Have Multihunters lost the plot??

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I know im not the first to shoot down anyone suggesting easier punishments for cheaters, and I wont be the last.

If you cheat you get closed. It is that easy. If theese "friends" of yours are unable to not to cheat to enjoy this game, maybe they should reconsider and play a game where cheating is accepted.

-------------------------------------------------

I refer to you the start of the thread. And why the thread started. You seemingly believe that MHs and closing people is finite. It may be in the bulk of cases.

Or to put it another way, I got told in the speedgame that hitting someone for the third time might get me kicked out for farming.

As an aside, its time for people to re-assess much of this. Instead of trying to fix this by EULA, and by having people running round finding 'cheaters', cheating should be eradicated by the game itself.

Instead of having issues with people being roid or ship farms, you should build it into the game. Just as you have done with alliances and other features. Just like you have with XP, and with scanners.

Every effort should be made to remove the issue of someone is cheating. If you can do something in the game, it should be part of the game, or coded out of the game.

If I am hitting someone for the third time, its cos they are not playing, not running, or whatever, if you don't like it, code it out of the game so it can't be done. Don't leave it open so that it can be done as part of the game/or misconstrued as cheating.

As for you dislike of 'cheats', Everyone has a different view on what cheating, or if you like unsporting behaviour may come down to. In terms of PA, Phil laid it out as whats in the EULA. Thats his view. He is certainly technically correct. My own view is that kciking people out in a game that now has only 2k of people, and is just a small community of players serves no purpose, lest you mean reducing the already dwindling players.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

If I am hitting someone for the third time, its cos they are not playing, not running, or whatever, if you don't like it, code it out of the game so it can't be done. Don't leave it open so that it can be done as part of the game/or misconstrued as cheating.

As for you dislike of 'cheats', Everyone has a different view on what cheating, or if you like unsporting behaviour may come down to. In terms of PA, Phil laid it out as whats in the EULA. Thats his view. He is certainly technically correct. My own view is that kciking people out in a game that now has only 2k of people, and is just a small community of players serves no purpose, lest you mean reducing the already dwindling players.

Hence why we have live multihunters to assess every situation and kick in if they see something that is against the spirit of the game. Did you read the eula at all? It reads:

Originally Posted by EULA

(c) As newer methods of cheating are discovered, you authorise us to interpret
all data logged about your account towards detecting these methods. Actions which
are deemed to be cheating are not restricted to the list given on this
EULA and may be added to at any time, and you authorise us to do so

Hence is why we need multihunters.

Allthough I think that the name multihunters should be changed into law officers or game mods as the cheating is abit more than just having two accounts

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Hence why we have live multihunters to assess every situation and kick in if they see something that is against the spirit of the game. Did you read the eula at all? It reads:


Hence is why we need multihunters.

Allthough I think that the name multihunters should be changed into law officers or game mods as the cheating is abit more than just having two accounts

Yes, well, there you have it, the logical, open ended approach, where MHs can deem anything illegal and close you. Yummy.

[Judge]

comsidering that the incluster defence eta will be reduced to -2 even for non allied planets, wont we see a proliferation of non allied defenders ?

and if we do, will be they closed for being support planets ?

[robban1]

just hardcode so OOGOOA isnt possible as its not legal so the mh can do other stuff

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Judge

comsidering that the incluster defence eta will be reduced to -2 even for non allied planets, wont we see a proliferation of non allied defenders ?

and if we do, will be they closed for being support planets ?

AFAIK defending in-cluster will not be counted as cheating.

[ArcChas]

Originally Posted by Heartless

AFAIK defending in-cluster will not be counted as cheating.

You're probably right.

I wonder how long it will take for people to start abusing that fact?

[robban1]

Originally Posted by ArcChas

You're probably right.

I wonder how long it will take for people to start abusing that fact?

72 ticks

[furball]

Originally Posted by Fiery

I think that anyone who is idling in a three alliance mutual def channel has pretty much committed/dedicated themself to providing def for other alliances

(sorry for having been away)

You're going to use IRC as evidence? I was distinctly under the impression that MHs didn't use IRC logs as evidence because they were so easily forged.

Besides, there's a massive difference between committed and dedicated, and simply putting a / between them doesn't make them equal one another.

Originally Posted by definition of committed

committed
adjective
1 loyal and willing to give your time and energy to something that you believe in:
a committed socialist/Christian/teacher

2 [after verb] having promised to be involved in a plan of action:
We are committed to withdrawing our troops by the end of the year.

Originally Posted by definition of dedicated

dedicate
verb [T]
1 to give completely your energy, time, etc:
He has dedicated his life to scientific research.
[R] The new President said she would dedicate herself to protecting the rights of the old, the sick and the homeless.

I can see how you might view a planet that is part of this block as being committed to providing defence for all members of the block and not only its own tag's members. However, the word 'dedicated' presumes that this is all that the planet does - i.e. it is dedicated to providing support to these planets that are not in its own tag. That is simply not the case.

Originally Posted by Fiery

and if an alliance is getting def from people that are not in their alliance/gal/cluster then that gives them an unfair benefit/advantage over the other alliances since they have more chances to get def.

You could say the same thing if you compared an alliance with 60 members to an alliance with 20 members. Since there would be more planets in tag, there would be more opportunity for any one member of that tag to get defence. Likewise if an alliance tells its members not to attack and to keep their fleets home for defence, more ships and fleetslots would be available for defence since normally they would be out on attack. Would that be an unfair benefit for those members? I really hope not.

As has been said time and time again in this thread, if you want to ban OOGOOCOOA defence then do so. If you don't, please stop forcing the support planet rule to cover cases which don't suit your own personal morals. Rules are rules, and even if you make bad rules you still should be sticking to them.

[Judge]

with all the restrictions on defence, soon it will come to the state where your can only defend when there is a full moon and a R in the month.

ffs get a grip, a player should be able to defend anyone he wants for whatever reason, the same as he should be allowed to attack any one.

[Willzzz]

Originally Posted by Judge

with all the restrictions on defence, soon it will come to the state where your can only defend when there is a full moon and a R in the month.

ffs get a grip, a player should be able to defend anyone he wants for whatever reason, the same as he should be allowed to attack any one.

So, you would of course be happy to say roid a guy, that has say 3 planets constantly defending him all round and thats all they do? They are not in his alliance. All they are their to do is defend that guy. They dont attack, dont scan, all they do is build ships and defend one man. You honestly telling me you wouldnt mind that if you wanted to roid this guy? Now Imagine that on an alliance war scale. Thats why its their.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

So, you would of course be happy to say roid a guy, that has say 3 planets constantly defending him all round and thats all they do? They are not in his alliance. All they are their to do is defend that guy. They dont attack, dont scan, all they do is build ships and defend one man. You honestly telling me you wouldnt mind that if you wanted to roid this guy? Now Imagine that on an alliance war scale. Thats why its their.

If they are legitimate planets, surely that's just organisation. Not to mention the fact that they have no eta bonus.

The problem is the rule depends on how often you do an activity without specifying how many times you can, you can't really keep tabs on planets very well so in reality, it needs to be coded in to be enforced properly. Or it's seen as a rather unnecessary rule, brought in because of people who were pushing for it because they couldn't beat exilition.

I'm in the latter camp.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

So, you would of course be happy to say roid a guy, that has say 3 planets constantly defending him all round and thats all they do? They are not in his alliance. All they are their to do is defend that guy. They dont attack, dont scan, all they do is build ships and defend one man. You honestly telling me you wouldnt mind that if you wanted to roid this guy? Now Imagine that on an alliance war scale. Thats why its their.

Yes, quite simply, if a person can encouarage his mates to sign up and play the game on that basis to simply watch his ass for 8 to 10 weeks then good luck to him.

You of course would be free to do the same.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by lokken

Quite.

In my opinion the rules need to be far clearer and simpler than they are now. The support planets rule is one that's impossible to apply consistently and keep track of. It needs to be coded in some form, or removed.

Not to mention, ambiguous rules usually favour the elite, who can swing it to be interpreted in their favour.

Just when I got to grips with DCs BCs and HCs and now we have to have F@&king QCs in an ally no wonder this game is going to the wall

IMO we should operate a "Planning Permission" scheme with rounds where if you dont propose the strategy preround to say the plan permission board IE PA team/multihunters team the strategy is class as void and the ally/player is disqualified from the round... this could solve many an argument.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Just when I got to grips with DCs BCs and HCs and now we have to have F@&king QCs in an ally no wonder this game is going to the wall

IMO we should operate a "Planning Permission" scheme with rounds where if you dont propose the strategy preround to say the plan permission board IE PA team/multihunters team the strategy is class as void and the ally/player is disqualified from the round... this could solve many an argument.

And be the death of PA I imagine =/