Angels/NewDawn

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

there was a suggestion last round by lokken, that i agreed with where if you were in an alliance - you could not recieve defence from anywhere other then that alliance, your cluster or your galaxy.
If that had been implemented this whole mess could have been avoided, at least on the part of recieving def from the other.
co-ordinated attacks isnt something you can easily stop, or should even be stopped

What this will lead to is that some alliances can just get together to go after 1 alliance to fleetcatch that specific alliance and bash it down. I dont think we want a game like that. Really.

With stats being as they are, i have no problems understanding allies requesting help to prevent fleetcatches, and I would offer my ships to another alliance if i knew that player or if I knew that this was something you could consider as bashing.

3-1 in the schoolyard was unfair
3-1 in Planetarion is still unfair.

[Phil^]

life isnt fair you just have to get on with it

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

life isnt fair you just have to get on with it

Well, this is a game, game's are meant to be balanced and fair.
It may be your life, but certainly not mine.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

3-1 in Planetarion is still unfair.

Didn't stop you joining in with the gang and attacking 1up though, did it?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Didn't stop you joining in with the gang and attacking 1up though, did it?

I beg to differ, we walked out on the coalition after seeing how they was not interested in doing anything but bash an alliance.

Zhil can comfirm that.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Well, this is a game, game's are meant to be balanced and fair.
It may be your life, but certainly not mine.

its a war game, by its very nature it cant be both balanced and fair.
One side will always get an advantage over the other regardless of what you try to do to mitigate it.
The example you gave of fleetcatches, it would be unfair to stop the alliance doing them just as its unfair to let them continue.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

its a war game, by its very nature it cant be both balanced and fair.
One side will always get an advantage over the other regardless of what you try to do to mitigate it.
The example you gave of fleetcatches, it would be unfair to stop the alliance doing them just as its unfair to let them continue.

My example was when more than 1 alliance joined up to do fleetcatches.

If it's done on a 1-1 basis then there wouldnt be a problem, but when more alliances join in together to do it, then I think the problem becomes appearant.

[Phil^]

and when more then one alliance joins up to defend them?
the problem is, its extremely rare for such a situation to be confined to a 1:1 battle, the side which would lose in such an instance always tries to draft in additional help

[lokken]

"Planetarion in bashing alliances with superior numbers all time shocker. Rule change imminent"

But seriously - attack cooperation is something we should be encouraging. There is little we can do about it. Any alliance that does this has the requisite pitfall of drawing attention to itself, as this thread is cast iron proof of.

Bashing a newbie is simply pointless, because it doesn't help your score very much and it doesn't help the game at all. Considering that an alliance is your opposition and will do anything and everything to unseat you, the justifications for not hitting them en masse go out the window. Its a simple matter of distinction.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I beg to differ, we walked out on the coalition after seeing how they was not interested in doing anything but bash an alliance.

Zhil can comfirm that.

No, zhil confirmed that you walked out because there was no organisation in there and too many ego's.

Let's not try to be something that you aren't Kargool. If being against ganging up was really a principle of yours you wouldn't have joined in in the first place.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kargool

3-1 in the schoolyard was unfair
3-1 in Planetarion is still unfair.

I once got ganged up on by 3 kids in the schoolyard. I sent all three of them to a hospital. The police tried to tell me that a grown man beating the shit out 3 kids was 'wrong', but we all know that 3-1 in the schoolyard is unfair.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

and when more then one alliance joins up to defend them?
the problem is, its extremely rare for such a situation to be confined to a 1:1 battle, the side which would lose in such an instance always tries to draft in additional help

Ofc, but why should only this be the attack side getting the advantages, does not alliances that attacks together constitute support alliances or support planets?

The way of only putting it so that defence is the only illegal action is what makes me feel abit uneasy and uncomfortable with the whole rule.

[Phil^]

the problem is , defence is the only action which can be directly attributed to helping each others out. attack can be claimed as 'coincidence'

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the problem is , defence is the only action which can be directly attributed to helping each others out. attack can be claimed as 'coincidence'

I have to say that this is a pretty piss poor excuse to ban the defence out of tag.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I have to say that this is a pretty piss poor excuse to ban the defence out of tag.

thats not the excuse for it
I cant remember which thread it was lokken made the suggestion in, but ask him for the details of what, why and how

[lokken]

Basically people want to enforce alliance size at a certain level. People wanted the support planets rule because they objected to exilition having several planets out of tag, sending defence and supporting in attack.

My argument is that planets should be free to attack as they please. People cooperate all the time in attacking and there is already a rule which leads to closure if all you do is escorting. You can never limit where a planet attacks, simply because that's the point of game and because it's difficult to determine when "cooperation" becomes "support" if you see it as "support".

Defence on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. You can stop alliances from defending each other because there is an alliance tag system to implement it with. It's easy to stop this element of support in a flash and achieves exactly what the players wanted to achieve in the first instance, which is to stop alliances being defended out of tag etc.It removes all uncertainty for the minor price of not being able to defended outside of galaxy/cluster/alliance, which an alliance player is never likely to do anyway. People say it limits freedom, but I disagree, it's simply a choice you make when forming an alliance which gives you various defensive/cooperative benefits.

[BlackDog]

I really like pies.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by intrance

Furthermore, I dont see what is wrong with one ally helping out another ally. The rule is pretty poorly written..... people can basically interpret it any way they choose.

exactly my feelings, too.

[Alki]

planetarion is quite literally shit. You basically get what you signed up for, and the past has proven they do whatever the **** they want. So why moan?

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Alki

So why moan?

Because someones planet got dissappeared?

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Tis

Because someones planet got dissappeared?

Oh you know more about it than me? Dont believe things you read on AD, didnt mommy teach you that when you were growing up, or is there still a little more growing up to do:crymeariver:

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I have to say that this is a pretty piss poor excuse to ban the defence out of tag.

It wasn't an excuse to ban defence out of tag - it was a reason why it was impossible to ban cooperative attacks even if there was the desire to do so. Banning defence out of tag (to planets who are in an alliance) is just a means of actually enforcing the alliance size limit. The whole "support planets" issue arises because PA team have decided that there should be a limit on the numbers of members per alliance. Whether you agree with limits on alliance sizes or not there is little point imposing such a limit unless the will is there to actually implement that limit in a meaningful way.

The discussion in this thread (and others) clearly indicates that the present situation isn't acceptable - as there is no clear generally accepted definition of what constitutes support planets. To give a simple example, let's say DLR existed only to support ND in attacks and defences (it DOESN'T - this is hypothetical). Would it be acceptable to have one alliance that constantly supported another? If so - then the whole "support planets" rule may as well be done away with: as all any alliance who wants to have support planets needs to do is put them in a seperate tag. If that would be unacceptable then HOW much defence is allowed between one alliance another before it's ruled as "support"?

I intensely dislike any rule that relies on "the judgment" of MHs in each individual case.

Partly because I don't trust them to apply consistent judgment.
Partly because it's then unclear where the boundaries lie to players - giving an unfair advantage to those who are willing to push the limits a bit more over those who make sure they stay clearly within the rules.
And partly because there's no NEED for such an ambiguous rule to apply in the first place.

That no such restriction can be applied to attacks is NOT a reason to prevent applying such a restriction to defences.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I beg to differ, we walked out on the coalition after seeing how they was not interested in doing anything but bash an alliance.

Zhil can comfirm that.

I hope you don't even make second.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Alki

Oh you know more about it than me? Dont believe things you read on AD, didnt mommy teach you that when you were growing up, or is there still a little more growing up to do:crymeariver:

Alki dont be a twat.

Tis is exactly right with what he says, judging by the PM you sent me over these boards regarding that issue.....

[Alki]

he isnt right though, is he thats my point

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Alki

he isnt right though, is he thats my point

Well, don't leave us all hanging in suspense

[ChipZ^]

Maybe Alki means that his planet was not deleted only reset?

Edit: typo

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

Maybe Alki means that his planet was deleted only reset?

with no protection time also?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tweaker

with no protection time also?

PAteam will do this on request for upgraded/paid planets. They also changed his r/p an extra time without resetting again.

[bwtmc]

In fairness Alki` you can't blame him for saying it when you went out of your way to give that impression.

[Fyodor]

So far as I know Alki wasnt the planet in question even though a few people thought he was and spread it like wild fire.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Banned

PAteam will do this on request for upgraded/paid planets. They also changed his r/p an extra time without resetting again.

I was told in no uncertain terms theres was no way my protection was being removed........

[Rukhsta]

Originally Posted by BlackDog

I really like pies.

Agreed.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Game^

I was told in no uncertain terms theres was no way my protection was being removed........

Ah, I was referring to the resetting of a planet. In those cases they're not set back to protection.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Banned

Ah, I was referring to the resetting of a planet. In those cases they're not set back to protection.

I was told Alki's planet was set back to "signup status".

In all honesty i fail to see any real defence between a reset planet, and a new planet wanting it removed, they both have nothing......

[Alki]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

In fairness Alki` you can't blame him for saying it when you went out of your way to give that impression.

i never gave that impression, not once did i confirm/deny it, so i let you guys have something to talk about really. Like you all didnt enjoy it for the time it was apparent anyway eh:>

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Banned

PAteam will do this on request for upgraded/paid planets. They also changed his r/p an extra time without resetting again.

well, being exiled whle i was asleep, and not being told, i requested it, and they obliged as it was a ****up on there behalf. ty<3

[Achilles]

Speaking of Angels closings. I'm missing out on another fine target this evening because his planet is under admin protection. This is starting to be a habit with you guys lately

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Speaking of Angels closings. I'm missing out on another fine target this evening because his planet is under admin protection. This is starting to be a habit with you guys lately

Thats really Ironic, i just scanned 53 angels planets and they were all open. These facts are to coincidental to be a coincidence.


Edit: Shouldnt you be hitting ND? Or are you just soloing?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Thats really Ironic, i just scanned 53 angels planets and they were all open. These facts are to coincidental to be a coincidence.


Edit: Shouldnt you be hitting ND? Or are you just soloing?

Try scanning your fattest Cath member - it's easy to miss that a planet's closed as the scan works - you have to notice the message at the top saying planet's under admin protection.

You'll see "Note: When this scan was performed, the target planet was closed."

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Try scanning your fattest Cath member - it's easy to miss that a planet's closed as the scan works - you have to notice the message at the top saying planet's under admin protection.

You'll see "Note: When this scan was performed, the target planet was closed."

I cant believe I missed that line! Actually I dont have a fattest cath member, I play for fun now. I do have a fat girlfriend though. And I hope you didnt think I actually scanned anyone. I was poking fun at the other fellows generalization as Its easy to lump an alliance in with some bad apples.

He also offered no proof, which being a usual thing on AD always smells stinky.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Alki

well, being exiled whle i was asleep, and not being told, i requested it, and they obliged as it was a ****up on there behalf. ty<3

I don't see how being exiled while asleep qualifies for name change.

PS. A name change doesn't actually make your planet hard to track. If you want to 'hide', you need a simultaneous exile, name change and significant size, value and score change.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Banned

I don't see how being exiled while asleep qualifies for name change.

PS. A name change doesn't actually make your planet hard to track. If you want to 'hide', you need a simultaneous exile, name change and significant size, value and score change.

Hmm, you bring up an interesting point there. Maybe there should be hidden score and value till tick 72 since we have that change name rule that works in the beginning of the round.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Hmm, you bring up an interesting point there. Maybe there should be hidden score and value till tick 72 since we have that change name rule that works in the beginning of the round.

He said you need a simultaneous exile, you get this at tick 72 as it is as everyone is basically exiled from their first 72 tick galaxy. So you have multiple people whom have a simelar score, value and roid counts and have set their name to change upon the shuffle. It does make tracking people whom name change at tick 72 alot harder to track

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Phil^

there was a suggestion last round by lokken, that i agreed with where if you were in an alliance - you could not recieve defence from anywhere other then that alliance, your cluster or your galaxy.
If that had been implemented this whole mess could have been avoided, at least on the part of recieving def from the other.
co-ordinated attacks isnt something you can easily stop, or should even be stopped

pfffft i said that ta:P he prolly just stole it

[Willzzz]

Or you stole it from him

[XelNaga]

Personally, I think the developpers should take this whole matter much further...

First, they should hardcode that you can only defend your own alliance, galaxy and cluster (although I'd just forget about the cluster and leave it at ally/gal).

Second, they should add an in-game politics module for alliance HCs, where there are different pacts you can have with other alliances.


1) NEUTRAL:

The standard mode, you don't have a political relation at all. You (normally) don't directly target them, but you can attack them whenever they interfer with your targetting or whenever you just want to. If you war an alliance with neutral attitude, it doesn't stop them from allying to your allies, though, which is quite a disadvantage. Additionally you can't stay neutral towards someone who is allied to an alliance at war with you. It's either NAP or WAR.

2) WAR:

Full scale war. Initiating a war against another alliance will end all your alliances with any of their allies, bringing the state to NAP, which means the initiator takes a bigger disadvantage, initially. Of course the allies can then decide to enter the war on either side (end the NAP or end the MPP) or just stay out of the war (allied to one side and napped to the other). You can not ally with any of your foes allies, and you can not stay neutral towards the war adversary of your ally.

3) NAP:

Probably the most common pact. You can't attack the other alliance, and they can't attack you. This doesn't stop either side to ally to or war against anyone else.

4) MPP:

Mutual Protection Pact or Alliance - you can defend this alliance, and they can defend you. You can't attack each other. If you go to war with any of their other allies, you will automatically go to NAP with them. They can then stay napped, or war you, but you can't make an MPP with them again, unless you stop the war or he breaks his alliances with your war opponent.


IMHO this should ALL be hardcoded. The order of the pacts is as follows:

1. WAR
2. NEUTRAL
3. NAP
4. MPP/ALLIANCE

You can go down only if both sides agree, but you can go back up whenever one side decides to.

Another possibility would be to add "conditions". So the one proposing to go back to neutral / nap / mpp can add conditions (lasts at least XX hours, must break mpp / nap with XX for at least XX ticks / until war is over, must go to war with XX for at least XX ticks / until war is over). And the other side can either accept or refuse then, the conditions of course hardcoded again.

If any alliance decides to break the MPP / NAP or to go to WAR, they have to enter a reason / official war declaration which will then be publicly viewable for everyone.

At any political change, all PCs (political commanders, right the alliance HCs can attribute to someone or themselves) will have to "sign" the contract before it comes into effect or gets proposed to the other side.

Of course this still makes blocking possible, and allows nasty politics, but it's not that it could actually get worse, could it? Everything is also possible now, except that it would get a lot more visible and public, and could be more easily controlled by the staff. Plus, it would be damn interesting to see the public politics, it would offer politics on 2 bases: the current one, which is rather insider politics, and the public one, which could be compared to media.

Cheers.

[Gimmick]

You know it amazes me that in a war game people are trying to dictate to us how to attack.

Xeinaga, a very good post, you have obviously put a lot of thought into it however I disagree with your hardcoding of alliance status etc.

[Willzzz]

I would like to say im still curious as to how this thread is still open, and perhaps this thread will be remmembered for a long time. So far i have saw Discusions about ND/Angels, Speeches toward 1up, A log regarding DLR and ND, and also 2 pages on somone who got re-set and avoided protection. What is next for this thread? Perhaps appoc will do a strip tease?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

I would like to say im still curious as to how this thread is still open, and perhaps this thread will be remmembered for a long time. So far i have saw Discusions about ND/Angels, Speeches toward 1up, A log regarding DLR and ND, and also 2 pages on somone who got re-set and avoided protection. What is next for this thread? Perhaps appoc will do a strip tease?

I think that might finally get it closed