New Rule

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by 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.

I doubt this rule changes anything for a dedicated cheater like a multi you describe - first there are more ways then just defending to help your "main" planet and second you could simply spread your secondary planets defence a bit. Fake defend your enemies once in a while (there are several ways to fake-defend, pulling at eta1 is only one of them ...)

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Kentaminated

so this rule means that we can no longer choose who we want to defend. Can you hard code this so we dont accidentally defend the wrong planet. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to a problem. If they aren't multi's let them play.

The point is... it's hard to see who is multi and such aswell..
Also having more than 80 members this round kinda goes against what pacrew was trying to do when lowering the alliance limit.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by suave

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%

Attacking dunk is a closable offence these days

[Judge]

Originally Posted by 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

Upon reflection I have came around to a similar view.

If this only affects players/planets that do nothing but defend repeatedly the same alliance/planets then it is reasonable to consider this as a form of cheating.

If an only if it does not affect the truely casual player from defending on an occasional basis, then it shouldnt affect the game play of that person.

Probably the best option considering the circumstances.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think it becomes a problem when a very loyal member of an alliance can't be active enough to play for them in their name but is still loyal to the cause, and wants to repay the help they've had from others for a number of rounds.

Under what justification do you keep Scanners open then?

How shortsighted, or am I wrong?

Scanners dont tend to hold huge chunks of one ship. Scanners dont tend to def much. etc etc.

I am glad this issue is being dealt with.

The game was always made for alliances, if you're not active enough to actually participate in a alliance then Im sure you wont have a problem if you cant launch that one def fleet at random every now and then.

People have bitched about gamesettings employed for single planets ever since ****ing round one. Dont start to whine if you can get def from random shit planets that isnt in your alliance.

[wakey]

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.

Yes changing rules half way through the game isnt good and I'm sure everyone would much perfer it to not happen BUT when theres a known loophole which was left open simply because its advantagous to the game not to shut it as long as alliances are honurable enough not to exploit it, then they have to shut it as soon as an alliance shows that it cant be trusted and starts taking advantage.

Does this make the game worse for some people? Yes it does as restrictions are never good BUT its not PATeam fault that a proportion of this community cant be trusted to not undertake tactics which any idiot can see is exploiting the system. Exil seemingly were taking the piss and they forced this change onto the game

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

The game was always made for alliances

I seem to recall being told that spinner never imagined the dominance alliances would eventually come to exert. He imagined a far more "regional" organisational trend if my memory serves me right. Strange world isn't it?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

Does this make the game worse for some people? Yes it does as restrictions are never good BUT its not PATeam fault that a proportion of this community cant be trusted to not undertake tactics which any idiot can see is exploiting the system. Exil seemingly were taking the piss and they forced this change onto the game

So punishing the entire community for the PA-crews inability to do something with the cheating scums seems like a better idea?

I guess we had it coming.

I miss Spinner...

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

So punishing the entire community for the PA-crews inability to do something with the cheating scums seems like a better idea?

I guess we had it coming.

I miss Spinner...

So you want PATeam to close them for cheating, yet you are also against PATeam informing people they will be closed for cheating like this. The only difference betwen announcing and not announcing it is you remove the ability for people to play the "I didnt know" card.

Everyones been informed that suspious fleet activity and fleet compisition might get you closed and if thats what your actually complaining about then its no suprise some people have suggested the likes of yourself are only worried as it effects you directly because that even the impression im now getting with your last post

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

Everyones been informed that suspious fleet activity and fleet compisition might get you closed and if thats what your actually complaining about then its no suprise some people have suggested the likes of yourself are only worried as it effects you directly because that even the impression im now getting with your last post

Listen to what you just said. You are saying that the PA crew are gonna check everyones fleets for "suspicious defenceships".

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Listen to what you just said. You are saying that the PA crew are gonna check everyones fleets for "suspicious defenceships".

Ah we are back to "Kargools World of Fiction" again I see. I said nothing about everyone being checked for 'suspicious defence fleets. I said everyones been made aware that supicious fleet compositions and movement might get you deleted which is not saying everyone will be checked. I mean they dont check everyones fleets and movements to see if theres farming going on, they only do it when theres a reason to check and it will be the same here. If theres a reason to look at it they will and if it raises enough red flags it will be a potential reason to close you, if its minor and isnt clear its abuse you wont neccesarly get closed unless something else is uncovered

[Squishy]

we have allowed our selfs to act on a new form of abuse, i think thats the point wakey is trying to make

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

Ah we are back to "Kargools World of Fiction" again I see. I said nothing about everyone being checked for 'suspicious defence fleets. I said everyones been made aware that supicious fleet compositions and movement might get you deleted which is not saying everyone will be checked. I mean they dont check everyones fleets and movements to see if theres farming going on, they only do it when theres a reason to check and it will be the same here. If theres a reason to look at it they will and if it raises enough red flags it will be a potential reason to close you, if its minor and isnt clear its abuse you wont neccesarly get closed unless something else is uncovered

Stop ****ing insult me you moron and make urself more clear in the next thread instead of pissing down the forums with your jibberish.

Everyone can now report a planet to the multies, and the multies have the ability to check the planets for "suspicious activity". That is the fact of this new rule. Big brother is watching, so dont do anything u arent supposed to do.

I remember back in round 2-3 when people came into #planetarion and asked for people to defend them, and they did. This is now clearly against the rules and is viewed as suspicious activity.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Everyone can now report a planet to the multies, and the multies have the ability to check the planets for "suspicious activity". That is the fact of this new rule. Big brother is watching, so dont do anything u arent supposed to do.

Good Morning Sherlock - everyone could do that even before that new rule.

And throwing personal insults towards someone who just corrected you isn't exactly nice.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Good Morning Sherlock - everyone could do that even before that new rule.

And throwing personal insults towards someone who just corrected you isn't exactly nice.

He started it.

The change now is that if your planet defence "suspicously" you will get closed.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I miss Spinner...

I doubt he would do anything else tbh..

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Stop ****ing insult me you moron and make urself more clear in the next thread instead of pissing down the forums with your jibberish.

Everyone can now report a planet to the multies, and the multies have the ability to check the planets for "suspicious activity". That is the fact of this new rule. Big brother is watching, so dont do anything u arent supposed to do.

I remember back in round 2-3 when people came into #planetarion and asked for people to defend them, and they did. This is now clearly against the rules and is viewed as suspicious activity.

Its hardly an insult when its true, you took what was a clear statement and put words in my mouth, thus its a work of fiction to say that I claimed that all accounts would be checked for suspicious fleets

As for your second part, nothings changed. Both before and after this clarification anyone could goto the multihunters and report 'suspicious activity' this doesnt however mean that the person being reported is going to be closed. You arent going to get deleted for defending some people outside your tag on a few occasions but if your defending one tag your not a member of every day (or multiple times a day) and you have a strange fleet composition and you have basically only ever had a strange fleet composition your going to have some questions to answer

[Willzzz]

Right kargool from what i have gathered from you, your not even complaining about the rule in general your just more upset somthing has changed within PA rules. You remind me of one of these little Member Union people, when ever a boss makes a decision and uses his power for somthing your one of the people to step up and appose it just becuase its a change. Just my appinion.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I miss Spinner...

[Shyne]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Right kargool from what i have gathered from you, your not even complaining about the rule in general your just more upset somthing has changed within PA rules. You remind me of one of these little Member Union people, when ever a boss makes a decision and uses his power for somthing your one of the people to step up and appose it just becuase its a change. Just my appinion.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Its a recurring theme in this thread isnt it !

[n4m3l355]

Originally Posted by Kentaminated

so this rule means that we can no longer choose who we want to defend. Can you hard code this so we dont accidentally defend the wrong planet. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to a problem. If they aren't multi's let them play.

indeed right as you are. if they arent multi's let them play. because the MH got troubles with doing their task properly they just lock-out every possibility of a possible multi. so instead of stating you could be a multi everyone right now is just bad because you defend somebody who doesnt belong to your tag.
a small reminder to jolt & whoever develops the game is that planetarion depends on friends. I wasnt playing now a days if i didnt have friends in R1/2 willing to defend me even while i wasnt in their alliance. Now a days this isnt any different new people who dont get backup from their friends in whatever way they met them have less chance in this game and will be cut down. Not only does this result in a bitter game play but this could also cause a potentional loose in new players. I met this round 3 new people and a r/l friend who play pa and i'm very willing to defend. I could be wrong but Planetarion is about tactics and about friends but by cutting out the possible tactics you cut out my friends.
I agree that this causes a certain loophole but this loophole is only introduced because of former new rules. so basicly i see this new rule as nothing else but a poor patchup which will be exploited in a different way very likely but then ofc. we can think about a new rule which will not be sufficient either. Let the game play itself instead rather

[Shyne]

This isnt about your old mates from back in the day helping you out - we all have that.

This is about them playing with the sole purpose of giving you a second race' worth of fleet.

[SteInMetz]

Originally Posted by Squishy

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.

Does that mean you will add bots or so to the alliances which isnt at the limits etc?
This game isnt about level playingfield, it is about what you make it, why do you think there is constant blockwars? Cause someone isnt levelling the playingfield..
That section of your statement is utter crap, and if it were to apply everyone could say. "OMGZ, the attacker of me has more ships than me, i want PA-team to give me more too, to give me an level playingfield"..
And if you honestly think PA is about level playingfield, where have you been?

Edit: I agree that multis should be deleted and all, but why delete defplanets? I like the defending aspect of the game more, and certainly will attack rare if i was inactive..

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I miss Spinner

Spinner would have done anything in his power to prevent LDK from even playing :P as he told me and many others irl, he HATED them and any excuse he could use to close them he would take it... so you might wanna rethink what you're saying :P

p.s. still waiting for your pm wishie

[DIllar]

yeh, gud rule. should help out the smaller dudes

[A Mighty Fist]

As with any change there is always an out cry when someone disagrees. I agree that changing a rule or adding a rule mid game isn't nice, however, the PA Team stated in the terms and agreement when we all joined that they reserve the right to amend and add to the rules as they see fit should something occur in the future while the game is in play... as the game providers, that is their right to ensure the game runs smoothly and fairly.

Reading through most of the thread, thats most as i dislike long threads which repeat themselves, what i generally see are the people objecting to the rule are the ones who would be breaking it now. The arguement that 'i have more friends than you' isn't really all that valid. Sure, the game is about winning and proving to others that your good but that win is meant to be obtained in a fair manner so that anyone has the chance to get into the top few if they play smartly and within the rules.

Isn't the game about playing the game regardless of the possible gains for winning? I play because i enjoy playing and while i have found the terran stats weak this round... i still continue to play because i enjoy it. I also continue playing regardless of how many friends i may or may not have here. So you have many friends, you were all in an alliance together but now because of a rule most of you will have to split up, so what? Isn't the playing of the game that friendly encounter between to friends? If there are too many of you for one alliance, you split up and form two alliances and go head to head... isn't that more fun than just being one mass of players with no one able to challange you and make the game entertaining?

There also appears to be a little confusion about things. There is nothing stopping one alliance from having a NAP with another alliance because in general a NAP is when two alliances agree not to attack each other yet they remain against each other in their goal to win. An alliance, by its very word and title, is a coming together of like minded people who wish to protect and help each other grow... that isn't what a NAP is though, think of it more like a peace treaty.

People have been posting that its 'unfair' on them or 'unfair on our alliance' however, your allowed to defend a friend, your allowed to defend a friend who happens to be in an alliance (even if that alliance is against your own - that would be a judgement call on your part) but the PA Team have drawn a line against ALLIANCES and INDIVIDUALS who gather mass amounts of defence from people untagged... there is a difference.

An alliance who has 80 members getting another 40+ people who are untagged yet idling in their def channel on IRC is unfair and unbalanced. An unallied individual who gets alliance defence from more than one alliance member who they don't know is unfair and unbalnced... it is these people and groups i gather the PA Team wish to limit.

For my part i'm enjoying the limit on alliances, i have been attacked twice this round and my gal has had perhaps 3 alliance attacks against us... which makes playing more fun because we are not crushed before we have a chance to build anything. I am in F-Crew, always have, always will be but i never recall a time when i was told (prior to joining the alliance again each round) that i had to prove myself by going half the round defending people within the alliance while remaining untagged. Most alliances have an interview process which determines who will and who will not be active.

The fact is, if you want a big alliance, you can't have it yet their seems to be no rule saying you can't make two smaller ones who are NAP'd (that Neutral Aggression Packed) meaning you don't attack each other but you don't defend each other either.

.... and that was my ramble, enjoy.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by cypher

Spinner would have done anything in his power to prevent LDK from even playing :P as he told me and many others irl, he HATED them and any excuse he could use to close them he would take it... so you might wanna rethink what you're saying :P

p.s. still waiting for your pm wishie

^^

I didnt say it, I quoted someone else saying it


And, iirc I said you could pm me. but yeah I ll pm u next time I m on irc.

retirement rocks, perfect time b4 exams and all

[Buddah]

Originally Posted by cypher

Spinner would have done anything in his power to prevent LDK from even playing :P as he told me and many others irl, he HATED them and any excuse he could use to close them he would take it... so you might wanna rethink what you're saying :P

p.s. still waiting for your pm wishie

and?
Exilition is NOT LDK or Dragons ffs, cant you ppl get this into your heads?
memberbase aint comparable to neither fs, 70% or ex havent been dragons or ldk

[Squishy]

98.2% of all stats are made up on the spot and thats a fact

[MasterAir]

I know I might be a little late but I think this does take away from one of the most fun aspects of the game... politiking amongst different alliances. Ideally I think that planets that are in an alliance should have slightly different rules to others. Perhaps it should be ok for a planet within an alliance to defend outside of their alliance against other players within an alliance.

These are just ideas, I am aware that, unfortunately, people will see ways to abuse them and so they are probably not possible to implement.

I think its a shame that the unscrupulous actions of a few should spoil what could be a fantastic game for others.

I am in favour of rules against cheating, but a little less in faour of rules that detract from the game, which should not be restricted to the in game channels of communication.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by W1shmaster

thats cos ldk are elite and we dont need numebrs to win. just good m8s

about 150 good m8s i bought credits for before the round

not that im playing anymore cos i retired

yawn. I c he is banned which is good, but can someone rem the trolls posts also?

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Buddah

and?
Exilition is NOT LDK or Dragons ffs, cant you ppl get this into your heads?
memberbase aint comparable to neither fs, 70% or ex havent been dragons or ldk

i'm saying LDK as WISHMASTER has LDK in his tag under his name.... not because of anything exi related for your info

[Ferretus]

PA was never designed to be alliance run. Perhaps I'm one of the few players who still remembers that, alliances existed of course, but they were never meant to dominate. This is reflected by the top player table (and later galaxy) being the only 'top' in the original game with alliance coming much later. In game alliance systems only recently came in also. So to justify this statement in relation to the thread, the game originally was meant for regionally based friends or online friends to be able to look out for one another and either play solely as a group or if they wished, join alliances and yet still help eachother out. But of course time moves on.

The new PA management and players have been pushing the game to be solely based around alliances for some time now. Gone are the days of making friends and looking out for eachother, cluster alliances working or in many cases even galaxies that get along, many I doubt remember when it wasn't so.

So my question is really this...with the exception rules of last round and this latest update would it be simpler and far easier to turn the game entirely into alliance based? IE you cannot defend anyone who is outside your gal or alliance? This will of course cause mass outcries of this being unfair to small alliances etc, but then when has any change not done this?
This will also of course remove alliance blocks (with the exception of NAPS of course), reduce multi potential in the larger alliances and therefore remove much of the need of the multihunters in general (good news in my view), potentially increase friendship relations within a galaxy, potentially cause many players to leave the game (but then with this big brother attitude that is just round the corner anyway), reduce farming potential where ships can be collected from an inactive nooblet mutually agreed target as one player attacks while the other defends and various other things.

Just my ponderings on the matter anyway. Opinions?

[MasterAir]

Interesting idea, I still don't see why you couldn't run a farm planet if the game was entirely alliance based, plus would you be assigned an alliance or would you have the same recruitment system you have now.

Another thing to direct the game toward an alliance only game but not remove the floating masses would be to make the ally def and cluster def cumulative.

I still think that making i impossible to defend outside your alliance would take away too much from the game... it would make it very simple, too simple in my opinion.

I think its already a case of being online is more important than having interesting, different and good strategy or being in a powerful group of friends, networking and politicing.

To improve the game I think you should make it more complex, not simpler!

[Ferretus]

Agreed. However the game has been dumbed down every round for a long time now, I can't see it becoming a challenge again anytime soon.

[BlueDemon]

Good job, PAteam, the new rule has my support, for what it's worth

Imo, the allaince limits were put in place for a purpose. I could be wrong, but surely the PAteam factored in the scanner being in tag when the limit was set, so no real need to expand the member limits. Actually,I would prolly look at the average alliance size and lower the limits somewhat.

Play by the rules and use a little common since, play according to the spirit of the game and quit looking for unfair advantages. Fairness is really not that complicated, but it does require a certain level of honesty, which some in this game seem to be missing.

As for when to make the changes, it really doesn't matter when the changes are made, it's not going to bother those that play the game honestly, imo. And those that don't have a since of honesty about themselves are going to scream, and generally those are the ones that scream the loudest.