Another Support Planet Poll

[Appocomaster]

I think that if it does come to hardcoding, something like this is the best way of doing it. For next round it's more likely we'll get better tools than modifying defence and so on, so we could see if tool / multihunter monitoring is enough or if we need to introduce a hardcoded limit for PAN.

[Alessio]

Stop trying to ruin the game with those ridiculous limits
If someone is blatantly abusing the rules then he will get caught, otherwise he won't.. whats the big deal

[Appocomaster]

Glad at least one person has confidence in the MH team

[DrunkenViking]

What about a game with all open cards and a zero tolerance?

Hardcode it and ban all out of gal/out of ally defence and maybe attacks(see bottom for alternative solution). Dont allow a first offence and dont discriminate. If friends has the urgent desire to play together, they can join the same ally. Also, squese scanners into alliances. Ban all repeated scan activity between an alliance' attacks/defence and scanplanets not in that ally. I mean, if you're gonna limmit alliance-membersize, then friggin do it. Dont just "half-do-it". If you do that there will be no "grey-area" within the rules that can either mislead players into cheating or allow players to whine their accounts back open on that basis.

Add a new section under alliances where allies can formally block ingame. This can work as an exception to the rule about no cross-ally/gal fleet/scan/cov-op activity. Do not use ticklimits for alliances leaving one block and then joining another(more fluid politics). Do not allow blocks to recruit new allies once they've reached the average score of the average top10 ally * 4. Make a limit so that one block cant be considerably bigger than the second biggest block and so on. Make the block's member-allies, score, roidcount and average score appear on the universe page. etc etc.

That being said, i'm not sure i want this feature myself, its just a suggestion.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

What about a game with all open cards and a zero tolerance?

Hardcode it and ban all out of gal/out of ally defence and maybe attacks(see bottom for alternative solution). Dont allow a first offence and dont discriminate. If friends has the urgent desire to play together, they can join the same ally. Also, squese scanners into alliances. Ban all repeated scan activity between an alliance' attacks/defence and scanplanets not in that ally. I mean, if you're gonna limmit alliance-membersize, then friggin do it. Dont just "half-do-it". If you do that there will be no "grey-area" within the rules that can either mislead players into cheating or allow players to whine their accounts back open on that basis.

Add a new section under alliances where allies can formally block ingame. This can work as an exception to the rule about no cross-ally/gal fleet/scan/cov-op activity. Do not use ticklimits for alliances leaving one block and then joining another(more fluid politics). Do not allow blocks to recruit new allies once they've reached the average score of the average top10 ally * 4. Make a limit so that one block cant be considerably bigger than the second biggest block and so on. Make the block's member-allies, score, roidcount and average score appear on the universe page. etc etc.

That being said, i'm not sure i want this feature myself, its just a suggestion.

I really disagree with hardcoded rules in general. I think that the game is alliance based enough without forcing people to get defence only from alliance and galaxy planets. Planetarion should be a free flowing game where friends can play and enjoy themselves and compete, not some sort of stiffled game where you can't help your friends. At the most some time delay on defending the same tag repeatedly should be introduced, imo.

[cbk100]

I see no problem at all.

Yes you might see def from other ppl out of alliance or whatever, but what is the problem?
Those def fleets doesnt come for nothing. They come becaues some ppl are willing to give up some of their time to help out.
I honostly think it should be an advantage that you have friends around the universe cause that is kinda what PA is all about. I have often been saved by close friends from other alliances and that is actualy the best moments cause that is where close friendship comes into the picture and not just alliance def which is not just pure friendships.
You have allready made one stupid rule to limit the spirit of the game and well if you want to keep up with destroying the game by limiting it then I dont even cba to argue aggainst it. I have done it every time you have put up a suggestion to do it and it always ends up with you doing it anyways.
Allready as it is now there is not too much benefit (gamewise) by having friends all over the universe. Also there is no reason to have cluster alliance. just look back in the history and consider what such limitations would have done to the game.

Now seriously get a grip and realise that keeping on limiting the game will keep on hurting it. I for one will not play at all next round as I am not allowed to help out my friends without taking up a spot in the alliance (which I dont consider myself worth). This is ofc not because of any new ruels, but put 2 and 2 together and realise that the new rule changes which will limit the game will also make the universe smaller.
In your eager to make everyone equal by eliminating benefits of strategic skills, moral, political skills, personality, activity and so on you also limit the reasons to develop those skills... You keep on thinking that equality is pure heaven, but you end up in an equlibrium where everyone is equal, but there is only very few left to share the equality as all those who really benefited from their effort has quit the game.

cbk

[cbk100]

Originally Posted by Alessio

Stop trying to ruin the game with those ridiculous limits
If someone is blatantly abusing the rules then he will get caught, otherwise he won't.. whats the big deal

I could even have said it that short^^ but thats me. Short is not good enough :-)

But actualy Alessio you wrote the conclusion to my post very well.

cbk

[qebab]

If you choose to not do anything at all, you might as well remove the alliance limit. Because, having a multitude of friends who sacrifice their time solely to help you or your alliance, is actually the same. When helping out an alliance to such a degree we saw early in round 15, they might as well rather be members of it, even if that means an alliance needs to have 120 (the number is taken out of the sky. Not suggesting any alliance had that many people last round.) spots for members in the tag.

Obviously, not all alliances can match such a number, wich in turn will lead to smaller alliances blocking, and making static politics, and since blocks most often turn out to be uneven, we might be unlucky, and end up where we were a few rounds ago.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by qebab

If you choose to not do anything at all, you might as well remove the alliance limit. Because, having a multitude of friends who sacrifice their time solely to help you or your alliance, is actually the same. When helping out an alliance to such a degree we saw early in round 15, they might as well rather be members of it, even if that means an alliance needs to have 120 (the number is taken out of the sky. Not suggesting any alliance had that many people last round.) spots for members in the tag.

Obviously, not all alliances can match such a number, wich in turn will lead to smaller alliances blocking, and making static politics, and since blocks most often turn out to be uneven, we might be unlucky, and end up where we were a few rounds ago.

This is exactly why I feel that if we are to have an alliance limit, we should do so with the softer version of hardcoding that is non-alliance specific.

[xtothez]

i think alot of people are missing the root cause for this change. It's an attempt to 'patch a hole' in the rules that essentially allows cheaters who know what they're doing to continue doing it. The focus isn't to stop friends helping their friends, but to prevent certain individuals signing up defense planets and using a multitude of means to not get caught doing so. Experienced cheaters know exactly what the hunters look for, and how much evidence is needed for a closure, making it so easy to evade detection. Sure, they can flag 'suspicious' planets and look at them closely, but that's no means a guaruntee of catching them.

Consider a planet that recieves regular defense from 6 OoAOoG planets. These 6 planets never make pods, never attack, and only defend a small group of players. However, there's no IP match between any of the seven, no consistant login times, and no common country or ISP between them. Technically they aren't breaking the no-multi rule because there's no evidence linking them together that can't be explained by "they're good mates, helping me out".

In this example we're left with three courses of action:

• Let the situation continue as before.
• Enforce a stricter closure policy based on hunter opinon and less evidence. All planets are closed despite protestations that they're 'just friends'.
• Introduce a new rule that clearly states what out of alliance defense is acceptable and what action will be taken should it be spotted. Unlike multiing, this can clearly be detected and conclusively proven with simple tools. With this rule in effect, a multi would have never signed up the extra 6 planets in the first place, and wouldn't have the benefit of free defense outside their galaxy or tag.

I would suggest a system that flags planets who defend a small number of others outside their tag/gal on a regular basis. Players would still be able to defend friends if it was clear that it was two individual players involved, rather than one that was registered for the sole purpose of supporting the other.

[furball]

cbk - this rule wouldn't have been introduced in the first place if eXil hadn't been getting its friends to help it out by signing up viper planets early on. There would have been no need at all. But if you're going to exploit the tag limit, then by god you're going to be stopped from doing so.

Just look at the poll: A very clear majority of AD posters say that there is a problem and that something should be done about it. It's only eXil-affiliated posters who are actually defending the idea of getting all their friends along to help them out - what a suprise. I expect that if this was a public poll, we'd see a load of unknowns (read: exil players) voting for nothing to be done, with almost all other alliances saying that something, somehow must be done. Whether it's hardcoding or letting the MHs get on with it, you're not going to get away with it again.

[lokken]

The point I think exilition make very well (and rightly so) is that there is a great political drive behind this agenda for the rule change and that this is unfair. Just because all the other aliances cry wolf doesn't mean we should make a rule. We should make rules, because we as individual players irrespective of alliance feel it is a positive step for the game.

I feel that to have changed the rules of engagement mid round, was deeply unfair to exilition as it was an obvious hole in the rules. I was doing it myself, because it let me play inactively outside the ND tag, while allowing them to recruit larger players. As soon as it was against the rules, ND moved me in tag, because they didn't want me deleted and i didn't want my planet deleted.

However, what we must bear in mind is this:

- do we want to enforce the alliance limit?
- if so, should this be via incentives to be in an alliance and therefore allowing outside tag organisation, or via some form of strict enforcement in game.
- whichever option we use, how should we do it?
- what kind of effect will this have on the game as a whole?

[Wishmaster]

remove all in game alliances

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

remove all in game alliances

ftw

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

remove all in game alliances

That, in my view would be a step backwards - simply because this is the best way of being a barometer of alliance performance while at the same time, preventing mass recruiting to alter the figures.

[Paisley]

this might seem like an "off the wall" idea... what if it was restricted to fleetcatches only.
out of tag out of cluster/gal def was disabled with the exception of a returning fleet was on the same eta as an attacking fleet. That would be a case where someones round can be ruined if their fleet gets wiped/stolen where the "extra def" would save their fleet.

Could it be possible to code into PAN?
Also could this open to any abuse?

Thoughts comments are welcomed

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by buddies

this might seem like an "off the wall" idea... what if it was restricted to fleetcatches only.
out of tag out of cluster/gal def was disabled with the exception of a returning fleet was on the same eta as an attacking fleet. That would be a case where someones round can be ruined if their fleet gets wiped/stolen where the "extra def" would save their fleet.

Could it be possible to code into PAN?
Also could this open to any abuse?

Thoughts comments are welcomed

Hard-coding would be possible but not very easy - from my point of view. Open to abuse? Yes. It still allows people to get around the alliance member limit and thus ultimately rendering the limit useless (i.e. why have a limit when you allow people to get around it?).

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by lokken

That, in my view would be a step backwards - simply because this is the best way of being a barometer of alliance performance while at the same time, preventing mass recruiting to alter the figures.

It will very much be a step backwards into the stoneage where we had those rounds of block wars and newbie bashing. What next, re-introduce farming as legal tactic and remove the bash limits?

Wishmaster, please, make suggestions which do not render this game into one of massively overwhelming numbers right from pt -1 as that is boring as hell.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by buddies

this might seem like an "off the wall" idea... what if it was restricted to fleetcatches only.
out of tag out of cluster/gal def was disabled with the exception of a returning fleet was on the same eta as an attacking fleet. That would be a case where someones round can be ruined if their fleet gets wiped/stolen where the "extra def" would save their fleet.

Could it be possible to code into PAN?
Also could this open to any abuse?

Thoughts comments are welcomed

The major example of support planets this round was vipers; it helped highlight (and was probably part of the reason for the cause for so many) support planets this round. I admit the stats should have been fixed better; I should have fixed the stats instead of worrying about the reaction to them with only a few days until tick start and so not modifying them much.

The best way to deal with support defence planets (especially out of alliance out of galaxy defence planets) is to have as many of the defence fleets as possible reliant on the -1 ETA, i.e. same ETA class or higher. The other way is to make the stats better so that there isn't one clear ship that gives such an advantage. Xan are obviously the hardest race to fix this for, in general.

The harder thing to fix is support planets for attack. The two things I can see to fix this are friendly fire and monitoring planets that attack galaxies with alliances.

[mist]

wouldn't introducing a limit of X days just mean people sign up more support planets?

or will you ban free planets defending paid ones outside of tag?

[Appocomaster]

More planets makes it more obvious. Free planets can't defend paid ones out of tag that successfully due to ETA difference - the best idea is getting a free planet to buddy pack with you, which we saw in a couple of places last round.