Remove Para's

[Aneu]

Ok, most people will probably agree with me on this, but it seems that the PA team, as per usual, have their eyes shut.

This game is a war game? Correct? How is it possible to wage a war when there is no possibility for precision strike’s against galaxies in whole clusters when each galaxy has a parallel to back them up... its an impossibility, and no alliance in the game could take on a whole cluster and their para due to them needing to take on ALL of pa.

I understand that some people will say, 'but we will only attack our enemies'... how so? If you see a non-allied galaxy which is neutral, would you attack it if it was easy roids? Ofcorse you would!!!

I and many other people would like Para's to be removed from round 9 so there can actually be a possibility of full alliance wars, not just sitting around waiting for people to grow to win, instead of attacking to win.

Aneu

[Carlyy]

Originally posted by Aneu
Ok, most people will probably agree with me on this, but it seems that the PA team, as per usual, have their eyes shut.

This game is a war game? Correct? How is it possible to wage a war when there is no possibility for precision strike’s against galaxies in whole clusters when each galaxy has a parallel to back them up... its an impossibility, and no alliance in the game could take on a whole cluster and their para due to them needing to take on ALL of pa.

I understand that some people will say, 'but we will only attack our enemies'... how so? If you see a non-allied galaxy which is neutral, would you attack it if it was easy roids? Ofcorse you would!!!

I and many other people would like Para's to be removed from round 9 so there can actually be a possibility of full alliance wars, not just sitting around waiting for people to grow to win, instead of attacking to win.

Aneu

Better.

[Aneu]

Originally posted by Carlyy
Better.

ty

Aneu

[Scouse]

It's all been said before and nothing was done. I don't think bringing it all up again, at this stage, will achieve anything.

Although I agree that para's should be removed.

[Aneu]

This game is for us... and it should attract more members if we enjoy it... so i think the PA team should actually listen to us.

So i think its time we take the PA team by the short and curlies, remove para's or face bad buplicity for r10.

Aneu

P.S PCZone is a great way to get your views heard aswell as PCgamer

Aneu

[Sirad]

Aneu = the Taliban
Creators = The Bush

Round two ding ding

[hAl]

Blal bla, if you can defend from para's you can strike from them as well. Only if an alliance if both dominant in a para and in a cluster then it is well protected.

Also nothing has been said about the diferent ETA's from para or cluster so they might not be a -2 ETA in both para and cluster nor do they have to be both on def and attack. Mayby they give para reduced attack ETA and cluster reduced def ETA. Than this might work out very interesting indeed.

Before complaining about things that are not yet certain you might consider what possiblities are still open.

hAl

[Aneu]

Kloopy asked me to summarise my points... so here they are.

1- It will be an imposibility to run a large enough attack to withstand MASS casualties.

2- Alliances wont attack due to the threat of defence being overwhelming and will lead to mass stagnation.

3- OB were removed for draining planetarion due to the defence it gave... whats so differant about a para?

4- This will be our last round of as kloopy put it 'bog standard' PA, so why not make it a good one? With all our war? Insted of the 'hold your ground and grow from the inside'.

5- Para's may add to PA but what? -eta defence, -eta attacks (which are easily defended against) which will make the whole gaming experiance boring and tiresome.

and inreply to hA, if there is no -eta in para's then why have them?

Aneu

[Heartless]

Originally posted by Aneu
Ok, most people will probably agree with me on this, but it seems that the PA team, as per usual, have their eyes shut.

This game is a war game? Correct? How is it possible to wage a war when there is no possibility for precision strike’s against galaxies in whole clusters when each galaxy has a parallel to back them up... its an impossibility, and no alliance in the game could take on a whole cluster and their para due to them needing to take on ALL of pa.

I understand that some people will say, 'but we will only attack our enemies'... how so? If you see a non-allied galaxy which is neutral, would you attack it if it was easy roids? Ofcorse you would!!!

I and many other people would like Para's to be removed from round 9 so there can actually be a possibility of full alliance wars, not just sitting around waiting for people to grow to win, instead of attacking to win.

Aneu

Don't blame PA Team with an idea I came up with.
All this reduction of para AND cluster requires is more "skill" on the diplomatic side AND it requires more strategic thinking.
It also gives smaller galaxies a chance to survive as you can end up in a ****e cluster but in a great parallel (alliance-wise) or vice-versa.

[Heartless]

Originally posted by Aneu
5- Para's may add to PA but what? -eta defence, -eta attacks (which are easily defended against) which will make the whole gaming experiance boring and tiresome.

Aneu [/b]

Tiredsome - maybe. But each round has it been so far. But I would not call it boring. I would call it interesting, as you can give up now or start thinking about strategy.
Surely it's boring if you give up that easily.

Apart from that paras & clusters work in other games pretty good.

[Kloopy]

Right, ETA reduction happens on both attacks and defence for both parallels and clusters.

And it seems to be only the big alliance members who are complaining about this. They are used to knowing exactly who they are under threat from when planning attacks, attacks can be planned down to fantastic precision.

With the introduction of this change, people will find it hard to plan a good attack. This will have little to no effect on the alliance-less players and small alliances, as they dont have the capacity to plan as well as the large alliances. The only affect I see it having is on the well organised 'pro' players who form the power blocks.

I see this as a way of perhaps helping all the power blocking players to stop taking over the Universe, and to allow smaller planets a bigger chance, make the playing field more fair on a whole.

You might be complaining that when out attacking, you have the possibility of both a parallel and cluster attacking you. But everyone is in the same situation, the people you are out attacking have the same problem.

I dont see this being a bad thing for PA, it may not be a good thing either, but I do see it introducing some rather interesting tactic changes.

And that is what I see it boil down to; people are going to have to change the way they play the game, and the 'pro' players are dead set on how they play. Just prepare yourself for change this round, if everyone plays along it could be quite fun.

Kloopy

[Aneu]

Originally posted by Heartless
Don't blame PA Team with an idea I came up with.
All this reduction of para AND cluster requires is more "skill" on the diplomatic side AND it requires more strategic thinking.
It also gives smaller galaxies a chance to survive as you can end up in a ****e cluster but in a great parallel (alliance-wise) or vice-versa.

Ok then, if this is your point, there needs to be an equalibrium this.

Paras + Clusters = Less attacks which will allow newbies a chance to survive, but will make VET PA players boared and tired of their attacks not even scratching a planet due to overwhelming defence.

As you can see i have thought alot about this, and what is PA to do? Will it protect the newbies? Or keep the interests of the PA VET players who have put alot of money into the game allready?

Aneu

[Aneu]

I hope that people will reply to this thread in a respectable manor... these are my views and i respect anyone else's views.

I will not force my views on anyone else, but i want people to see what could happen with Para's

Aneu

[Teh_Necro]

PA has been supporting newbies since the complaints back in round 3.

Sum = Lack of Newbies?

Conclusion = Irony > *

-Necro

[RealJames]

Originally posted by Kloopy
And it seems to be only the big alliance members who are complaining about this.

I am a member of a big alliance and I support this. I think it will bring a dimension back to the game that was lost over the last round or so.. diplomacy. Mid-game diplomacy seems to all but have died. Politics are decided pre-round, and it does sort of set the mould.

I look forward to seeing how this will pan out.

[A2]

Originally posted by RealJames
I am a member of a big alliance and I support this. I think it will bring a dimension back to the game that was lost over the last round or so.. diplomacy. Mid-game diplomacy seems to all but have died. Politics are decided pre-round, and it does sort of set the mould.

I look forward to seeing how this will pan out.

I agree with that.
No longer will someone be able to win by simply having control of their cluster and a big alliance behind them. The added dimension of parallels will hopefully give everyone more of a chance, and with any luck the round won't stagnate quite so easily.
Traveltime reductions could make launching massive alliance attacks simultaneously a little bit more interesting/awkward to organise though :-)

[Aneu]

So by this thread im now stereo-typed by kloopy... because im in an alliance...

Most of PA is in an alliance, and PA is a war game, and is for making friends and having fun, how can we have fun if we are treated like this?

Aneu

P.S Last post, i cant be assed to get pet'd down by someone in the PA staff.

[xtothez]

Originally posted by Kloopy
The only affect I see it having is on the well organised 'pro' players who form the power blocks.

100% correct.

Now the top galaxies will no longer be decided by who plays the arbiter and fence-sitting politics well, but rather by who is lucky enough to end up in both a strong cluster and a strong parallel. Don't even begin to claim that this is 'evening out' something for the less active players, they aren't the ones with a full universe map and tools to ensure the best and fastest defense is sent when needed.

[AlbinoSquirrel]

I can't wait to hear the moaning from my friends who are playing this round - ETA 5 Xand attacks will be rather common, I'm thinking, and then OB Xand def...

*grin*

well done, neo-Creators. You've made a game that already requires an inordinately large amount of time and dedication to do well in require even more time.

If I were you, I'd just scrap R9 flat out. Cancel it, roll on the new PA. Stop trying to suck up player money with a sub-standard (even for PA standards) game. R9 will be a burn-out round.

Roll on R10.

[Aneu]

Originally posted by AlbinoSquirrel
I can't wait to hear the moaning from my friends who are playing this round - ETA 5 Xand attacks will be rather common, I'm thinking, and then OB Xand def...

*grin*

well done, neo-Creators. You've made a game that already requires an inordinately large amount of time and dedication to do well in require even more time.

If I were you, I'd just scrap R9 flat out. Cancel it, roll on the new PA. Stop trying to suck up player money with a sub-standard (even for PA standards) game. R9 will be a burn-out round.

Roll on R10.

OB has been taken out of PA, but what was the point? Xanda will still have the ability to have attacks such as OB due to Para's... aswell as all other races now.... i dont see the point.

Aneu

[AlbinoSquirrel]

Originally posted by Aneu
OB has been taken out of PA, but what was the point? Xanda will still have the ability to have attacks such as OB due to Para's... aswell as all other races now.... i dont see the point.

Aneu

Was it? I haven't been paying too much attention to the details lately. Either way, para/clusters will be hell to have a war in.

[Ice]

Whats the fking Point? No1 wants para's, they sucked before and they would suck even more now.

Whoever's idea this was, obviously doesnt play pa hardcore like big alliance, otherwise they would know there a waste of time, heh

[isildurx]

imo if they have incluster defense -1/2, and inpara attacking -1/2, this round will b most enjoyable, and a big challenge for whatever gals aiming for top spots.

I just hope they dont take -2 attack/defence in both cluster and para, cuz i cant even start to predict what kind of mass NAP`ing in cluster/para`s we will see.

[Zh|l]

Whatever you do it won't change things.

If you think it's going to be bad for large alliances to deal with it, then its going to be absolute hell for the smaller alliances.

Attacks have to take into account cluster and apra now along with the alliance and allies - so assaults have to be massive. What do you need to pull that off? Oh yes, to be al arge alliance with allies of your own. Small alliances won't stand a chance.

[Aneu]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Whatever you do it won't change things.

If you think it's going to be bad for large alliances to deal with it, then its going to be absolute hell for the smaller alliances.

Attacks have to take into account cluster and apra now along with the alliance and allies - so assaults have to be massive. What do you need to pull that off? Oh yes, to be al arge alliance with allies of your own. Small alliances won't stand a chance.

*claps*

Aneu

[hAl]

Originally posted by isildurx
imo if they have incluster defense -1/2, and inpara attacking -1/2, this round will b most enjoyable, and a big challenge for whatever gals aiming for top spots.

I just hope they dont take -2 attack/defence in both cluster and para, cuz i cant even start to predict what kind of mass NAP`ing in cluster/para`s we will see.

Much better for reducing ETA in Para's and clusters would be:
Para attack -2
Para def -1
Cluster attack -1
Cluster def -2

Or this other variant:
Para attack -1
Para def 0
Cluster attack -1
Cluster def -2

And for real interesting round:
Para random attack -2
Para random def -1
Para private attack -1
Para private def 0
Cluster def -2
Cluster attack -1

But I guess neither of these choises are likely to happen. just mentioning thme to show that there are possible nice angles possible even if creators will not implement those.

hAl

p.s. I agree with zhil that smaller alliances do not profit from combined para/clusters.

[Neferti]

i think it should be interesting, though i would prefer to see a difference between parallels and clusters along ETA lines...

will the MoC be able to mail parrallels?

[Kloopy]

This is not intended to be a personal insult to the big alliances, its just my observations as another player. I've said what I think about paras and clusters, and I've given my reasons why I think that.

xtothez, I preceive your post to mean that the big players are the organised ones because they have arbeiters and other tools and therefore they deserve to win rounds.

As I've said, I see this as a bad thing, we should introduce things to make it harder for the organised players, to even out the playing field and to allow smaller players more of a fighting chance. The current tools like attack planners, I'd assume, will not take into account the changes for this round. It wont take much to change them slightly.

Also, PA has become quite easy for the veterans, they know how it works, know the equations by heart and use tools to work out the results of an attack to an amazing degreee of acturacy. This new addition to PA will just increase the amount of thought that has to go into an attack, and defence for that matter.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. It'll be more interesting and the politics of this round could be greatly improved over past ones.

Round 9 should be renamed:

Round 9: Revenge of the Newbies

[Aneu]

Originally posted by Kloopy
This is not intended to be a personal insult to the big alliances, its just my observations as another player. I've said what I think about paras and clusters, and I've given my reasons why I think that.

xtothez, I preceive your post to mean that the big players are the organised ones because they have arbeiters and other tools and therefore they deserve to win rounds.

As I've said, I see this as a bad thing, we should introduce things to make it harder for the organised players, to even out the playing field and to allow smaller players more of a fighting chance. The current tools like attack planners, I'd assume, will not take into account the changes for this round. It wont take much to change them slightly.

Also, PA has become quite easy for the veterans, they know how it works, know the equations by heart and use tools to work out the results of an attack to an amazing degreee of acturacy. This new addition to PA will just increase the amount of thought that has to go into an attack, and defence for that matter.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. It'll be more interesting and the politics of this round could be greatly improved over past ones.

Round 9 should be renamed:

Round 9: Revenge of the Newbies

Bollox, what chance does a newbie have against defence like that?!?! Large alliances will still have the advantage ffs.

Go get a clue!

Aneu

[hAl]

Originally posted by Kloopy
Also, PA has become quite easy for the veterans, they know how it works, know the equations by heart and use tools to work out the results of an attack to an amazing degreee of acturacy. This new addition to PA will just increase the amount of thought that has to go into an attack, and defence for that matter.
...
Round 9: Revenge of the Newbies

I fail to see how newbies profit from a more complicated universe. And if so I would prefer my suggestions above as they are far more challeging than a staightforward ETA change -1 or -2 for all options.

hAl

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Kloopy
This is not intended to be a personal insult to the big alliances, its just my observations as another player. I've said what I think about paras and clusters, and I've given my reasons why I think that.

xtothez, I preceive your post to mean that the big players are the organised ones because they have arbeiters and other tools and therefore they deserve to win rounds.

As I've said, I see this as a bad thing, we should introduce things to make it harder for the organised players, to even out the playing field and to allow smaller players more of a fighting chance. The current tools like attack planners, I'd assume, will not take into account the changes for this round. It wont take much to change them slightly.

Also, PA has become quite easy for the veterans, they know how it works, know the equations by heart and use tools to work out the results of an attack to an amazing degreee of acturacy. This new addition to PA will just increase the amount of thought that has to go into an attack, and defence for that matter.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. It'll be more interesting and the politics of this round could be greatly improved over past ones.

Round 9 should be renamed:

Round 9: Revenge of the Newbies

hahaha

You mean like round 4?

Please, you are failing to see how this doesnt help them at all. Its only the alliances that have the resources to control/manipulate the universe around them that will benefit from this. Newbies in a parallel may be able to launch against some 'vets' inside of it, but it requires a degree of cooperation to pull off to get incluster attackers also - and then they still can get defence from allies within (which going by history we'll presume them and the allies are much bigger - since newbie attacks are normally rebel factions). Add on top of that the alliances from outside, and the fact they could pound the attackers back and use it to catch fleets and you'll see really it doesnt help one bit.

[Aneu]

As you can see kloopy, Para's are not good for NO ONE

Aneu

[tyriel]

Originally posted by Kloopy
<snip>
...the big players are the organised ones because they have arbeiters and other tools and therefore they deserve to win rounds....

As I've said, I see this as a bad thing, we should introduce things to make it harder for the organised players, to even out the playing field and to allow smaller players more of a fighting chance.

so for learning the game, playing well, and being active you're rewarded by redesign of the game to be harder.

interesting. does that mean the reward for success now is increased, or the variable of skill increases your score, if not it seems drastically unfair to reward harder successes by penalisation.

That said i've got a burning question here from your reply to xzipthis. Looking ahead, i would say that organisation and activity should be rewarded, and yes those with the most deserve the win.

Since you disagree and would prefer to even the field, does this mean r10 is going to cap or control the level of organisation and activity and enforce this limit strongly?

[Aneu]

Originally posted by tyriel
so for learning the game, playing well, and being active you're rewarded by redesign of the game to be harder.

interesting. does that mean the reward for success now is increased, or the variable of skill increases your score, if not it seems drastically unfair to reward harder successes by penalisation.

That said i've got a burning question here from your reply to xzipthis. Looking ahead, i would say that organisation and activity should be rewarded, and yes those with the most deserve the win.

Since you disagree and would prefer to even the field, does this mean r10 is going to cap or control the level of organisation and activity and enforce this limit strongly?

*claps again*

Aneu

[xtothez]

Originally posted by Kloopy
xtothez, I preceive your post to mean that the big players are the organised ones because they have arbeiters and other tools and therefore they deserve to win rounds.

...

Round 9 should be renamed:

Round 9: Revenge of the Newbies

In that case you should read it again.
I perceive it to mean that by making the game more complex, the more organized ones get more of an advantage.

When was the last time you played this game? It doesnt take a genious to realise that disorganised gals in local areas (clusters/parallels) have always been treated as roid farms for the better gals. By including both clusters and parallels you simply increase the amount of easy roids they get, while at the same time increasing their options for highly organized defense by using the tools already at their disposal. I'm not saying they should win beacuse of those tools, I'm saying they will. It's just common sense.

The only way you can call round 9 'revenge of the newbies' is if you give them the chance to make their roids self-explode when taken, so the organized gals that put no effort into grabbing the larger number of easy roids get stung.

[cbk100]

Usualy I like everything that makes this game more strategic so I think I likes this too. There will be a lot more opportunities in this game and it will be very important who can take most advantage of it.

Don't think that just because a gal can get def from both cluster and para then they will get lots more def..... they also have both cluster and para to send ships to!!! so it goes both ways. most ppl in the 1337 alliances has every single ship out doing something every night. Just because we have both cluster and para there will not come more ships into the universe and you will not see more def at the gals than usual.
Instead of complaining about it, you should maybe just try to figure out how to take advantage of it.

This is no offense aggainst you Aneu but its to all that is aggainst it.

cbk

[AndroX]

I kinda agree on what Aneu "tells".
I know more people dislike the idea of having both Clusters and Para's.

One of those should be enough already. And most people that arent in a big alliance would agree on that. And people that are in a big alliance would agree on that too cuz if they dont they have nobody left to strike on.

We'll see howmany players will stay if they do it.

Mainly: I agree with Aneu

[Cochese]

The tactical opportunities are present, if you take the blinders off for a moment and use some sense.

The picture Aneu paints of an "impossible to attack effectively" universe is just nonsense. Use your brains for a moment, and think "outside the box".

We've moved from checkers to chess here, adjust.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by cbk100
Usualy I like everything that makes this game more strategic so I think I likes this too.

I guess I don't see parallels and clusters as strategic. At best, they're equivalent to terrain features.

There will be a lot more opportunities in this game and it will be very important who can take most advantage of it.

I think we already know who can take the most advantage of it--the large alliances who can best map out the clusters and parallels, who can best dominate the cluster and parallel alliances, and who can best organize in-parallel and in-cluster attacks and defenses.

Instead of complaining about it, you should maybe just try to figure out how to take advantage of it.

We already have, thank you. Parallels and clusters aren't new; they are known quantities. Large alliances already know how to best exploit them. Having both at the same time is a new wrinkle, but it is only a wrinkle.

I'm starting to suspect that the plan is to make R9 so bad that R10 will have to look good in comparison.

[Colt]

Originally posted by cbk100
Usualy I like everything that makes this game more strategic so I think I likes this too. There will be a lot more opportunities in this game and it will be very important who can take most advantage of it.

Don't think that just because a gal can get def from both cluster and para then they will get lots more def..... they also have both cluster and para to send ships to!!! so it goes both ways. most ppl in the 1337 alliances has every single ship out doing something every night. Just because we have both cluster and para there will not come more ships into the universe and you will not see more def at the gals than usual.
Instead of complaining about it, you should maybe just try to figure out how to take advantage of it.

This is no offense aggainst you Aneu but its to all that is aggainst it.

cbk

For once, i totally agree with u!!

[Andy_r]

I can't really find anything positive to say about parallels.

Another point to bear in mind is that I expect there will be about 4000 paid sign-ups for round 9, and if we have 10 player glaxies and 10 galaxies per cluster, there will be just FOUR galaxies per parallel. This means that only 3 other galaxies will be in your parallel anyway!

If parallels work like clusters, you could just treat the other 90 people in your cluster and 30 people in your parallel in the same way, and thin of it as a 13 galaxy cluster.

The real problem that I see is that the low number of galaxies in a parallel will lead to a very obvious variation in parallel strength, players will end up in situations where the other parallel galaxies are either 0% friendly, 33% friendly, 66% friendly or 100% friendly.

I think this random factor will have far too big an influence on final scores.

[xtothez]

Originally posted by Andy_r
Another point to bear in mind is that I expect there will be about 4000 paid sign-ups for round 9, and if we have 10 player glaxies and 10 galaxies per cluster, there will be just FOUR galaxies per parallel. This means that only 3 other galaxies will be in your parallel anyway!

I hear Maths qualifications are sooo overrated.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Kloopy

*SNIP / we should introduce things to make it harder for the organised players, /SNIP*

Surely if it is "Harder" for the organised player, then it is twice as hard for the Newbie/dissorganised player?

[Judge]

Just as a thought.

If I were in Cluster 10 for example but in Para 4, and allied to both a strong Cluster alliance and a Strong Para alliance.

Who could I attack?

I cannot attack any of the galaxies in my cluster, nor my parallel.

Also if I were to attack a galaxy in for example 4:6 then if the Guy in my Cluster at 10:6 alliance is allied with that para, then asked me to withdraw? I would be obliged to, or else face the possibility of an in cluster conflict.

As far as I can see this will lead to only one conclusion.

"A roid Initiation race"

Or did I miss something?

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Judge
Just as a thought.

If I were in Cluster 10 for example but in Para 4, and allied to both a strong Cluster alliance and a Strong Para alliance.

Who could I attack?

I cannot attack any of the galaxies in my cluster, nor my parallel.

Also if I were to attack a galaxy in for example 4:6 then if the Guy in my Cluster at 10:6 alliance is allied with that para, then asked me to withdraw? I would be obliged to, or else face the possibility of an in cluster conflict.

As far as I can see this will lead to only one conclusion.

"A roid Initiation race"

Or did I miss something?

Cluster and parallel alliances should be made only of your own allied galaxies, thus, you couldn't possibly end up in the situation you describe.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Cochese
Cluster and parallel alliances should be made only of your own allied galaxies, thus, you couldn't possibly end up in the situation you describe.

Which is often not the case.

Last round our Cluster alliance comprised of 80% of the galaxies in it. Even though we were all different alliances, we concluded that at worst we would not attack in cluster, but defend only our own Alliance members, or people who made and effort to defend on a regular basis.

If Cluster alliances and Para alliances become effective Naps, then the result will be as described.

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Judge

If Cluster alliances and Para alliances become effective Naps, then the result will be as described.

Yes, that's very true.

I suppose it will all come down to alliance HC's, and how they choose to fight the war.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Cochese
I suppose it will all come down to alliance HC's, and how they choose to fight the war.

And now we see who's really in charge. :/

[Cochese]

Well, you know just as I do that the game is shaped by those who play it. Spinner & co. only give us the "bounds" in which to stay. Everything else is left up to the players to decide for themselves.

That has been one of the biggest problems with this game: you can't trust or expect the players to do the right thing, yet every round, they are the ones running the show.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Cochese
Well, you know just as I do that the game is shaped by those who play it. Spinner & co. only give us the "bounds" in which to stay. Everything else is left up to the players to decide for themselves.

That has been one of the biggest problems with this game: you can't trust or expect the players to do the right thing, yet every round, they are the ones running the show.

Unfortunately even when you do your best to make things Idiot Proof, someone comes along and builds a better Idiot