New Rule

[Ferretus]

Got very bored of reading this so apologies if I repeat someones comment.

In my view it seems its another nail in the coffin for the already appalling community. What ever happened to making a few friends in this game and looking out for one another? Yeah sure you are different alliances as players progress from round to round etc but you still keep in touch and occasionally raid together or defend of course.

I'm just glad last round was my final round. It was multiple race stealing and the 'exception system' that forced me to quit then, now it seems that the 'big brother' mentality is getting way out of hand. Good riddance to PA if this is the way it is going to continue. I'm just glad I was here when the game was good.

[Ferretus]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

If you were playing this round then you would actually see why this rule has bin implemented. I sujest unless you have knowledge of whats going on you reframe from posting. Especially abusive ones toward PA team which frankly are not funny.

You don't need to be playing this round to see the stupidity in this decision. Anyone who has played a few rounds knows how the game works well enough to be able to comment.

[cypher]

once again for people like dain, who has hated me ever since he cheated in my gal and we exiled and reported him my ships that round were removed.. just my researches weren't but ohwell

it's amusing exi peeps talk about it in private channels but won't comment on wishie's situation on here

[cbk100]

Originally Posted by Phil^

entirely your own faults

ROFL.... yeah we are really to blame for playing by the rules... I hardly think you can blame anyone who play by the rule.
Even though EX has played by the rules all the way then you (1up) didn't manage to cause us all that much trouble while you are having major problems yourself... but well lets just take away one of EX's advantages (that some ppl are willing to sacrifise a lot of time to help their friends out) and maybe you will be able to do better :-). Imo EX can obviously be owned by mid round rule changes...

cbk

[suave]

Originally Posted by cbk100

but well lets just take away one of EX's advantages (that some ppl are willing to sacrifise a lot of time to help their friends out) and maybe you will be able to do better :-). Imo EX can obviously be owned by mid round rule changes...

cbk

tbh, if this rule takes away "one of EX's advantages" and now "EX can obviously be owned by mid round rule changes" I am very happy that this rule is here.
As your statement just means that you can't "own" on the same level but need all your "friends" to help you out (means outnumber) to "own" your competitors

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by cbk100

ROFL.... yeah we are really to blame for playing by the rules... I hardly think you can blame anyone who play by the rule.
Even though EX has played by the rules all the way then you (1up) didn't manage to cause us all that much trouble while you are having major problems yourself... but well lets just take away one of EX's advantages (that some ppl are willing to sacrifise a lot of time to help their friends out) and maybe you will be able to do better :-). Imo EX can obviously be owned by mid round rule changes...

cbk

Aah. So ducking under the rules(80 person alliance limit) is not the same as breaking them. My bad!

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Ferretus

Got very bored of reading this so apologies if I repeat someones comment.

In my view it seems its another nail in the coffin for the already appalling community. What ever happened to making a few friends in this game and looking out for one another? Yeah sure you are different alliances as players progress from round to round etc but you still keep in touch and occasionally raid together or defend of course.

If you were too bored to read the responses given why weren't you too bored to state the same things yet again?
This isn't a ban on friends defending each other. It's a statement that a planet defending another on a consistent basis without being allied is grounds for investigation. If you def a friend alongside people in your own tag, you have nothing to worry about. If you defend a single alliance, and perform no other actions then your planet is helping to circumvent an ingame limitation, so don't expect to keep it.

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by Kaisto

exagerate...sort of difficult on this one.. PA team suddenly telling you who you can and cannot defend ingame. I think that is pretty outrageous and quite unacceptable. Will not sign up for r16 if that "rule" is still there

That's crap, you can still defend your anyone, provided you're in the tag, or it's a relative once off, I defend all the time, especially a particular alliance, except of course not being able to or not having ships that are needed etc., and will continue to do so for the rest of the round.

This rule won't stop that, all it stops is support planets defending the same alliance the whole time without being in that alliance. This is (or ideally should) going to effect a very small number of players. If it does somehow affect a substantial amount e.g.100, then the problem was far more widespread than I thought and this rule was needed far sooner. For even most allianceless players this makes no difference, they can help out their gal, they can help out their friends in different alliances. They just can't take the complete piss while doing it.

I would guess that for the majority of players, the introduction of that rule won't stop them signing up.

Can we get some more rational posting from now on?

Edit: oh and before you start whinging "but they still stop us from defending our mates", if they're such good mates then play properly and be in the same tag with them, or just let it be a once off as it would be, not "just happening to defend random members of the same alliance all the time". Oh, and there's loads of limits on who you can attack.

[Shyne]

It would appear that the people here who don't like the rule are of course the ones who benefit.

The races are designed so that no one race is inherently immune to incomings from all 3 other races.

If you have a friend with no life who plays PA for the sole purpose of defending you, and this happens often you effectively have 2 races' benefits and its almost the same as being a super race capable of building all ships.

The benefit of having all ships is reserved for ziks and they at least have to steal the ships to use them!

[Neferti]

Excuse me - I am against this. How am I benefitting from it, exactly? Are you accusing me of cheating?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Excuse me - I am against this. How am I benefitting from it, exactly? Are you accusing me of cheating?

Excuse me, why are you against this? How are you being disadvantaged from it, exactly?

[Neferti]

I have already posted in this thread several times, and it's not my problem if you can't be arsed to read what I've posted.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Neferti

I have already posted in this thread several times, and it's not my problem if you can't be arsed to read what I've posted.

If you cannot be arsed to read and think about the explanations to this rule given then I cannot help you either.

And why should you be a cheater or be considered as a cheater? Are you either one of those planets inside a tag which has his whole neighbourhood playing for the sole purpose of defending him or you are one of those 'friends' who wants to help avoiding the member limit?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Heartless

If you cannot be arsed to read and think about the explanations to this rule given then I cannot help you either.

And why should you be a cheater or be considered as a cheater? Are you either one of those planets inside a tag which has his whole neighbourhood playing for the sole purpose of defending him or you are one of those 'friends' who wants to help avoiding the member limit?

Just because you disagree with this doesnt have to mean you are a cheater.

Its totally idiotic to label everyone who disagrees with this as cheaters.

Do you belive that Lokken is cheating? By your brainless logic appearantly he is.

I am against changing the rules mid round. That is why i am against it.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Just because you disagree with this doesnt have to mean you are a cheater.

Its totally idiotic to label everyone who disagrees with this as cheaters.

Do you belive that Lokken is cheating? By your brainless logic appearantly he is.

I am against changing the rules mid round. That is why i am against it.

Thinking is your weak point, isn't it?

I did not label anyone as a cheater, I asked Neferti why he considers himself as being labelled as a cheater.

[Neferti]

Because Shyne says that only those who gain from def-farms could possibly be against the rule, and as I am against the rule, I therefore gain from def-farms and am a cheater. That's all.

And I have read the posts supporting it. Doesn't mean I agree with them. But you asked me why I was against it, and I have posted several times already on the subject, and see no need to explain myself yet again.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Because Shyne says that only those who gain from def-farms could possibly be against the rule, and as I am against the rule, I therefore gain from def-farms and am a cheater. That's all.

And I have read the posts supporting it. Doesn't mean I agree with them. But you asked me why I was against it, and I have posted several times already on the subject, and see no need to explain myself yet again.

Ah, so just one of the "all elephants got two ears, thus everything with two ears must be an elephant" misconceptions then.

[Neferti]

Not really. He was pretty clear about it.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Not really. He was pretty clear about it.

I think he wasnt really talking about the likes of you and Lokken who make fairly resonable replies that have justified problems with it and whom put their points across in a reasonable manner but those protesting too loudly and in an over the top way. There are some peoples responces (on both sides actually) where there really seems to be other agendas other than the good of the game and that again is another sad aspect of this situation. Not only do we have an alliance trying to exploit the a loophole in the alliance limit but we then have people trying to use this situation to their advantage

[Shyne]

I didnt incite that everyone who posted here had a def planet. Hell I'd count all the posters here and we'd have half the universe in a 7 page thread.

It does however make logical sense that ones complaining most are somehow benefitting - otherwise why would they be so bothered that his rule is changed midround.

To take it as literally meaning EVERYONE who is against this rule has a def farm is not common sense.

The point I was aiming to raise is that you effectively have two races, and this might be acceptable if the other planet is in tag, but it surely plays against game fundamentals if not.

To reiterate, if we had two ADSL lines in one house (could easily be a neighbour, relative or friend next door or 1000 miles away) and thus two planets, if one could provide vipers against Xan FR incs you are almost entirely immune.

A balanced xan fleet receives only FR incs in my experience, floating around the top 200 players, and a man with vipers is fully immune.

[Wishmaster]

cypher, pm me on irc if u r interested in finding out what happened.

And, I m spending surplus creds. Already payed for em, and I dont wanna help anyone else play pa anymore..so I just idle around

[robban1]

for all you negrepping bastards out there .........no im not in exi damn fools :/

seems like im not allowed to have an opinion at all

to you guys all i have to say is........bah

[SteInMetz]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

If you were playing this round then you would actually see why this rule has bin implemented. I sujest unless you have knowledge of whats going on you reframe from posting. Especially abusive ones toward PA team which frankly are not funny.

Ive been playing enough rounds to know how people that doesnt fit in the alliance tag is left outside, and still can help defending and have fun with the alliance.. but i didnt say that the only thing they were doing was defending etc..
But what say have PA-Team in who I defend?
Why should they decide who i can defend and who i cant, its a crappy rule...

And the last comments, its because ive seen PA-Team do it over and over again, and frankly you get very tired of it..

I ask again, why would i not be allowed deffing my alliance mate, just cause i said i was to inactive to play in the tag?

[DunkelGraf]

This rule is plain bullshit!
Why was the eta -1 invented for ally def? To give the ally an advantage to help each other out in case of incommings! Those so called "defplanets" do not have this advantage.
Let them send the def if possible. As long as those planets are no multies there is absolutely nothing against the rules(well, now it is). Maybe next round we need to delete all accounts that are online for about the first 40 hrs to ini roids evey tick and get an advantage. Or we simply delete ppl that are building only one kind of ships just because it is superior to every other ship due to some flaw in the stats?
It is really sad to see that this game is getting by far too many restrictions how to play. As i already posted somewhere, if ppl think that certain players or alliances got some backup of people not being part of their alliance but paying(otherwise they wont be of any threat) and playing to help those ppl out are getting an advantage go get help and beat em!
On the other hand it is absolutely legal to gather more than one ally to try to roide/rape one! ally.
Is it about to call that cheating too next round?

Besides that im really curious to see what is about to happen if i send any def to a mate or recieve any def as i am playing solo without any ally........

Prost!

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

I ask again, why would i not be allowed deffing my alliance mate, just cause i said i was to inactive to play in the tag?

Probably for the same reason you are not allowed to let your ingame mates to attack you for free roids, or ships. After all, you could use the same reasoning for those cases as well, i.e:
"Why would i not be allowed to do as i want with my roids / ships, since i am too inactive to play properly?".
Defending the occasional friend is not forbidden. But when you get 30+ planets exclusively playing for defensive purposes outside of the alliance tag, the "rules" of fair play have been violated.

[SteInMetz]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Probably for the same reason you are not allowed to let your ingame mates to attack you for free roids, or ships. After all, you could use the same reasoning for those cases as well, i.e:
"Why would i not be allowed to do as i want with my roids / ships, since i am too inactive to play properly?".
Defending the occasional friend is not forbidden. But when you get 30+ planets exclusively playing for defensive purposes outside of the alliance tag, the "rules" of fair play have been violated.

Thats a complete different setting, if that happens, it will require me to send away ships etc, and thats a total different situation.. I agree to a little degree you can use this logic, but it isnt close to the whole picture..

No matter what of this rule or not, ill send defence to my alliance mate, alltho im not playing this round, but if i play again, you can be sure as hell that i will keep sending defence to my mates, even tho im not in the tag..

Call me a cheater.......

And i dont get where you people say they have an advantage come from.. i thought it was the -1 tag advantage, which really was the advantage..
If they can keep deffing alot out of tag, clearly the stats are messed up, but i have no idea how the stats look like, or what its like..
So dont take the comment dead serious..

[Remy]

Originally Posted by CrazyConrad

Totally agree on this, good move PA!!

Quite fed up now getting defended against by a 9 roid cat with only vipers and beets.

I know that Cat, got defended aginst by him too ^^

[Remy]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

And i dont get where you people say they have an advantage come from.. i thought it was the -1 tag advantage, which really was the advantage..
If they can keep deffing alot out of tag, clearly the stats are messed up, but i have no idea how the stats look like, or what its like..

FR incs are eta 8
Vipers universe travel are eta 8

thats why it works...

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Remy

FR incs are eta 8
Vipers universe travel are eta 8

thats why it works...

Indeed - but it's something that would have worked in almost every round since round 10. The main problem is that a small faction now decided to exploit these things to get around the alliance limit thus this rule had to be enforced in order to keep the alliance system the way it was meant to be when it got introduced.

My bet is that for PAN there will now be some hard-coded system for defense options - sadly, as I might add once again. I'd have preferred to keep the old system but given the abuse it received this round it's rather impossible to not hard-code such a thing.

[Brimstone]

Is this thread still going?

Has noone else found anything else to bitch about in PA?

Someone do something else norty so we can shout about something else. This topic has worn thinner than the soles of Kloopy's socks

[Neferti]

Still going? It's only been 3 days damnit. And this is a major change which has pissed a lot of people off, you expect us to just sit quiet about it?

[Shyne]

Why are u pissed off nef, u said you didnt use it!

[Neferti]

I don't use it but I don't like PAteam dictating who I can or can't defend. There's more to it than that but it's all been said before, that's the essence of it. Sorry you are so mortally offended by this, Shyne and Heartless and anonymous neg-repper.

[Ramihyn]

I dont like this new rule at all. It feels to me like the biggest reason behind this rule is "We think they cheat, but there is no way we can prove it" (meaning that many of those "support planets" are actually assumed to be multis).

The rule is a bit inconsistent - the introduction of in-game alliances had certain good intentions but the rules of this introduction where very lax. An alliance got the -1 eta advantage but apart from that, no other interaction seemed to be regulated. You can happily build 3 alliances and completely destroy a single enemy alliance and i havent heard of any in-game rule or "against the spirit of the game" statement which tries to stop that. If you really want to level the playfield and make PA more "fair" then alliances shouldnt be allowed to attack single players. Multiple alliances shouldnt be allowed to attack a single alliance at the same time or one defending against it and the other attacking it etc. etc. You would have to regulate cluster groups, combat groups, defence pacts - maybe even NAPs.

Now you may think this sounds "ridiculous" but other games actually have such limitations - an alliance for example has to declare war before beeing able to attack another alliance. Declaring war follows certain rules to avoid unfair wars - war is limited in number of declarations and the sum of people participating in it. If you arent at war, you cant attack or only in a much less efficient way. The same goes for defence - why allowing external defence from other alliances at all without a pact? A pact which regulates the total amount of possible defenders by limiting the number of NAPs or defence pacts.

With in-game rules all of this could be perfectly regulated and other games actually do stuff like that. PA however with introduction of the in-game alliances, regulated barely anything of that.

Thats why this rule feels inconsistent to me if the intention is to "make the game more fair".

What makes the rule "bad" to me is that any retired player who just occasionally happens to defend old friends can be deleted as cheater. It has the potential to delete several regular players who just take a round off and with the loooong travel times of PA and the playing pattern of retired players, i think there will actually be several people affected and obviously p*ssed off from signing up and playing PA in that case. Dont underestimate the effect if legal non-cheating players who have several friends playing, get deleted - it may well spread the word that its not worth to bother signing up unless you play a real round under your allies tag.

Depending on the amount of "abuse" in the game (which i cant judge), this rule may be necessary but its still a bad rule IMHO.

[noah02]

One thing I agree with is it shouldnt have been imposed half way through a round.
But I still agree with the rule because I know if i dont join an alliance and then i defend a different alliance i wont get deleted coz i was still playing PA as normal by attacking ppl and defending whoever i want and i wont build 1 ship kind only or 2 ship kinds just for defence only so i wont get deleted for blatant cheating.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by noah02

But I still agree with the rule because I know if i dont join an alliance and then i defend a different alliance i wont get deleted coz i was still playing PA as normal by attacking ppl and defending whoever i want and i wont build 1 ship kind only or 2 ship kinds just for defence only so i wont get deleted for blatant cheating.

To me thats actually a major point against this rule - the "intend guessing" which makes it depend on who i defend and how often plus which ships i did build and then a game admin mixes it all up and builds an "opinion" about if i get deleted or not.

Why on earth is the type of ships build even considered during this evaluation? This appears to be a "you cant play a pure defence planet" rule and then i ask - why on earth should i not be allowed to do that? Attack planets outside an alliance are mostly pointless to me as you wouldnt be able to hold any roids you collect due to less activity unless you have a very active gal and why is the playing style of a planet (only defence) a criteria for deletion or not?

And it certainly seems that it IS criteria for deletion when the fleet is taken into consideration.

Its inconsitent if you take the fleet into consideration - why is a pure defence planet less harmfull then a pure attack planet which keeps launching on the enemies of an alliance? Either to drag defence or to actually do harm. Why is it different to a planet which fake defences the enemies alliance and keeps pulling the fleet at eta 1? Whats with fleet escorting or with launching on the same galaxy to bind defence?

There are so many ways external planets benefit an alliance and none of them are forbidden or regulated - only a pure defence planet seems to be "cheating" suddenly. Its pretty inconsistent

[Neferti]

I am in an alliance tag - but I very nearly wasn't this round. I have two ship types at the moment, though I am saving up for cruisers now. I have Scarabs and Vipers. Under these rules, had I not joined the tag, I would now be deleted. As it is, under the rules I may be deleted anyway for recieving defense one time from someone out of tag (I didn't know he was out of tag til he sent, but that's beside the point). Of course, the MH won't delete me for that, they are quite reasonable at the moment (or so I hope). But the way the rule stands, ANY incident of OOGOOA defense is grounds for closure, and I can see this causing problems in the future.

And I agree with most of what Ramihyn said: it's not very consistent. Either we have a free-form universe or we don't. Right now we have some free-form rules, and some restrictive rules, and it doesn't show internal consistency.

[Shyne]

Originally Posted by Neferti

I don't use it but I don't like PAteam dictating who I can or can't defend. There's more to it than that but it's all been said before, that's the essence of it. Sorry you are so mortally offended by this, Shyne and Heartless and anonymous neg-repper.

Im not offended - I like the rule.

You're the one throwing a tantrum here over something that you dont even use!

[Kaisto]

Originally Posted by Shyne

Im not offended - I like the rule.

You're the one throwing a tantrum here over something that you dont even use!

I cannot imagine that the majority of those that opose this rule change actually benefit from this tactic themselves. The essence of the matter is that this rule change puts severe restraints on the players' freedom to play this game as they wish and feel they have the right too. PA Team should realise that to impose such strict rules can potentially have severe negative effects on a grumpy, and diminishing playerbase. Limiting player freedom in such a radical way is just wrong
There are limits to how far one should go to combat problems such as the one presented here. This is like shooting a kanari bird with a howitzer.

[neod]

I don't really get why people even are questioning it, there is an allaince limit at the momet and has been since r10,5.
And if you want to defend your friends join the tag.
But someone will always complain.

Random muppet: but hey I'm not active enough and will lower the allaince avg score!!2"3¤!!!2

well.. maybe you will.. but if you are there for just one purpouse to defend I guess your allaince mates is growing even more so it will probably even out.

Random muppet2: omgz0rz I 4m k3wl @ th4 int3rnet, I gotz0rs l0ts of fr1ends and p3ts!"!3! Ju5t because u can't get any, the lolzors nubbz pA t3Am w1ll stop us fr0m explo1t1ng the allaince limits!"#21!


right , there is an allaince limit and you arent suposed to have more than 80 members.

Random muppet3: OMG they cant change rules midround, will never play because PA team is making a rule change against something that has/is being abused. Taking away my free will and making the game impossible to play who want to exploit the alliance limits.


I have some vague memory from r10,5 when some people got closed(?) for exploiting scanning or something like that in the end, from what I remember there wasint illegal to scan, but someone abused it and got punished(?) and they changed the xp/score gained from scans(?) (correct me if I am wrong in those cases I have a (?))

but all in all can't just people try to think for a while why this change was necessary, there is an allaince limit and whatever you say about being inactive and all it's just plain stupid to abuse it and make them do those rule changes midround

[Brimstone]

Yes, thanks neg repper. And the only idiots are the people who have a like for slagging off anyone who doesn't agree 100% with their point of view.

This thread is just going round and round and most of the posts are just attacking eachother. Most of the posts are just repeats as well.

[Squishy]

The fact of the matter is noone has announced that you will be closed based on what your fleet is.

Thats complete nonsense. It will 99% of the time not even be looked into except in cases of farming ect. Being defended by out of tag defence will not result in an ill effects for those people in tag as its unlickly to be them who has organised it.

I would also like to point out that this rule affects newer members of the game a hell of a lot more than older member (except those who were abusing it) but noone here seems to care. Its new people who will suffer the most as they wont be able to help defend people to get into alliances or just to help out new friends they have made accross the universe.

While we realise this is not a good or popular move it was very neccesery. Everyone plays this game and deserves the same level playing field which wasnt their as their was rampant abuse of this by players signing up multi accounts (which we close as soon as we find them, also i might add their was a HELL of a lot) and players getting 'friends' to sign up for the sole purpose of defending them.

We will look at every case as we do now and decide on a case by case basis of what the punishment should be if any. If you want to defend your friends then thats fine you wont have any problems as long as you play your own game as well. And your account is not here JUST to defend 1 alliance/planet/galaxy. OOGOOA defence will not result in a closure straight away every time but what this rule means is we can now actually act ware before we were unable to do so.

As regarding the mid round change. It was nessecery now as its happening now. We have to act as soon as is possible so that a whole round is not ruined for a very large majority of the playerbase. Which if you look at this thread many people agree with.

We are sorry that it had to come to this but our hand was forced by elements in the community who only care about winning even if it involves breaking the rules to do so.

Ive been following this thread a lot. From what i see no player likes this rule in fact their seems to be a general agreement this rule stinks (you will find the same feeling in the admin camp) but the difference of opinion stemming from people who understand it was nessesery and the players who dont see why it is.

This rule wont ruin that many peoples rounds. You can still play as normal (i dont class defending 1 alliance constantly and only logging in to send defence normal) ware as if we didnt enforce it then a large chunk of the community would have had their round ruined by the unfair advantage of a select few.

Disclaimer
These are my own views as a player with a bigger perspective than most of you have. and may or may not be shared with the other members of the admin team (i cant comment on their own views thats for them to do if they see the need)

Kind Regards
Squishy

[Kargool]

I am guessing that some of the people you have made cheaters by this new rule will just start doing VNC or something else now that their legal way of playing PA has been turned illegal.

[Shyne]

Potentially loads of people use VNC as it - surely this rule helps protect against it ??

If i used vnc to play a Cat planet and built vipers to defend my xan, this rule would now prevent that.

[Squishy]

[Brimstone]

*waits for Shyne and his new cath planet to close

[Kargool]

Why do you expect players to respect the rules when you decide to change them in the middle of the game is beyond my imagination.

[suave]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

Attack planets outside an alliance are mostly pointless to me as you wouldnt be able to hold any roids you collect

I would say those

37 37 51 1 8 Reunion 1 504 1,866,751 504 1,866,751 2.70 24.1% 4.4% 24.1% 4.4%
38 38 41 2 1 Penis-Allianz 1 815 1,771,057 815 1,771,057 4.60 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 4.2%

disprove you

[suave]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Why do you expect players to respect the rules when you decide to change them in the middle of the game is beyond my imagination.

it's beyond my imagination how someone can post this.

People obeying rules will do so allways. People not caring about will do so allway as well. For the latter, PA team has now a possebility to act.

[Shyne]

Duh penis-allianz has 10 def planets