800 Planets doing nothing

[MotoX]

Around 1200 players belong to an alliance of some sort and today we got 2022 planets.

Are the rest new players/players who once where in an alliance and quit?
Or
players who seek refuge in one of those alliances and aren’t exempted?
Or
noobs who only play to have a little “fun” before they get roided to the ground?
Or
Etc etc etc

Guess there are loads more reasons that I haven’t mentioned but it still strikes me how many
(today around 800 planets) who is out there without a “home”, especially since “everyone” says we lose players every round and not that many newbie’s join!??

We have a special forum where new players easily can find and join an alliance, we got galchans where most are more then happy to help/teach new players the game and help them into an alliance etc
Of course many play this game not for the solve reason to join an alliance but still that many?

800 planets playing this game without any other reason then to have a blast for a few weeks…
nah don’t think so!

I truly believe many (not most) are support planets of some sort – can I prove it, NO I can’t.
But still…. I think it’s an issue to discuss.

[bwtmc]

It's like you're a confused multihunter in disguise.

Those that do not sign up to an alliance shall not be allowed to play our game!

[Squidly]

This implies that everyone in the top 20 has an average of 40 support planets not in tag.

each.

Unlikely I hope

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

It's like you're a confused multihunter in disguise.

Those that do not sign up to an alliance shall not be allowed to play our game!

I am not a multihunter and that kid who is doesn’t have an easy job....

Funny you were the first poster though since Ex got such a spotless reputation.regarding support planets etc.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Funny you were the first poster though since Ex got such a spotless reputation.regarding support planets etc.

1up also used support planets in round 17, and Assassin / the MH team completely ignored it, then in round 18, the MH team had to defend their group-hipocracy when they started enforcing out-of-tag support planets.

On the record, that makes 2 of the greatest (subjective opinion, but who would disagree?) alliances of PAX who have used support planets at one point or another. Who the rules were ever enforced on is a different story...

As for the acutal topic at hand, I think some people are probably old players who don't have the time or commitment to the game anymore to actually come on IRC, but signup planets to play with every once in a while. Some may just be newbies, some can't get IRC due to network restrictions or something, and therefore never got active in the meta-game. There's a whole variety of explainations for 800 planets. A *small* percentage of the 800 might actually be support planets for various alliances, but I doubt the figure is anywhere near 800.

-NitinA

[bwtmc]

I'm tempted to pointlessly quote you but I've decided since you've only just written that post you'll be able to relate the two.

Anyway, I'm not a multihunter either, none of them are kids as far as I know, multihunting isn't a job, it's only difficult if one changes the rules midround and I'm not a member of eXilition because I'm not playing the round and/or retiring.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by NitinA

1up also used support planets in round 17, and Assassin / the MH team completely ignored it, then in round 18, the MH team had to defend their group-hipocracy when they started enforcing out-of-tag support planets.

Funny yeah, that it was acknowledged, and even admitted by the 1up command, that these planets were createn for the sole purpose of granting the alliance with a benefit - which some would have called an unfair one. It's not exactly news that a different set of rules apply for different people. Obviously, the round after, when less biased multihunting crew was appointed (or the biased people quitted it, or then just the rules changed, eh), eXilition got a truckload of poop for doing what had been done and okay'ed the round before.

And it's not exactly news either that after his multihunting career Assassin found his way to, surprise surprise, 1up ranks. This doesn't relate to those "800 planets doing nothing", as they probably do involve scanners, and people who are allianceless by choice. Or, in the case of a few alliances, such as the both mentioned during this round and rounds prior, people who are members of alliances but aren't tagged as such.

[bwtmc]

MotoX this is a truly shit thread, you have outdone yourself again.

[MotoX]

Well, I’m not making this thread to “pick a fight” I was merely trying to get some answers/speculations to why there is so many planets without any obvious desire to join whatever alliance.

Like NitinA wrote and even myself, there is “some” reasons why they aren’t in any alliance but lets say for the sake of it that 80% have “valid” reasons for not joining an alliance and some are newcomers…there still loads of planets left who are questionable about their whereabouts?

Am I the only one with a concern about these “none planets” or am I beginning to get some sort of…….well something?

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Am I the only one with a concern about these “none planets” or am I beginning to get some sort of…….well something?

Probably. Its a non-issue to me personally. There have always been people playing who are not in any alliance - always will be.
If there are some planets out there being used for a nefarious purpose then they'll be closed if/when the mh catch them.
Its a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if all of a sudden all planets not in an alliance are immediately suspect.

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

It's not exactly news that a different set of rules apply for different people. Obviously, the round after, when less biased multihunting crew was appointed (or the biased people quitted it, or then just the rules changed, eh), eXilition got a truckload of poop for doing what had been done and okay'ed the round before.

Bollocks.
your claims of bias are the only way you can rationalise it to make sense in your little world, after all everyone just *has* to be conspiring against you all the time and it just *has* to be a direct result of admins hating you and loving others.

Rules change - often as a result of actions taken by players in the previous round. get over it
Players roid farmed - it was banned subsequently
Players ship farmed - it was banned subsequently
Players used multiple accounts - it was banned subsequently
Players used bots - it was banned subsequently
Players/alliances used support planets - it was banned subsequently
Players XP farmed - it was banned subsequently
etc etc etc

Originally Posted by bwtmc

MotoX this is a truly shit thread, you have outdone yourself again.

Indeed, im not entirely sure if it is possible for him to make it worse other then by carrying on in it

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by MotoX

Well, I’m not making this thread to “pick a fight” I was merely trying to get some answers/speculations to why there is so many planets without any obvious desire to join whatever alliance.

Like NitinA wrote and even myself, there is “some” reasons why they aren’t in any alliance but lets say for the sake of it that 80% have “valid” reasons for not joining an alliance and some are newcomers…there still loads of planets left who are questionable about their whereabouts?

Am I the only one with a concern about these “none planets” or am I beginning to get some sort of…….well something?

Why the hell should anyone have to justify why they are not in an alliance.

While the support team endeavour to confuse the issue by providing support to an alliance only game, alliances are still optional and the game you log in to does NOT revolve solely around alliances.

[Fiery]

Motox,
While it's fun being in an alliance, it's also fun playing without one. I found that it's less restrictive to not be in alliance. You can attack who you want and when you want and not have to worry about launching on the correct tick or landing on the correct tick. Yes, you don't get deffed as much but hopefully you have an active gal that helps out. I thoroughly enjoyed the times when I wasn't in 1:1 or an alliance.

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Why the hell should anyone have to justify why they are not in an alliance.

While the support team endeavour to confuse the issue by providing support to an alliance only game, alliances are still optional and the game you log in to does NOT revolve solely around alliances.

Ofc they don’t have to justify why not being into an alliance…..doh

I only put the question up for discussion and if you feel you can’t contribute with an intelligent answer then don’t!

You obviously think all the 800 got valid reasons for not doing “like the rest of us” and that’s fine but I don’t – now go away and tend to your own business since this thread obviously isn’t to you liking anyway.

[MotoX]

Fiery.

I totally agree with you and I have done the same (once) felt cool to be without all the pressure from the alliance etc.


But…


So far I’m almost the only one who thinks/believe that all those 800 planets have a “valid” reason to be just that………by them self’s doing there own thing. That’s cool too but still all those planets……

[bwtmc]

Oh?

Originally Posted by MotoX

lets say for the sake of it that 80% have “valid” reasons for not joining an alliance

It's not a discussion if you refuse to listen to anyone with a different opinion to your own.

[MotoX]

Please read (above) my answer to Fierys post…that would show (rather obvious) that I both listen AND answer….








To whom it may concern.

I’m used to be neg.rep but please have the decency to put your name in so I know who made it? I have never made one myself since I think it’s a stupid feature.

At least show the guts and put in you name when you give one or else the neg.rep means shit to me!

.

[Phil^]

i so wanted to neg rep you for this one but i had already done it to you for the tag omen thread

[bwtmc]

In an ideal world what would you hope to achieve with this thread?

So far we've determined that:

a) 800 planets aren't in fact doing nothing
b) planets do not have to justify not playing an alliance yet they must have a "valid" reason for not joining one or they are cheating and this might well be 160 of the 800 planets if MotoX's gut feelings are correct.

which really amounts to nothing.

I might as well suggest that 50% of those 160 might be playing for an alliance called "PlasticChair" because

[MotoX]

While reading Phil:s post over and over again,I still can’t find his adequate input to this thread!?(Moderators do your duty plz) btw Phil, when you add a neg.rep to someone plz post your name to it – otherwise it’s useless.


Bwtmc.

My aim for this thread was to get a discussion going about those planets (now 800) who aint belonging to any alliance.

You as well as I should be able to have an opinion on that without getting ugly, yes?

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by MotoX

While reading Phil:s post over and over again,I still can’t find his adequate input to this thread!?

I'll spell it out for you then and hold your hand through the logical progression

You asked : Am I the only one with a concern about these “none planets”
I replied : Probably
I elaborated : There have always been people playing who are not in any alliance - always will be.
I commented : If there are some planets out there being used for a nefarious purpose then they'll be closed if/when the mh catch them.
I drew upon an analogy to explain why you were wrong : Its a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if all of a sudden all planets not in an alliance are immediately suspect.

Originally Posted by MotoX

(Moderators do your duty plz)

If such duty involves closing and/or deleting the thread, by all means. It was terrible to start with

Originally Posted by MotoX

btw Phil, when you add a neg.rep to someone plz post your name to it – otherwise it’s useless.

On the contrary, its there ; you know someones taken issue with a point of yours plus you cant retaliate neg-rep since you arent sure who it was.
Besides, i try to sign mine - i just often forget to while in the spirit of commenting via them.

Originally Posted by MotoX

My aim for this thread was to get a discussion going about those planets (now 800) who aint belonging to any alliance.

You started off badly if you wanted a discussion.
tip : accusing the planets not in an alliance of possibly being a support planet without evidence is not a good thing to do if you want to be taken credibly

Originally Posted by MotoX

You as well as I should be able to have an opinion on that without getting ugly, yes?

So far he's been rather nice to you considering imo, as have I . Edit : although my patience with you is rapidly running out I must confess :/
if he truely wanted to get ugly with you he would do.

[MotoX]

Wow, so many errors and misreading you must have made before posting this…..
Well, that’s up to the readers to notice.


Now when you had your moment can we please return to the subject in hand….


All who got something to say on the subject can post and please stay out of the personal slanders.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Bollocks.
your claims of bias are the only way you can rationalise it to make sense in your little world, after all everyone just *has* to be conspiring against you all the time and it just *has* to be a direct result of admins hating you and loving others.

Same can be said about your claims of cheating by eX in round 13. I remember i listened to your horses**t and actually bought into some of it. Truth of the matter is that eXilition had an amazing efficiency in those rounds, and was probably at the peak of their performance in rounds 13/15. You rationalized it to myself, and many others, by saying they were cheating, etc.

Originally Posted by Phil^

Rules change - often as a result of actions taken by players in the previous round. get over it

[...]

Players/alliances used support planets - it was banned subsequently

Difference is that the rules about farming, multi'ing, bots, xp whoring, etc. were never (by choice of MH) allowed to be openly violated for one round, before enforcing it the next round.

You've alwas been a stickler for the rules, except when 1up was breaking them in round 17 with you as a member. I don't see any claims for justice by you? You didn't seem to care when it was 1up was using support planets. But from your post history, you seemed to have strong opinions about it when other alliances did...

Round 15: Support Planets by banned and rule enforced
Round 16: Support planets banned, no issues
Round 17: Support planets banned, not enforced
Round 18: Support planets banned, and rule enforced

Selective enforcement is completely shit, and the worst part is I saw many people advocating enforcing the rules but who were all ignored completely by PA Team who didn't seem to give a f**k, until the next round when the MH team choose to enforce it.

I got kicked from support team after 7 rounds for posting my opinions of the MH team on the forums. Assassin didn't even get *talked to* in round 17 for openly allowing one alliance who admitted they were breaking the rules to violate the EULA. Isn't someone who openly admits to breaking the rules worth checking out in your opinion? You keep saying to get over it--well I'll stop talking about it and get over it once there's some sort of response *ever* from PA team, at the very least ensuring that selective enforcement won't happen again, against *any* alliance. Instead they've been quiet about the whole issue of MH-Hipocracy for rounds now. I guess they figured if nobody ever brings it up, it'll be forgotten and they won't have to deal with it--mabye they can even do it again one day if people forget quick enough.

-NitinA

[qebab]

Originally Posted by MotoX

So far I’m almost the only one who thinks/believe that all those 800 planets have a “valid” reason to be just that………by them self’s doing there own thing. That’s cool too but still all those planets……

Since when do you need a "valid" reason not to be a part of any alliance?

Is 800 planets that are not tagged proportionally a lot more than other rounds where this has been no issue?

What exactly would these out-of-tag planets be doing that is against the EULA and serve them better out of tag, than inside it, when only one single alliance has so far reached the alliance member limit? If they are hiding, sure, but can they really be classified as support planets in that case? Because if the alliance in question has not exceeded the limit, I don't think this should be a problem.

Several players I encountered this round that did not have any alliance were oldtimers who just had a planet to check on the game every now and then, and each of the galaxies I have been in so far had scanners, some had several.

You should have taken things like these in consideration before making this thread.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by NitinA

Same can be said about your claims of cheating by eX in round 13.

were it not for those I caught, closed and deleted of course. Claims made by someone who saw it happening first hand and took action against it is clearly not substatial enough for you to believe.
With your rabid claims of admin bias all you have in the way of evidence is conjecture, hypothesis and opinion.

Originally Posted by NitinA

Difference is that the rules about farming, multi'ing, bots, xp whoring, etc. were never (by choice of MH) allowed to be openly violated for one round, before enforcing it the next round.

Except that it wasnt explicitly banned that you could put planets in a tag which did nothing but sit there and look pretty. It was however made tactically unviable with changes to the alliance score formula so that alliances wouldnt do it any more.
Its still not banned to put planets in a tag which arent part of your alliance looking over at the current eula either. It wasnt enforced because there was nothing to enforce and there still isnt.

Originally Posted by NitinA

You've alwas been a stickler for the rules, except when 1up was breaking them in round 17 with you as a member. I don't see any claims for justice by you? You didn't seem to care when it was 1up was using support planets. But from your post history, you seemed to have strong opinions about it when other alliances did...

See above, and look back for the posts made where sid asked before the round had begun if adding planets not in the alliance, into the alliance tag would count as a support planet or not, and being told explicitly that it would not and was therefore permitted.
No rules were broken in the process, and next round it was simply made tactically unviable rather then explicitly banned.

R15 exilition was using support planets to attack with its members and to defend its members with specially tailored fleets in numbers which exceeded the alliance tag capacity. This was explicitly banned and just as well.
R17 1up were using inactive players in the tag to obfuscate the alliance score. This was explicitly asked before the round if it was against the rules to do this and other things and was told by pateam, categorically - no. It was made unviable in r18 to do this through a change in how the alliance score is calculated but not banned and still remains legal to this day
R18 exilition were using covert op planets to attack its enemies. This was explicitly banned.

Theres no selective enforcement at work for certain rounds or alliances so put the "omg im a victim of admin bias" stick away. Its just not credible no matter how many times its cried out.

Originally Posted by NitinA

Assassin didn't even get *talked to* in round 17 for openly allowing one alliance who admitted they were breaking the rules to violate the EULA. Isn't someone who openly admits to breaking the rules worth checking out in your opinion?

Sid admitted that inactive planets were in the tag to obfuscate the score, not that it was breaking the rules to do so.
Remember he had asked beforehand if certain things were permitted or forbidden?
Never let facts get in the way of a good hysterical rant about the imaginary bias in pateam though eh

Originally Posted by NitinA

You keep saying to get over it--well I'll stop talking about it and get over it once there's some sort of response *ever* from PA team, at the very least ensuring that selective enforcement won't happen again, against *any* alliance. Instead they've been quiet about the whole issue of MH-Hipocracy for rounds now. I guess they figured if nobody ever brings it up, it'll be forgotten and they won't have to deal with it--mabye they can even do it again one day if people forget quick enough.

-NitinA

Go go gadget paranoia.
see points above regarding the nonexistant selective enforcement and hipocracy.

Of course, nothing i ever say to you or others in your alliance is likely to change your minds. You seem to be quite fixated on the belief that the multihunters are biased against you forever and ever.

Originally Posted by qebab

Is 800 planets that are not tagged proportionally a lot more than other rounds where this has been no issue?

What exactly would these out-of-tag planets be doing that is against the EULA and serve them better out of tag, than inside it, when only one single alliance has so far reached the alliance member limit? If they are hiding, sure, but can they really be classified as support planets in that case? Because if the alliance in question has not exceeded the limit, I don't think this should be a problem.

No, i think it sounds about average Although it could be that it appears to be larger due to the lower numbers of accounts. Plus its still early and quite a few alliances havent reached capacity yet
They cant be classed as support planets if the alliance in question hasnt exceeded the limit, no. That was clarified back in r17 and detailed in my responses and quoted post to the above rant

[The Real Arfy]

Actually I think this was a good OP with a bad ending. Instead of asking if these players are out to get us, we should be asking why do we not already engage them on a level other than ingame? I realise that some people are either unable or unwilling to expand into the community, but this should be one of PA's first stops - integrating new players.

[Travler]

I happen to one of those allianceless players. I have not had much fun yet but that is because I have to rely on friends and gal mates for scans while trying to research everything. At least half of the rest of the planets are inactives. Just check out C200 to see how many planets are there. Last time I checked there were 409 planets in C200. So you can account for 410 of the 800 non allied planets now.

[Gate]

Am I a support planet yet?

[Kargool]

Kind of funny to see that the allylimit of 80 is highly used yep

/irony

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Except that it wasnt explicitly banned that you could put planets in a tag which did nothing but sit there and look pretty.

Considering the origin of the actual support planets rule itself that's pretty funny dude.

[Stoom]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Actually I think this was a good OP with a bad ending. Instead of asking if these players are out to get us, we should be asking why do we not already engage them on a level other than ingame? I realise that some people are either unable or unwilling to expand into the community, but this should be one of PA's first stops - integrating new players.

Good post!
(and for the record,my negrep came from the heart Motox!)

[Cochese]

Excellent post tbh.

On another note, the majority of this thread has made me want to gouge my eyes out