Support Planets

[Appocomaster]

This is obviously related to the "double standards" thread.

I've delayed an announcement for a couple of days. Partly it was clarifying the wording, to stop players and alliances trying to abuse loopholes. However, there's another issue.


The question is "Are support planets bad?"

Some of the issues are :-

1) Is trying to force an alliance to keep within its tag, which has been happening more and more over the past few rounds, killing the game?

2) Should an alliance merely be made up of those players in its tag?

3) Are war games meant to be "fair", and if so in what way? i.e. is the game meant to be "every alliance has 100 members, the one who's members are biggest at the end wins" or "every alliance is represented by 100 members, but can get help from outside the alliance" or something else? The best alliance is meant to be the winner, but under what constraints?

Farming/ship donating and multiing and so on would still be against the rules. It might be more of a sheer numbers/organisation issue to help win, but that gets more players involved in the game.
In some ways it may possibly make alliance tactics more important and perhaps alliance politics less important. The actual alliance limit would not be raised too much, allowing smaller alliances to still play and hopefully not suffer.

The game is very much about striking a balance between the dynamic flow of resources and ships to create a winner, and protecting new players / ensuring the players stay within certain acceptable bounds.