Opinions please

[Phil^]

Following on from this
Should defence farms be specifically stated in the eula that they are forbidden?
By defence farm i mean : "Planets created for the sole purpose of assisting an existing alliance, while not becoming part of that alliance themselves."
In effect, a set of planets , controlled by another alliance to give them an unfair advantage over the rest.
This could be extended to include planets who attack / escort / soak up defence solely for the benefit of this alliance, and if it should go as far as to extend to scan planets is another item to consider.
What precisely the level of proof required for the multihunters to close on that, i'll leave to them to decide - it could even be phrased as "any ingame method, known or unknown which gives players or alliances an unfair advantage over other planets or alliances is forbidden. If the advantage is unfair or not is entirely admin discretion" , a nice little catch-all type thing like that

I just want to know if you think it should be banned, and why. and if not, why not

[Kal]

this is my personal opinion, and not an offical view of PATeam:

I'd say that if we ban defence of non - cluster/galaxy/alliance then this rule isn't needed and therefore I would vote no.

I don't think there should be a poll, as then people would think PATeam should be bound by its result

[pig]

I think they should be banned, its like creating two alliances, except one just defends/escorts which severly unbalances the game.

[Celebrant]

Originally Posted by Kal

I'd say that if we ban defence of non - cluster/galaxy/alliance then this rule isn't needed and therefore I would vote no.result

I think thats a very good idea, will keep people from using such def planets, its cheating, no more no less.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Kal

this is my personal opinion, and not an offical view of PATeam:

I'd say that if we ban defence of non - cluster/galaxy/alliance then this rule isn't needed and therefore I would vote no.

I don't think there should be a poll, as then people would think PATeam should be bound by its result

again, I disagree with you on this. because it makes it impossible to do jpscans for scanners.

But the again, you want to remove jpscans since you think newsscans are the only thing that is needed wich is tbh not a good idea..

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Kargool

again, I disagree with you on this. because it makes it impossible to do jpscans for scanners.

no it wouldnt
anyone attacking can send a jgp, since this rule would apply to defence only.
any scanner who sends their fleet to defend will be able to jgp if they are in the alliance, galaxy or cluster.
This would probably force scanners to go in the alliance but it doesnt make it impossible to JGPs

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

no it wouldnt
anyone attacking can send a jgp, since this rule would apply to defence only.
any scanner who sends their fleet to defend will be able to jgp if they are in the alliance, galaxy or cluster.
This would probably force scanners to go in the alliance but it doesnt make it impossible to JGPs

No.. it wont. because when a target is below the scanners hit value he cant jpscan it.

[Phil^]

a target below the value of that of a scanner - surely only newbie bashers would be affected by this?
scanners usually are comparatively small themselves, it would take a considerable achievement for anyone to be below their bash limit - plus as you pointed out theres news scans as a backup in such an event anyway

anyway back on topic, do you agree or disagree with banning it kargool?

[derry]

i say ban tbh

about the jgp matter... make em avaible 500(just switch FA and jgp, and let JGP take 450 ticks ) ticks later then they are now and it should be good

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Kargool

again, I disagree with you on this. because it makes it impossible to do jpscans for scanners.

But the again, you want to remove jpscans since you think newsscans are the only thing that is needed wich is tbh not a good idea..

scans are changing in PAN

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Phil^

a target below the value of that of a scanner - surely only newbie bashers would be affected by this?
scanners usually are comparatively small themselves, it would take a considerable achievement for anyone to be below their bash limit - plus as you pointed out theres news scans as a backup in such an event anyway

anyway back on topic, do you agree or disagree with banning it kargool?

ofc I agree, but I would love to see some actual proof for all theese accusations...

Im beginning to think that these threads keep being created by paranoid people..

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Phil^

I just want to know if you think it should be banned, and why. and if not, why not

I think the magnitude of the response should depend on the level of the problem - to what extent is this being (ab)used in-game? how frequently does it succeed? are pre-existing counters, such as conventional retal or so on, effective in this case? Why are some players choosing to play in their alliance but not be in their alliance - is this a problem of some other fundamental problem that should be addressed, instead of a band-aid solution?

Answers to those is what i would rather hear first .

[Phil^]

no idea to what extent its being used, or if its happening at all - following up on a previous thread. just asking if people think its something which should be forbidden or not.
as to why this would be happening, if it is : since when have people needed a reason why , if it gives them an advantage in the end.
Its a sad fact that there are those who dont care about anything other then winning , at any cost.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Most of my attacks are deffed by planets with 5k vipers and 100 spiders.

[jian_yee]

it would be good to ban it, but then there's alos the issue of,

say for eg, i meet a n00b in my galaxy, befriend him, and tell him to build pure vipers, and he defends me all the time. Would that be banned? And no, he didn't bpack with me, and he is a random. unpaid too

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by sniborp

Most of my attacks are deffed by planets with 5k vipers and 100 spiders.

Send their co-ords to all the small players in your alliance for free roids - particularly anti FI, DE, CR, BA (and prolly CO ) - plus some Guardian action in a fleetcatch to really neuter the planet might be in order if they begin to irk you.

:\

[Wishmaster]

Hehe

The - 1 eta for alliances isnt enough?
Surely it should be possible to def m8s not in ur alliance.

But yeah, remove another aspect of the game.

Will make it easier to get more people along to do summit else another place


Also - it IS kinda illegal already, as I ve seen numerous of dubious closures from biased MHs regarding the matter.

People should understand that m8s help each other. One round u r not able to play for real, and therefore help ur m8s, next round its the other way around.

Having m8s used to matter in pa.
All that matters now is if u r m8s with the mhs. ^^

[jian_yee]

in some ways what wishmaster is saying is true, PA is about mates too... we make friends, and some decide to help us only, is that going to be an issue ?

[Shyne]

With no -1 eta for non alliance are these planets really a problem?

I dont like the idea of them existing one bit - dont get me wrong !

But you should be able to def anywhere in the universe - for people who play battlegroups outside of their alliance, or simply those with friends in need.

[Judge]

If you remove the ability of non-allied players to defend, it will make it even more difficult for them to play.

In effect you would change the nature of the game to an Alliance war, and nothing else.

However if what u are getting at is multiple ownership (use of) planets as defence sinks then obvioiusly they should be removed?

Perhaps the solition would be to remove the -1 eta bonus completely, thus alliances would only be able to defend with non-same type ships.

ie: you would need a Xan to defend a BS/CR attack using his fr/de ships to get the eta 9

in-gal would remain at eta 5, thus strenghthening galaxy ties.

[Celebrant]

Originally Posted by Shyne

With no -1 eta for non alliance are these planets really a problem?

Belive you me its a problem, think of xan Fr vs vipers

Originally Posted by whismaster

Hehe

The - 1 eta for alliances isnt enough?
Surely it should be possible to def m8s not in ur alliance.

But yeah, remove another aspect of the game.

Will make it easier to get more people along to do summit else another place


Also - it IS kinda illegal already, as I ve seen numerous of dubious closures from biased MHs regarding the matter.

People should understand that m8s help each other. One round u r not able to play for real, and therefore help ur m8s, next round its the other way around.

Having m8s used to matter in pa.
All that matters now is if u r m8s with the mhs. ^^

I fins this very amusing comming from you, dont ask why.

[Almeida]

Originally Posted by Phil^

"any ingame method, known or unknown which gives players or alliances an unfair advantage over other planets or alliances is forbidden. If the advantage is unfair or not is entirely admin discretion"

I just want to know if you think it should be banned, and why. and if not, why not

this will NEVER work if we have Multihunters who are biased and are connected to the community and know many of their members.
i can already see it: u got closed coz, well, i uhm... yeah i think u got an unfair advantage.

on topic: i don't think it should be banned; if someone made friends in PA who are willing to spend the entire round with helping you out; then u deserve that defence. if u are a stupid ass that nobody likes, than u obviously won't have m8s who def u all round.
also: would it be an unfair ingame advantage if 10 allies gang up to bash 1 ally? how shall ppl know what admins will think is unfair?

[Heartless]

This does very much remind me on the farming debate a few rounds ago (before round 5, wasn't it?)

All the farmers argued that farming would be an alternative style of playing and should be allowed.
All the non-farmers argued different (iirc they said 'farming is undermining what this game is supposed to be').
In the end farming got banned because in most cases multi accounts were used for it.

I see the same coming for those def planets, even though Kal's vision of implementing such a ban is still way too flawed and allows way too many options to still use such "def farms" as people call it.

[qebab]

More than 60% of my attacks are defended in-cluster or in-gal by some viperwhore with 3k vipers and 50 mosquito. I wouldn't have a problem with banning it, and to Wishmasters "friends argument" - my friends build other ships than vipers. They play for themselves, and not only to defwhore me and my other friends. That is the difference.

PS! Those 60% happened the last 10 days only. I find it disturbing.

[noah02]

creating planets just for defence is lcreating planets just for attacks or planets just for roids to give an alliance an advantage over everyone else.
The 80 ppl limit is there for a reason if a planet within the 80 ppl then thats there loss but then it would get hard to control because then you could make a dummy alliance for that sole purpose to.
Any defence planets should be banned in my opinion but I doubt they will.

[Bashar]

I think it's a bad idea, as whilst it would stop the defence issues mentioned, I think it would have wider consequences on the community. It also looks to me too much like telling players how to play rather than letting them play themselves, which in essence removes all point to the game.

I suspect most such planets are multi's, and as such multihunters should try and find the evidence that proves them as such. Suggesting using something else to stop them means one of 2 things:

1. They are not multi's and are legitimate planets, in which case I really don't see that forcing them to change the way they play because some vocal members of the community don't like it seems a bad idea to me. Ask the smaller players, I'm sure they'd say they don't like being hit in galaxy attacks by alliances, does that mean we should ban alliances from hitting more than 1 planet per galaxy?

2. The multihunters have no teeth. Obviously, this would need addressing, and from various things I've heard, I suspect this would be the most likely of the 2 options.

[Alki]

Ive been defended against several times by planets with 9 roids, and only viper ships, its rather annoying considering they can make the eta easily. If they ARE legitimate planets then fair enough to them, but i suspect most arent

[Squishy]

Banning out of gal and alliance defence fleets wont work

It will make clusters obsolete. I know not a lot of peolpe use them but some people do and taking that away from them is not a goood idea. It will prevent friends helping out friends. During my playing careear i would defend people out of my gal and alliance just to give them a hand and gain some shippies in return. And the most important fact it will not get rid of multi defence planets at all.

The alliances who are involved in using them will just start to buddy them up with their members. Unless you propose we ban all out of alliance defence(anyone who says this should be taken out and shot) So the problems arnt sorted. The defence planets are still there.

But untill people actually stop cheating then their is no quick fix solution to this problem. We will redesin our tools to help catch them and will continue to work tirelessly to make the game a better place for you guys. But while their are still people who cant play fair and win on their own without breaking the rules then we are always gonna have problems

As regarding being biased i have been denying it for some time now but its about time me and the rest of the team came out and told the truth. We are extremly biased against people who cheat and break the rules im sorry but its true we can help out selfs as soon as we see these planets we just want to close them.

Also i would apreciate people not talking about cases that have nothing to do with them. You do not know the facts of them, you have 1 persons account of how they dont cheat. Im pretty sure they edit out the facts of the case that cast a bad light on them, and to be honest their entiteled to do that. After someone has been closed then i have no more problems with that person and if they want to lie about it thats their desicion. Once someone has been punished for their crimes they are free to go in my opinion. We do not close without evidence and if people query the desicion it is reviewed independently by another member of the team who also makes his desicion on the evidence at hand.

Do you want a MH team who close people for cheating or dont you?

Kind Regards
Squishy

[Jonas]

I think one shud only be able to def alliance and galaxy.

And defwh0res r good. Got some in Insomnia that play semi-retired and simply just 3fleet def almost allt he time

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Squishy

It will make clusters obsolete.

Wait. Clusters aren't obsolete?

[Squishy]

Some people use them still im sure. And they can add a nice dynamic into the game when theirs block wars

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Squishy

Some people use them still im sure. And they can add a nice dynamic into the game when theirs block wars

We tried using it in round 12 squishy before you retired \o/

Shame it didnt work though . Some alliances dont like ppl defending more than 1 fleet in gal and then you have alliance defence to have at least once a day where possible.
So very rarely ppl commit a fleet to helping in cluster defence, just look in most cluster chans you get max of 20 ppl most of the time and thats if ur an active cluster and when a last resort defence call comes up everyone goes very quite....

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Bashar

I think it's a bad idea, as whilst it would stop the defence issues mentioned, I think it would have wider consequences on the community. It also looks to me too much like telling players how to play rather than letting them play themselves, which in essence removes all point to the game.

I suspect most such planets are multi's, and as such multihunters should try and find the evidence that proves them as such. Suggesting using something else to stop them means one of 2 things:

1. They are not multi's and are legitimate planets, in which case I really don't see that forcing them to change the way they play because some vocal members of the community don't like it seems a bad idea to me. Ask the smaller players, I'm sure they'd say they don't like being hit in galaxy attacks by alliances, does that mean we should ban alliances from hitting more than 1 planet per galaxy?

2. The multihunters have no teeth. Obviously, this would need addressing, and from various things I've heard, I suspect this would be the most likely of the 2 options.

I'd say that's about right.

Clusters have been obselete throughout PAX, they have no implications on competitive gameplay whatsoever.

"It will prevent friends helping out friends. During my playing careear i would defend people out of my gal and alliance just to give them a hand and gain some shippies in return. And the most important fact it will not get rid of multi defence planets at all."

That bit though is completely relevant.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Kargool

again, I disagree with you on this. because it makes it impossible to do jpscans for scanners.

But the again, you want to remove jpscans since you think newsscans are the only thing that is needed wich is tbh not a good idea..

They can just scan, rather than be def whores...

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Squishy

But untill people actually stop cheating then their is no quick fix solution to this problem. We will redesin our tools to help catch them and will continue to work tirelessly to make the game a better place for you guys. But while their are still people who cant play fair and win on their own without breaking the rules then we are always gonna have problems

Thats what these def pools are. It does go against the spirit of the game.

[DunkelGraf]

as long as those defplanets arent multies let them be. if you think a special ally is getting alot of help from another "defally" go get another real ally to help you out attacking and teach them a real lesson!!!

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by DunkelGraf

as long as those defplanets arent multies let them be. if you think a special ally is getting alot of help from another "defally" go get another real ally to help you out attacking and teach them a real lesson!!!

One thing I have done with inactives in my galaxy (the ones who are online and dont use irc and/or respond to PA mail) and have the profile of a "def pool" is to get my ally or galm8's ally to roid/ziked these planets and then exile them asap.

that is my definition of teaching them a lesson.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by buddies

One thing I have done with inactives in my galaxy (the ones who are online and dont use irc and/or respond to PA mail) and have the profile of a "def pool" is to get my ally or galm8's ally to roid/ziked these planets and then exile them asap.

that is my definition of teaching them a lesson.

Just report them with evidence.

You attacking them urself or your gal/alliance mates could be accused of farming them if it all looks a bit sus so reporting them is best course of action and maybe hammering the ppl who they defend would work out better.

[Paisley]

I am open to hearing methods of gathering evidence to catch these planets.

[Squishy]

Ok if people are gonna quote me i have no problems what so ever. But please quote in context and not just selected parts of the statements that currenlty suit your arguments.

I dont have the exact logs here so i will put down what i said might not be in the right order or the exact wording though

Question: why not just stop ALL exceptions all together ? (ie not let anyone play from the same IP)

Answer: This would be even more detramental to the game and would lose us many good honest players.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: if an entire alliance or galaxy if found to be doing this and the feeling is that its to much of a loss to remove the planets why not just remove 25% of the planets mines and ship totals

Answer: It is not fair to punish a whole alliance for the actions of a few individuals within said alliance. We cannot punish everyone as many people were playing the game in a good honest fashion. It is not their fault that others in the alliance were abusing the rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: if people cant be traced due to ip blockers and things cant u block such a player

Answer: not really sure what to say here. We are suppose to block players using VNC? so block anyone with an open port that can be used for VNC purposes? Many people use VNC in an honest fashion for things such as work and other none pa cheating reasons we cannot delete all their planets because of this.

I hope this clarifys things a little bit. Anyone wants any other information i will be happy to disclose it

[Jorinn]

I think they should be banned including incluster barring any valid proper reason against it, and don't give me the cluster alliance crap. I think we all know that most of the alliances, especially the major ones ignore this. Conceivably with c def allowed support planets will just exile to a particular c.

Alternatively we can also make that some alliances can have support planets and the other alliances get 1/2 extra fleets per planet and a 35% mining bonus.

I trust you all get I mean by that.

[jian_yee]

dude, this is the same as 2 allies having a "agreement" to defend each other. OR when they attack together. It's basically the same thing.... legitamate planets doing the same thing.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Kargool

No.. it wont. because when a target is below the scanners hit value he cant jpscan it.

you can jgp a targ if you send a def fleet. sending a def fleet and recalling it before it launches probably wouldn't be investigated Mr. Smartass.

[ArcChas]

I'm guessing that was intended to be the point - if defending out of alliance was hardcoded out of the game scanners would be rendered useless (except for unit scans).