PA people) who are independent. They have no tag. I have no tag. If we defend each other, we could end up with our accounts being closed. If we set up an alliance first, go together in tag, then it's OK.

This may be 'levelling the playingfield' but in an unfair sense. Exilition may have brought people in (and paid for them) at the start of the round on the basis it could use support planets. Now this rule has been changed. This in my view is no different to changing stats mid round and ranks pretty close to not giving people something that they paid for i.e. a planet to attack and defend with as they pleased.

What I am annoyed about, is that there are planets that I (along with others, I'm sure) have brought casefiles on fleet movements and alliance associations and galaxy channel cooperative that have stayed open (when there's been stacks of evidence) yet people are prepared to close a legitimate planet, simply for defending another. This is not how PA should work. If PA team want to prevent people from setting up a support planet system in future, I suggest they do it by setting limits as to what tag you can defend in a certain time period, and flag up those who contravene this limit from the start of a round. Even so, this is a game about being able to choose who you attack, and who you defend.

Like i have said - i do not agree with the spirit of a dedicated out of tag force purely for defence (if that's what a 'support planet' is) but this in my view is not the way to deal with something where people have organised themselves in a legitimate way within the rules, which don't prohibit planets from defending each other.

Couldn't Agree More.

[Gio2k]

So basically eXilition have been stating throughout this whole thread, that they have been receiving out of alliance defense, from other ex-alliance mates who no doubt love their ex-alliance so much, that they would do anything to help. Some of you really either have no brain to come in here with your innocent posts telling that you only wanted to help, without even thinking whether it was fair on other alliances who abided by the limits imposed on alliances this round, or alternatively, have no shame to come in here to talk about the unfairness of not being able to defend their ex-alliance friends.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

So basically eXilition have been stating throughout this whole thread, that they have been receiving out of alliance defense, from other ex-alliance mates who no doubt love their ex-alliance so much, that they would do anything to help. Some of you really either have no brain to come in here with your innocent posts telling that you only wanted to help, without even thinking whether it was fair on other alliances who abided by the limits imposed on alliances this round, or alternatively, have no shame to come in here to talk about the unfairness of not being able to defend their ex-alliance friends.

not our fault we got more m8s.

Nice / fun / goodlooking people get more m8s than random guy in -insert stupid soda / mario alliance name-

[Benneton]

I know this rule is aimed at people who only build vipers to def alliances, but that goes into telling people what their fleet composition must be and thats taking the p***.

[Vader]

without reading comments above ... another rule set to compensate lack of players ... get more player sinstead again?

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Benneton

I know this rule is aimed at people who only build vipers to def alliances, but that goes into telling people what their fleet composition must be and thats taking the p***.

I'd agree.

But I don't know any players that got closed that had many/any Vipers, yet I do know some with balanced, not "abusive" other-race fleets.

[Phil^]

the soda is 7up btw.
and, all it shows is that people in your alliance, and who signed up purely to defend you are lacking a moral fibre and/or a sense of honour.
Its one thing to be in an alliance where each side have roughly equal numbers, its entirely different to resort to cowardly and dishonourable things like defence farms

[hondaman]

So all you independents out there, band together and form your own independent alliance. Then you can scan however you want and defend whoever you want.

Thats sad too, because I was comlaining about people trying to beat the system just today on IRC.

[TheBerk]

So this topic has now gone from multi planets purely for defence, to omg eXi are teh evul. Nicely done guys.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the soda is 7up btw.
and, all it shows is that people in your alliance, and who signed up purely to defend you are lacking a moral fibre and/or a sense of honour.
Its one thing to be in an alliance where each side have roughly equal numbers, its entirely different to resort to cowardly and dishonourable things like defence farms

no kidding.

And, Strenght in Numbers.



Like, u are sposed to win. win at all costs aslong as it is within the rule.
And, u guys c that ya dont got any friends to help, so ya whine to mh/admins and get a new rule.

While we got alot more friends, u guys got the m8s that matters it might seem.

well done

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

not our fault we got more m8s.

Nice / fun / goodlooking people get more m8s than random guy in -insert stupid soda / mario alliance name-

Yeah, this is all 1up's fault. BTW I have friends in other alliances too, and on occassion I may defend them and them me - but it's not consistent throughout the entire round. Perhaps this is what PA team are looking to stop not the random 'occassional' friend defense.

1up just hasn't really thought of playing in such a manner.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the soda is 7up btw.
and, all it shows is that people in your alliance, and who signed up purely to defend you are lacking a moral fibre and/or a sense of honour.
Its one thing to be in an alliance where each side have roughly equal numbers, its entirely different to resort to cowardly and dishonourable things like defence farms

No one is doubting the lack of honourability here Phil^.

What I am talking about are basic principles of planetarion, the rules that we started this round with and the general good housekeeping of the game.

The time to discuss changing the rules of combat is at the end of the round, not now. What exilition do is irrelevant here. It's what PA team do about anyone doing what they are banning that matters. Sometimes this reads like an AD thread more than a PD thread quite honestly.

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

So basically eXilition have been stating throughout this whole thread, that they have been receiving out of alliance defense, from other ex-alliance mates who no doubt love their ex-alliance so much, that they would do anything to help. Some of you really either have no brain to come in here with your innocent posts telling that you only wanted to help, without even thinking whether it was fair on other alliances who abided by the limits imposed on alliances this round, or alternatively, have no shame to come in here to talk about the unfairness of not being able to defend their ex-alliance friends.

Only 1 who ever said that was wismaster, and who r u to say wether that was wrong or right. It wasn't against EULA (at that time) for sure. Imo if u r willing to walk the extra step for personal gain says only that u r determined and dedicated to do well (in the reach of rules) to make your best efforts. Needles to say doing so brings more paying customers for PA, which in this case r mentioned as "FWWD". Tbh I couldn't care less if it wasn't "fair" to my enemy or not. If they cannot match the challenge, that's their problem to deal with. -eta1 alliance limitation already cuts down most of that window of connections an elite player used to take advance of back during the old days.

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by lizardking

Only 1 who ever said that was wismaster, and who r u to say wether that was wrong or right. It wasn't against EULA (at that time) for sure. Imo if u r willing to walk the extra step for personal gain says only that u r determined and dedicated to do well (in the reach of rules) to make your best efforts. Needles to say doing so brings more paying customers for PA, which in this case r mentioned as "FWWD". Tbh I couldn't care less if it wasn't "fair" to my enemy or not. If they cannot match the challenge, that's their problem to deal with. -eta1 alliance limitation already cuts down most of that window of connections an elite player used to take advance of back during the old days.

Wishmaster, cbk and you yourself said you are out of alliance. And i guess there are many more.
Farming roids / farming ships / using escorts. All those were once "valid" tactics, or not "expressedly forbidden". The fact remains, some people spend their rounds trying to win in a level playing field, and some try to find new ways to win exploiting anything not forbidden by the EULA which gives them an unfair advantage. Unfair not only in the sense that your alliance gets defence that other alliances don't get, but because practically, your alliance is not 80 members strong (plus some scanners). Effectively, your alliance could be 100 or 150 members strong, and no other alliance can measure the effect this has on the game, and act accordingly.
To be honest, the *win at all costs* excuse you give me, makes me puke. As Heartless put it, it's because of the few guys like you that this new rules are put into effect, limiting the game experience for other players who have a sense of fairness.

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Wishmaster, cbk and you yourself said you are out of alliance. And i guess there are many more.
Farming roids / farming ships / using escorts. All those were once "valid" tactics, or not "expressedly forbidden". The fact remains, some people spend their rounds trying to win in a level playing field, and some try to find new ways to win exploiting anything not forbidden by the EULA which gives them an unfair advantage. Unfair not only in the sense that your alliance gets defence that other alliances don't get, but because practically, your alliance is not 80 members strong (plus some scanners). Effectively, your alliance could be 100 or 150 members strong, and no other alliance can measure the effect this has on the game, and act accordingly.
To be honest, the *win at all costs* excuse you give me, makes me puke. As Heartless put it, it's because of the few guys like you that this new rules are put into effect, limiting the game experience for other players who have a sense of fairness.

Speaking of fairness: do you think it's very fair for someone, who paid, to have their account closed because of a sudden rule change without so much as a warning?

And don't give me the "they got what they deserved", they were playing within the rules.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Wishmaster, cbk and you yourself said you are out of alliance. And i guess there are many more.
Farming roids / farming ships / using escorts. All those were once "valid" tactics, or not "expressedly forbidden". The fact remains, some people spend their rounds trying to win in a level playing field, and some try to find new ways to win exploiting anything not forbidden by the EULA which gives them an unfair advantage. Unfair not only in the sense that your alliance gets defence that other alliances don't get, but because practically, your alliance is not 80 members strong (plus some scanners). Effectively, your alliance could be 100 or 150 members strong, and no other alliance can measure the effect this has on the game, and act accordingly.
To be honest, the *win at all costs* excuse you give me, makes me puke. As Heartless put it, it's because of the few guys like you that this new rules are put into effect, limiting the game experience for other players who have a sense of fairness.

exploiting something not in the eula = following the rules ?

Getting def from m8s isnt something new, so dont try to make it look like exploiting something.

[Gio2k]

There is a difference between getting def from a friend you know occasionally, and _exploiting_ it on an alliance level.
And to Jumo, acting consequently, i don't think it was fair to close them without the proper rule being enforced. But the rule is in place as of now, so from now on they can be closed fair and square.
Although, maybe those that got closed, got closed not only for acting as defence farms, but rather for logging in from different ip ranges, or something that broke the rules in place at that moment.

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

There is a difference between getting def from a friend you know occasionally, and _exploiting_ it on an alliance level.
And to Jumo, acting consequently, i don't think it was fair to close them without the proper rule being enforced. But the rule is in place as of now, so from now on they can be closed fair and square.
Although, maybe those that got closed, got closed not only for acting as defence farms, but rather for logging in from different ip ranges, or something that broke the rules in place at that moment.

You do realize that they enforcing this rule retroactively? Meaning that if you EVER broke this rule, you can be closed now.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

There is a difference between getting def from a friend you know occasionally, and _exploiting_ it on an alliance level.
And to Jumo, acting consequently, i don't think it was fair to close them without the proper rule being enforced. But the rule is in place as of now, so from now on they can be closed fair and square.
Although, maybe those that got closed, got closed not only for acting as defence farms, but rather for logging in from different ip ranges, or something that broke the rules in place at that moment.

I got logs of them saying that people will be closed for what they did prior to the rule was in place.

And, it isnt exploiting it.

This is like saying it is exploiting the game if you ally another alliance and 160 attack 80.

THATS 2 vs 1!!omg.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Neferti

It's not unlimited. No alliance has unlimited numbers of idiots to build pure defense fleets without cheating. The limit is there to stop alliances getting insanely powerful WITH the ETA bonus, surely?

I remember back to when the whole in-game alliance ETA issue was started. The idea was to create some diversification in the universe, instead of just having one massive Furion block that was completely unassileable with like 500 people in it (or whatever). Creating a limit to the number of people in an alliance was generally thought to be a good thing - it would promote new alliances (whether they were wings of the old ones or not), it would be beneficial to the game by reducing stagnation (as more alliances involved in a block makes it more difficult to control - economists in the room will know of cartel theory), and there were a couple of other benefits to splitting up alliances.

However, virtualy all alliances back then were co-ordinated over IRC and private web-based tools (much like now). Thus, it was obvious that no alliance would voluntarily sign up to the in-game alliance system unless it offered significant tangible benefits to do so - and the only important enough thing was reducing in-alliance ETA for def fleets by 1 tick, which as you all know is significant, even if it wasnt as important back then with 3 ticks of combat and ultra fast spiders etc.

So the ETA Bonus for in-game alliance membership is a factor to encourage alliances to all be signed up in-game such that their numbers can be accurately gauged and not have massive alliances again.

So, its the other way around .

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Wishmaster, cbk and you yourself said you are out of alliance. And i guess there are many more.
Farming roids / farming ships / using escorts. All those were once "valid" tactics, or not "expressedly forbidden". The fact remains, some people spend their rounds trying to win in a level playing field, and some try to find new ways to win exploiting anything not forbidden by the EULA which gives them an unfair advantage. Unfair not only in the sense that your alliance gets defence that other alliances don't get, but because practically, your alliance is not 80 members strong (plus some scanners). Effectively, your alliance could be 100 or 150 members strong, and no other alliance can measure the effect this has on the game, and act accordingly.
To be honest, the *win at all costs* excuse you give me, makes me puke. As Heartless put it, it's because of the few guys like you that this new rules are put into effect, limiting the game experience for other players who have a sense of fairness.

How does farming has to do with any of this? Im not going to waste time debating if u aren't able to stick with what we've been disgussing. I said nothing about supporting cheaters whatsover. Also wether escorting should be considered distateful/allowed/not allowed is a matter of whoever is applying that, as long as there's a rule made against that also.

Personally im 110% against breaking rules. Abuse of rules in the early rounds (when accounts were way less monitored compared the now) and what we r arguing here r 2 totally opposite topics. However funnily u bring those up for comparison. The fact remains, those accounts that were payed (by REAL players) were not illegal, wether u feel it's fair or not.

Also as I said before we were talking about single example(group) and yet u r trying to generalise this as an alliance issue. Ie if 1 player decides he should get his friends etc to signup etc that's he's own choise, and that by no means equals to having every single member of ur alliance doing the same. Not to mention me cbk and whoever else r scanning/doing other stuff have nothing to do with support planets etc (ofc unless u classify us as ones), except for the fact we feel it's unfair to us it's not being able to defend our allies and friends as we please with the accounts we payed for. But then again we will bend to the set rules, fair or unfair, nothing we can do about it except express our unhappiness about decisions made by those that hold the power to do it.

ps. I'd get seriously worried if i started puking over a game

[Muzzinator]

this is just silly..

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by lokken

Personally, I am against this rule.

While exilition's strategy is very much against the spirit of alliance tags, the alliance tag limit was there to provide the benefit of alliance ETA defence. Support planets do not have this benefit. They do not get defended more easily. They can only defend with limited numbers of ships (because there is few people to defend them) in certain limited situations.

The odd thing is that I have 2 friends (also eminent PA people) who are independent. They have no tag. I have no tag. If we defend each other, we could end up with our accounts being closed. If we set up an alliance first, go together in tag, then it's OK.

This may be 'levelling the playingfield' but in an unfair sense. Exilition may have brought people in (and paid for them) at the start of the round on the basis it could use support planets. Now this rule has been changed. This in my view is no different to changing stats mid round and ranks pretty close to not giving people something that they paid for i.e. a planet to attack and defend with as they pleased.

What I am annoyed about, is that there are planets that I (along with others, I'm sure) have brought casefiles on fleet movements and alliance associations and galaxy channel cooperative that have stayed open (when there's been stacks of evidence) yet people are prepared to close a legitimate planet, simply for defending another. This is not how PA should work. If PA team want to prevent people from setting up a support planet system in future, I suggest they do it by setting limits as to what tag you can defend in a certain time period, and flag up those who contravene this limit from the start of a round. Even so, this is a game about being able to choose who you attack, and who you defend.

Like i have said - i do not agree with the spirit of a dedicated out of tag force purely for defence (if that's what a 'support planet' is) but this in my view is not the way to deal with something where people have organised themselves in a legitimate way within the rules, which don't prohibit planets from defending each other.

Couldn't agree more.

No offense to any of the others who posted in this thread. As Zhil stated, 1up never thought of doing things this way. Gio2k calls it "_exploting_" the alliance-tag system. To be honest, it was completely within the rules and allowed, until this new rule was created. Being crafty enough to use something that's totally within the bounds of the EULA isn't *exploiting* anything, it's just being creative. No other alliance was, during the time it wasn't agains the rules, inhibited from using this tactic.

-NitinA

[Kentaminated]

so this rule means that we can no longer choose who we want to defend. Can you hard code this so we dont accidentally defend the wrong planet. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to a problem. If they aren't multi's let them play.

[GladiatorLT]

wtf this is the most stupid idea i have ever heard... i am not in tag because i was inactive. now i am trying to grow back enough to be an eligible person to get in tag. i never get defence, i defended twice sofar. i was another ally member most last round and i still like and talk to ppl from there. i defended them and offer help whenever i cant be of assistance to my eX. so... what am i then? why cant i help whoever i want?? im not in eX i dont get defended by them...
anyways.. next thing.. you are saying people are going arround the rule of 80 people. wtf do u think are naps or alliances between alliances??? its just the same just in alot bigger scale!! so next time some ally allies another ally u wil delete them both?
Jolt decided to go out of business so you are deleting/forcing people out?
funny... i asked Squishy to explain me this same thing and i asked him specific questions. i wasnt rude, i wasnt freaking out or anything. i gave simple questions. he kind of repeted same thing it sais in the thread post and refused to explain anything for me. Wonderful customer assistance...

[xtothez]

To be honest I think this is more a case of PA Crew attempting to catch 'dodgy' behaviour by people who are flaunting their ability to slip by the established rules. It's more a case of morale perspective than anything else - some people will do things they know to be against the spirit of the game, or that gives them an extra edge, but isn't explicitly denied. Now PA Crew have to keep up with that.
At the end of the day, the PA administration answers only to the players who stay here for many rounds. In this case, this rule mostly seem to affect a group of players who are playing their 2nd round in PA as a group, and many of them don't have a track record of being here consistantly. The complaints are emanating from those that are. I think that it's wrong on a technical merit (changing the rules without notice is always hard to justify), from a business and moral point of view this is a correct decision.

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think it becomes a problem when a very loyal member of an alliance can't be active enough to play for them in their name but is still loyal to the cause, and wants to repay the help they've had from others for a number of rounds.

Please.
The 80 planet limit is there to stop huge groups from coorperating in some unassailable entity. Don't claim that this new rule is preventing people from playing when everyone is aware of the limit - go start a new thread about that instead. Every player agreed to the limit by signing up. And before you begin with "oh noes we didn't agree to this new rule when we signed up", yes, you did:

From the User Agreement:
"We may amend this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion" -
"The definitions of abuse are, but are not limited to" - This is to highlight common methods of abuse, not list every possible one, including ideas that aren't yet known.

Originally Posted by Kargool

You decide to change the rules midgame, and that's like removing the offside rule in the middle of a football game.

It's actually more like changing the rules mid-season after a club discovers a loophole in them. Accurate metaphors support your arguements better.

Originally Posted by Kargool

I will definitly leave PA after this round because i've had it with an incompetent PA crew who never listens when someone raises questions and issues but react while others do it. This favourism i've been seeing from the PA crew this last round clearly indicates that they are "bought" and corrupted.

If by 'bought' you mean swayed by people who have stayed in this game almost forever against people who have turned up for a couple of rounds and now threaten to quit once their dubious support mechanism is removed, then what's the problem? It's a pretty sound business decsion from where I'm sitting. If you're suggesting this is actually about cash, why don't they leave this unpatched and tell 1up et all to buy up loads of extra planets so long as they don't look like multies?
Surely you can't think that 9-roid planets that only defend a small group is good for anyone but the fleet recipient?

Oh, and threatening to quit doesn't support your cause. It just provides the idea that you're a lost customer and your views no longer matter to this business.

Originally Posted by Kargool

I personally HATE that the current PA crew has done everything withing their power to tear down PA, and they have surely succeeded.

Or from the opposite point of view: people who don't get their own way leave, resulting is less players. Do you honestly think PA Crew go onto IRC every day and ask each other "hay guys how can we get more people to **** off and not give us anymore money so we don't need to admin anymore?". I think it's more likely that they're human and they occasionally make bad judgements, much like the players who quit when they don't get the exact perfect the game they want.

Originally Posted by Neferti

If people want to defend their friends, why shouldn't they? What about someone who plays solo who defends a friend every now and then? They are now cheating. This is wrong.

No, it's not always cheating. The hunters are saying this is now grounds for investigation, not definate closure. Obviously a planet with pods, who attacks properly and defends more than a tiny group of planets outside their tag has infinitely more chance of staying open than some of the current <10-roid planets with just low eta def ships this rule was designed to catch.

Originally Posted by lizardking

Imo this new rule is horsepiss. I joined this round for 1 reason and 1 reason only, which is to play for my alliance. wether that equals to cov.opping hostiles, scanning planets, sending defence etc etc I want to be useful in every possible way. Playing as scanner itself is already abit boring, but there r ppl who do that solely to help their tribe/friends whoever. Restricting that freedom is noway making it more fun for us who decide not to play for ourselves but to help our friends and fight the shared cause in different methods.

No, you agreed to the 80 planet limit alliance by playing. If you think thats unfair, go elsewhere. PA rules clearly show they don't want huge groups of players dominating several much smaller groups.

Originally Posted by lizardking

Also I think as the round goes on those so called support planets will slowly lose their value as the "real" planets grow off range.

Yes, they make it to that upper range because of the extra 'support' they recieve early on, which not everyone else gets.

Originally Posted by lizardking

Well I suppose in case of hostilities and if no in glx defence around i guess im doomed to roll over and die if sum1 comes after me with structure killers as I rather c my own planet goto waste than my alliance m8 getting deleted for defending lil me.
Those saying scanners etc should join in game tag ehm... There's a limit set by PA admins to 80 members per alliance, and ie my alliance has already reached that limit, so i wonder how am i going to join the tag when it's already full.

Tough. It's full. Refer to my previous comment about the existing limits and find another alliance.

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

Removing the aspect that has been one of the main reasons people won rounds. Removing the importance of establishing contacts and friends. Believe it or not, but most #1 players knew ALOT of people outside their alliance willing to help them.
People willing to help you out even if not in your alliance. People helping you when your alliance is dry.

Surely this is a wargame settled by skill, ability, and how well you run the planet - not how many people you can cyber on IRC for ships?

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

And, as Jerome stated, whats the difference in scanning for your alliance than deffing your alliance?

This was clearly answered three posts above yours. Way to read the thread before replying.

Originally Posted by lokken

...the alliance tag limit was there to provide the benefit of alliance ETA defence. Support planets do not have this benefit. They do not get defended more easily. They can only defend with limited numbers of ships (because there is few people to defend them) in certain limited situations.

However, if the alliances knows they have several support planets with a given ability (i.e. ships to cover against FR using out-of-tag ETA), they no longer need this ability inside the tag and can focus resources elsewhere. Again, it's an unfair advantage.

Originally Posted by lokken

The odd thing is that I have 2 friends (also eminent PA people) who are independent. They have no tag. I have no tag. If we defend each other, we could end up with our accounts being closed. If we set up an alliance first, go together in tag, then it's OK.

I doubt you'd be closed, because the key difference here is you having no tag (or indeed not being in a full tag). You're recieving any real benefit here, only a negative limit to how much they can defend you. This is quite unlike people who are in a tag, which is at capacity, and yet try to get more support.

Originally Posted by lokken

This may be 'levelling the playingfield' but in an unfair sense. Exilition may have brought people in (and paid for them) at the start of the round on the basis it could use support planets. Now this rule has been changed. This in my view is no different to changing stats mid round and ranks pretty close to not giving people something that they paid for i.e. a planet to attack and defend with as they pleased.

I think they're trying to catch people who could well be breaking other rules they strongly suspect but can't explicitly prove. Planets with almost no roids yet many ships are already very suspicious, and now they're appearing in mass (note the 30+ closures figure already).

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

This is like saying it is exploiting the game if you ally another alliance and 160 attack 80..

No, it's nothing like that. 2 alliances are 2 separate entities which can split at any point on the whims of their command. Support planets are an extension to a single alliance and move with that. The HC of that alliance isn't likely to tell all the support planets to 'split off' and no longer do what they were paid and signed up for.

Originally Posted by GladiatorLT

wtf this is the most stupid idea i have ever heard... i am not in tag because i was inactive. now i am trying to grow back enough to be an eligible person to get in tag. i never get defence, i defended twice sofar. i was another ally member most last round and i still like and talk to ppl from there. i defended them and offer help whenever i cant be of assistance to my eX. so... what am i then?:) why cant i help whoever i want?? im not in eX i dont get defended by them...

Why don't you form a tag with lizardking? He needs def too apparently.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the soda is 7up btw.
and, all it shows is that people in your alliance, and who signed up purely to defend you are lacking a moral fibre and/or a sense of honour.
Its one thing to be in an alliance where each side have roughly equal numbers, its entirely different to resort to cowardly and dishonourable things like defence farms

nah, is like with monkeys to men

kill of the opposition, and your the leader of the troop->Evolution(rule introduced)->kill of the opposition,be strung up by the neck.

as long as mhs don't get carried away, then it's a good thing

[pig]

Originally Posted by [Unknown]

Ok this idea just popped to my mind and could sound a bit crazy but here goes:

How about increasing the ally size by 5, but the increased 5 can ONLY be scanners. Also when signs up come along, make a function where u say you are playing as a scanner or not. When u are playing as a scanner, some options are limited (like a free account) for example, like only having a max of 500 roids for being a scanner, a limit of ships......or something like that.

Crazy? Imo it would stop the 'well what if they are a scanner and they want to deff their ally'

It would stop that from happening right?

But yeah Im sure the pa team could think or something like having a scanner option in the sign up page

EDIT**

Of course only paid accounts can be scanners.

Read the post.

Take a deep breath.

Now would you pay £5 for that crap?

Didnt think so.

[lokken]

What i'm advocating here is that instead of creating a rule that effectively prevents any kind of freedom in the game for players to do what they want, is that the PA team actually used their power to delete cheats amongst these planets (if there are any) by abandoning this criminal law style burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt that they seem to have.

Originally Posted by xtothez

To be honest I think this is more a case of PA Crew attempting to catch 'dodgy' behaviour by people who are flaunting their ability to slip by the established rules. It's more a case of morale perspective than anything else - some people will do things they know to be against the spirit of the game, or that gives them an extra edge, but isn't explicitly denied. Now PA Crew have to keep up with that..

You call it a 'loophole' - it is not a 'loophole': planets can defend other planets, are sold on the basis that you can defend other planets and I fundamentally oppose any idea that a planet cannot defend another out of choice (subject to the limits I described above). Quite frankly what's being sold is not a fully functioning planet. In terms of an unfair contract term against a consumer, changing the rules at your discretion to stop a vital function of what's being sold is in my view, unreasonable. I do not see it as a valid term in this context. This is not exploiting code, or a glitch in the game: this is simply creating a legitimate setup out of what is made available.

Even so: this boils down to an argument that alliances object to being outnumbered - many alliances have been outnumbered and outgunned and every time guess what - it's been their own fault and they got taken out. Quite frankly there seems to be a large alliance agenda going on here, and I do not care for it a jot. To me this is a bunch of old players who are sitting there scratching their heads because they are caught short, don't know how to cope, think people are cheating and can't get the deletions they want, because they thought planets outside the body of alliance weren't of any use and this is precisely their own fault for not thinking of it, because if they had they would not be objecting. To me tihs is a case of some players not accepting they've been outsmarted.

Escort planets were deleted for what? Cheating.

What should these planets be deleted for? Cheating.

Surely you can't think that 9-roid planets that only defend a small group is good for anyone but the fleet recipient?

This is the same for every planet defending. There is no difference. Often players object to people defending their enemies, and from this thread, we can see why.

[pig]

Good post lokken.

From a personal point of view, escort planets, planets built solely to defend etc etc do ruin the game. There is nothing more annoying than when you see 2k vipers off a small value cath defending vs your tzen. It is annoying because you are almost playing an alliance twice the size.

However im 1up as you guessed. I dont think its a specific alliance wide agenda agaisnt other certain alliances, however I think you are wholy correct in the fact that we just didnt think of it first, rather we didnt get our "friends" to signup and escort us etc.

However this gets into a fishy area, getting someone to signup just so you get 50 roids on your first cap or cap a nice cath fleet is illegal, so the same argument being put forward is why isnt escorting illegal.

The rule is here, lets see what impact if any it has.

Finally to get around this rule just upgrade the planet. Not as if jolt close paid planets.

[[Unknown]]

Originally Posted by pig

Read the post.

Take a deep breath.

Now would you pay £5 for that crap?

Didnt think so.

Like I said it was an example, in no way did I state that it SHOULD be a function. I was only giving ideas so that the pateam could come up with better ones.

Also who would be dumb enough to pay £5 for a credit. Hmmmmm guessing you must be one of them.

/me pets pig

Im sure u will be able to find £1.66 to make up for your loses.

Well ok how about only scanners having to pay half of what a normal paying customer would normally, so that he can only do a certain amount? Well whatever. If the pa team decides to have scanner function im sure they can come up with something better.

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

Sure cypher, like your midround race change in round 13, without the admins removing your ships, which they did for ANYONE ELSE who asked about a race change, was fair? rofl, don't be a hypocrite.

lol... another dumb post by dain my ships were removed, but don't let facts get in the way of you trying to act cool

[cypher]

btw seeing as wishmaster made it all about 1up instead of about leveling the playing field for all alliances... i must say it IS kinda funny seeing basically only exi+ few others saying it's bad isn't it?
multiple exi people have said they thought it was ok to sign up more accounts and play the one which gets the best gal, which i'm sure some people can confirm but won't right guys?

the alliance limit is there for a reason btw to keep an even playing playing field... all your multi accounts are unfair (and don't gimme crap like you're using friends as we all know that's bull...it's a couple of friends and alot of multies), which has been proven by mh's i'm sure as they wouldn't just close someone.

and wishmaster you been saying you've quit 20 million times by now, yet you signed up a new account... so quit moaning

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by xtothez

No, you agreed to the 80 planet limit alliance by playing. If you think thats unfair, go elsewhere. PA rules clearly show they don't want huge groups of players dominating several much smaller groups.

Yes, they make it to that upper range because of the extra 'support' they recieve early on, which not everyone else gets.

Tough. It's full. Refer to my previous comment about the existing limits and find another alliance.

#1 What I agreed was to play for my alliance with the rules already setup by Planetarion crew. It didn't say anything about being forbiden to lauch fleets with own best judgement (w/o being closed for petty reasoning). That was the original setting. What is now is now. Tbh we r talkin about group of 5-10 planets here -SCANNERS-. If u think a number of planets of which u can use ur fingers to count, planets that r relatively small compared to rest in value can make such a huge impact then I guess ur wiev to c things on a larger scale is terribly out of proportion

#2 blaablaa....

#3 Howabout if u re-read my earlier statement about pledging loyalties (if that word makes any sense to u), which u already once quated.

ps. telling ppl to jump wagons b'coz of sum laughable higher order interfention to "save the space" is just a lol Xhotz, u actually made me consider it for about 0.00001seconds.

[Phil^]

You also agreed to let them change the rules at any time for any reason they see fit.
They have done so.
whats ironic is that this rule change wouldnt have been necessary if people in that alliance had an inch of moral backbone and didnt insist on "winning at all costs, even if its disgraceful".
def farms, although not explicitly forbidden in the eula are clearly against the spirit of the game, as lokken himself admits freely.
using the logic shown by people above it could be ( and infact was, unsuccessfully ) argued that banning conventional farming ( ie accounts set up to init roids for attackers to farm ) is merely a new tactic of the game and shouldnt be banned.
that "why should pateam be able to say who we can or cant attack, and who can or cant init roids for us to take".
guess what - it was and now people accept this was the right decision.
unsurprisingly there were people arguing against conventional farming being banned, *shocker* they were the ones who stood to lose the most from it being banned too.

Interesting parallel to this issue. no? given the bulk of those complaining consistantly about it are those who stand to lose the most.

They could be considered a type of farm i suppose, and fall under the "but not limited to" clause of the anti-farming part if MH'ers were closing before this was done
however whats most disgraceful of all is the myths, rumours and propeganda people have been putting out about this.
lets debunk a few shall we?

1) "omg im going to get closed if i defend anyone not in my alliance,cluster or galaxy"
If you do it the once, or rarely to the same person or to different alliances - i would severely doubt it.
What they are more then likely to be closing for are those accounts signed up PURELY to defend the one alliance and do nothing else.
i would be extremely surprised if multihunters closed someone who defended a friend not in the same alliance once or twice.

2) they will ban if your fleet composition isnt right
utter nonsense. whoever came up with this one needs to be taken out and shot.
sure, it could count as part of such a case, but its hardly going to be the only evidence on them

3) they will ban you because you're not alliance x, and theyve been bought
i dont know where to start on this one. to laugh or to cry - its that pathetic

4) they'll be banning everyone whos done this before the rule change
now, this one is a little cloudier since ive seen quotes of squishy saying it'll be applied retroactively.
since i wasnt in the channel and have only seen (possibly misquoted, or out of context) quotes from those who stand to lose the most, i cant exactly determine if that was his intent or if he infact knows what retroactively means.
personally, i wouldnt think they'd be doing this as much since retroactive multihunting is usually a bad idea , but in the worst cases where theyve been doing absolutely nothing but acting as a def farm, perhaps its necessary to remove such people for the good of the game as a whole.
until an official statement on how they'll be applying the new rule, no-one can really say for certain what they will or will not be doing ( including me , best i can give is an educated guess )

5) its not necessary, they dont get the eta advantage
true, they dont get the eta advantage but there are ships in the current stats which dont NEED the eta advantage to be useful
eg, Vipers, Vshaark, etc
since these are the 'best' anti-fr ships out there for defence right now, and frigate roiding fleets being somewhat of a problem the usefulness of having def farms with these ships increases rather substantially

6) pateam are doing this to punish scanners / scanners are going to be closed because they arent in an alliance tag
Nonsense. scanners are blatantly obvious from the constructions they have, and pateam can check on constructions easily enough
as for not being in an alliance tag - pateam arent forcing you not to be. its a choice of your alliance or your own choice not to be in it, since you'd drag down the average.

a final thought for some wanting to blame someone for this :
would such a rule have been necessary if there were not people blatantly abusing it on a mass scale already ( squishy mentioned 30+ planets closed for it already ) , and if not, shouldnt you blame them for causing such a rule to be required instead of the pateam for being forced into implementing it?

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Phil^

4) they'll be banning everyone whos done this before the rule change
now, this one is a little cloudier since ive seen quotes of squishy saying it'll be applied retroactively.
since i wasnt in the channel and have only seen (possibly misquoted, or out of context) quotes from those who stand to lose the most, i cant exactly determine if that was his intent or if he infact knows what retroactively means.
personally, i wouldnt think they'd be doing this as much since retroactive multihunting is usually a bad idea , but in the worst cases where theyve been doing absolutely nothing but acting as a def farm, perhaps its necessary to remove such people for the good of the game as a whole.
until an official statement on how they'll be applying the new rule, no-one can really say for certain what they will or will not be doing ( including me , best i can give is an educated guess )

<jackle> sup Jumo
<Jumo> Is the new rule retro-active?
<Marv> as in if you havbe done it before it came in place will you get into trouble?
<jackle> squishy and marv will probably be best suited to help you with concers aboutt he new rule
<Jumo> Yes Marv
<Squishy> yes
<Marv> the answer is yes. most likely :-)

My question is how can they punish someone for doing something which was perfectly legal to do at the time? This is where I'm getting pissed off, they don't even offer a warning of the coming rule, just closures, then announce the rule. Does this really make sense Phil?

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Jumo

<jackle> sup Jumo
<Jumo> Is the new rule retro-active?
<Marv> as in if you havbe done it before it came in place will you get into trouble?
<jackle> squishy and marv will probably be best suited to help you with concers aboutt he new rule
<Jumo> Yes Marv
<Squishy> yes
<Marv> the answer is yes. most likely :-)

Originally Posted by Phil^

until an official statement on how they'll be applying the new rule, no-one can really say for certain what they will or will not be doing

bold added for emphasis
that is the quote i was referring to in this item, and since i wasnt there at the time i have no way of verifying if its precisely what was said, in its complete context, and the only official thing on this so far, assassins post makes no mention of retroactive hunting on this issue.
You'll have to wait for him (or kal/biffy) to say yes, it is or no, it isnt since they are in charge of Multihunting at the end of the day and the MH policies

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Phil^

bold added for emphasis
that is the quote i was referring to in this item, and since i wasnt there at the time i have no way of verifying if its precisely what was said, in its complete context, and the only official thing on this so far, assassins post makes no mention of retroactive hunting on this issue.
You'll have to wait for him (or kal/biffy) to say yes, it is or no, it isnt since they are in charge of Multihunting at the end of the day and the MH policies

Then how have there been closures of people, such as Wishmaster, who hasn't defended an eX planet from outside the tag in four days?

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Jumo

Then how have there been closures of people, such as Wishmaster, who hasn't defended an eX planet from outside the tag in four days?

wishmaster got closed for an entirely different reason, didnt you hear?
he posted porn as a gal pic, biffy took offense and closed him
and *if* he created another account and got closed again, then it was probably for a good reason and he would be best asking the multihunters why

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Phil^

wishmaster got closed for an entirely different reason, didnt you hear?
he posted porn as a gal pic, biffy took offense and closed him

You do realize he made a new account, don't you? And was closed, again, for the very reason I mentioned.

[Phil^]

and do you have direct evidence of that , or just what wishmaster says ( and lets face it, hes got as much to gain by stirring things up as the rest of you do )

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Phil^

and do you have direct evidence of that , or just what wishmaster says ( and lets face it, hes got as much to gain by stirring things up as the rest of you do )

atm I have Wishmaster's word, along with the log from #support. tbh that's all I need, being told by the MHs themselves of retroactive enforcement and an alliance mate being closed, for violating the rule 4 days ago.

[Phil^]

it might be enough for you, but its far short of what i require and probably of some others too.
once you have conclusive evidence, by all means say it but until then i will remain unconvinced

[Jumo]

Originally Posted by Phil^

it might be enough for you, but its far short of what i require and probably of some others too.
once you have conclusive evidence, by all means say it but until then i will remain unconvinced

Then might I suggest you go into #support and ask them yourself.