New Rule

[Assassin]

Due to the rising tactic of registering a number of planets for the sole purpose of alliance defence that remain out of the alliance tag, we have been forced to make a rule change.
The reason for this is that the alliance limit is there for a reason. It is unfair on the smaller alliances and unbalanced the gameplay when a large alliance creates these dummy planets for the sole purpose of unofficially increasing the size of their alliance.
This tactic has been named "OOGOOA Defence" (out of alliance, out of gal defence) and is now deemed an offense. If you are caught practising this tactic you will be put under investigation and closure. (Bassicaly there called Support planets That was kloopys name for them above)

For any more information on this issue feel free to join the channel #Multihunters on Netgamers and speak to myself or any other member of the MH Team. Also you can email me at [email protected]. If you have any information about any members abusing this new rule please inform myself or another MH ASAP. As i see this as making it unfair for planets who are obiding by the alliance limits (member limits)

Let me just clarify somthing. Galaxy defence is allowed before i get pms regarding that. As that is of course always aloud 9As in defending members in your gal that are not in the same alliances which is obviously always aloud). And cluster defence is also allowed but will be watched so it isnt abused. Any other Support offered will be investigated.


MH Manager

Assassin

Originally Posted by Marv

Please excuse the way this is chosen to be worded. This was said in #support by me in the past 30mins ish and I think it sums this all up pretty nicely. 
----

This system is to stop planets that are being build to PURELY increase the size of an alliance just un officially. Thus getting themselves around the limits currently in place.

As I have tried to say before, the MH will not just look at a planet, see it has out of alliance defended and out of galled and then close it. We will look for specific patters to see were this defense is coming from / going too. If we find that a planet is purely defending the members of one alliance all the time then it will look slightly suspicious to us, and could result in a closure of the planet in question.

We are not just going to suddenly close every planet that defends their mate.

You are all looking at this form a way to extreme point of view.

Try too see what we have put in place, a method to prevent alliance from getting round the new limits and to try to level out the game and give the smaller alliances more of a chance.

[ChipZ^]

Lollyroffle

[Phil^]

a good move imo.
It should be noted that planets created for this sole purpose are the ones likely to be closed.
Those people who occasionally defend a friend who is in a different alliance, but not the alliance as a whole arent likely to be affected.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Phil^

a good move imo.
It should be noted that planets created for this sole purpose are the ones likely to be closed.
Those people who occasionally defend a friend who is in a different alliance, but not the alliance as a whole arent likely to be affected.

Yeah I agree, yet I think there was an account looked at for just two defences.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Yeah I agree, yet I think there was an account looked at for just two defences.

consider your info source i doubt the multihunters will have made case info public.
that said, theres probably something in the fleet composition which looks suspect. ie a cath with only vipers, etc

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by Phil^

consider your info source i doubt the multihunters will have made case info public.
that said, theres probably something in the fleet composition which looks suspect. ie a cath with only vipers, etc

So what you actually are saying is, that caths are FORCED to build other ships than vipers?

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Phil^

consider your info source i doubt the multihunters will have made case info public.
that said, theres probably something in the fleet composition which looks suspect. ie a cath with only vipers, etc

You clearly have too much faith in PATeam. MHs do talk about cases they shouldnt, and I have personal experience with one abusing their access ingame (not in a major way mind, so it stays private). In the end it has always been like this, and always will while the staff are not paid or recruited to work in the same office situation.

PATeam do a good job for unpaid online gamers, but they are far from professional.

On topic: This is a real problem ingame, and did need to be dealt with. On the other hand I feel it should of been left to between rounds and made to include scanners, which a lot of alliances hold outside their alliance now and do defend. The line between those abusing and not abusing will become too fine otherwise.

Not perfect, but it is a lot better than not acting at all. Therefore you get a !

[Kloopy]

Absolutely, Phil.

[Judge]

What a load of bull

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Judge

What a load of bull

Usually an answer froom someone who is worrying about there account.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by noah02

Usually an answer froom someone who is worrying about there account.

My account is static, i havent defended anyone except gal mates all round, in fact I was kicked form my alliance a week ago due to lack of activity.

so to be fair i couldnt give a tinkers cuss for my planet or anyone elses

I havnt the time to play this round due to moving house, taking a new job, and a whole host of other RL stuff far more important than PA (or any other game)

I object however on two levels,

One: Changing the rules mid round always causes grief for the players

Two: Who I defend or dont defend is my choice not PA Admins or anyone else.

[Heartless]

First of all I think it is another of those sad days where the Game Administration has to put in another restriction on the players freedom just because a minority wishes to exploit every source possible to gain advantages over others.

Apart from that I have to say: "Finally". I guess I cannot speak for everyone but personally I am fed up with launching attacks and seeing some small cathaar planets which only got vipers/beetles and maybe 20 mosquitos as alibi ships in their fleets.

If people would stick to the existing limits and not try to find another way for exploitation, then we wouldn't need this. But all in all it is good to see that the game administration does not simply ignore it when trouble rises.

edit: maybe some PD mod would like to pin this thread so that it always appears pretty far up. Maybe a game admin would like to put a link to this thread on overview, so that everyone gets to know it.

[Incredible]

What about the planets you have closed for this, BEFORE you made the new rule, they're still closed.. Shame on you PA tem, shame on you.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Incredible

What about the planets you have closed for this, BEFORE you made the new rule, they're still closed.. Shame on you PA tem, shame on you.

Yes, sigh.

[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?

[Judge]

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?

Well put

[sigrid]

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?

they dont screw up ppls attack. They scan.

Great new rule, i totally agree wih it.

[Storebo]

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?

Levels the playing field..
And I'm sure multihunters won't close em if a biggish planet defend a very small scanner planet from structure killers if that was what u where talking about.

Might be decent people just wanting to help out.. but since some abuse this and cheat. There now have to be a rule against it. But whatever.. it is that way for everyone right?

[Judge]

Snip

Originally Posted by Storebo

.. but since some abuse this and cheat.

How is it cheating to defend of your own free will and volition an old buddy / alliance mate ?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Judge

Snip
How is it cheating to defend of your own free will and volition an old buddy / alliance mate ?

From experience, I would guess 3/4 of these planets are multis/used in some cheating way.
I doubt this has changed.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

From experience, I would guess 3/4 of these planets are multis/used in some cheating way.
I doubt this has changed.

Then close them for Multi'ing not defending.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Judge

Snip



How is it cheating to defend of your own free will and volition an old buddy / alliance mate ?

If everyone is supposed to defend everyone, why do their limit alliance size's?

[cbk100]

Originally Posted by Storebo

If everyone is supposed to defend everyone, why do their limit alliance size's?

ehhh I could turn that around and ask you why is it posible to def a planet by your own free will if its illegal? Using your argument HQ have to make the code limit it.

No seriously the alliance size is limited as then only 80 ppl can get the benefits that an alliance gives.

cbk

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Storebo

If everyone is supposed to defend everyone, why do their limit alliance size's?

Alliance size is limited as a check to the creation of uber power blocks, it has nothing to do with this issue.

If a player decides he wants to play as an independant, but then choses to defend an old buddy then frankly that is his choice.

Or is my defending old friends in 1up not allowed? (or LCH or xVx / Vision)

[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.

[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?

[bwtmc]

Same old shit in all honesty.


Where's the information regarding this in PA-mail or In-game at all for the 2000 players that don't use the forums?

[hondaman]

So if understand it, alliances are creating accounts/planets that are used for support, either on attack or defense, but these planets arent wearning the alliance tag, or otherwise havent officially joined the alliance in-game?

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by hondaman

So if understand it, alliances are creating accounts/planets that are used for support, either on attack or defense, but these planets arent wearning the alliance tag, or otherwise havent officially joined the alliance in-game?

No, that isn't quite the truth, altho the PA team wants us to think that.

Theese so called "defence planets" are mostly scanners, and as a scanner, you belong to an alliance ofcourse, but as the PA team got that 80 member rule, the scanners are left out of the tag. Scanners are AFAIK allowed to build ships, but obviously, the pa team doesnt like scanner fleets defending their respective alliances.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Incredible

No, that isn't quite the truth, altho the PA team wants us to think that.

Theese so called "defence planets" are mostly scanners, and as a scanner, you belong to an alliance ofcourse, but as the PA team got that 80 member rule, the scanners are left out of the tag. Scanners are AFAIK allowed to build ships, but obviously, the pa team doesnt like scanner fleets defending their respective alliances.

I like to disagree with you. We have had scan planets since the member limit on alliances was introduced and this issue has never been a problem.

What has become a problem is the unbelievably high amount of those defense planets - we all know cathaar is not the best race for scans as they cannot build Wave Amplifiers fast enough to keep up with Distorter-whoring Xans/Terrans... and, on a sidenote, most of those "Scanners" you are talking about have had hardly any amps but far more crystal refineries (and those only).

Let's face it: Even if all those planets are played by single people it still doesn't change the fact that some players thought this exploitation would be cool - we had the same with farming a few rounds back, every farmer complained but the rest thought it'd be cool.

I hope something to enforce this rule will be hard-coded into PA:N

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I like to disagree with you. We have had scan planets since the member limit on alliances was introduced and this issue has never been a problem.

What has become a problem is the unbelievably high amount of those defense planets - we all know cathaar is not the best race for scans as they cannot build Wave Amplifiers fast enough to keep up with Distorter-whoring Xans/Terrans... and, on a sidenote, most of those "Scanners" you are talking about have had hardly any amps but far more crystal refineries (and those only).

Let's face it: Even if all those planets are played by single people it still doesn't change the fact that some players thought this exploitation would be cool - we had the same with farming a few rounds back, every farmer complained but the rest thought it'd be cool.

I hope something to enforce this rule will be hard-coded into PA:N

Maybe there are cases with players only doing this, and IMO PA team can't close them for this 'defence farming' untill now, but they have done it before they stated out this 'warning' of a new rule. But scanners are also affected to this. I think you forgot that caths have faster research = faster JGP scan ability, so many scanners are caths.

[DeadOps]

Originally Posted by Incredible

No, that isn't quite the truth, altho the PA team wants us to think that.

Theese so called "defence planets" are mostly scanners, and as a scanner, you belong to an alliance ofcourse, but as the PA team got that 80 member rule, the scanners are left out of the tag. Scanners are AFAIK allowed to build ships, but obviously, the pa team doesnt like scanner fleets defending their respective alliances.

umm since when are scanners left out of tags? i've always been in tag since i became a scanner


also, new rule is kinda crap, i like to choose who i deffend, don't like admins deciding that for me

[Judge]

Originally Posted by hondaman

So if understand it, alliances are creating accounts/planets that are used for support, either on attack or defense, but these planets arent wearning the alliance tag, or otherwise havent officially joined the alliance in-game?

Apparently so, yet there planets are generally owned by real persons and not multiple accounts.

Pretty much sux that a player cannot choose his own prefered playing method.

[cbk100]

I of course have to say that this is once again a very sad day where HQ once again limit the game. Limit the way that skills/politics/friendship dominate the game... cba to say more about this fact.

Then about the new rule. Well you can feal free to make the rules you like as we have obviously seen in the past, but also remember that you have to post it so that EVERYONE has a fairly good chance to see it (overview would be a good place).

Also I will have to say that I am for sure one of the accounts being refered to. I did sign up with the only purpose being to help "my" alliance (didnt know it would be from outside the tag though). Now I ofcourse have to change that goal and and I will of course do that now by sending a few def fleets to defend another alliance once in a while. Weather I have actualy changed my goal I will let other ppl to judge (including MH team), but it's for sure that about half of my def fleets going out from now on will be to non-EX ppl.
But hey am I then playing for another alliance? Am I now not allowed to def any alliance at all? Now this is of course not fair questions, but it is still a funny formulation that out of alliance out of gal defence can put you under investigation and closure. Good luck judging weather it is my sole purpose to def and scan for Exilition (and a bit more on that below).
Nomatter what then I hardly think I can be blamed for sending the majority of my def launches to defend ppl in EX who did fight hard for me in several rounds and who has given me lots of rounds of pleasure (yeah in the sex0ring way too ofc!!!).

Then when all this is said I of course have to state that MH team has to stick to 18.8* of the eula at any time so this kinda takes this new rule out of effect as you will find it god damn hard to figure out if my sole purpose is to help EX.

*
18.8. Evidence of Cheating
(a) Use of proxies and anonymizers.
(b) All interaction between accounts in the presence of other evidence
(c) More than one account using the same IP
(d) Any logged Account behaviour which appears to demonstrate a form of
farming.
(e) Shared registration information or preferences options from accounts in
the presence of other evidence.
(f) False signup information will result in immediate closure.
(g) IRC logs can be used as evidence if they are supported by other evidence
(h) Potential evidence of cheating does not always mean your Account will be
closed, if you feel you are doing something which may be regarded as
cheating which is not covered by the in-game exceptions system on the preferences page, please register to be
considered for an exception by emailing
multihunter.com.

btw. some of you will be able to see the irony in this post. For the rest of you feal free to post lots of crap aggainst it as I dont read these forums anyways (besides when new rules are made or when ppl really wants me to) :xmas:

cbk

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by cbk100

*snip*

cbk

On the plus side, you can now just 3 fleet defend me in-gal.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by Jorinn

On the plus side, you can now just 3 fleet defend me in-gal.

He prolly cba to defend a whinistry

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by Incredible

He prolly cba to defend a whinistry

What is this "whinestry" you talk of?

By the way, may i introduce the word "maturity" to you?

[cbk100]

Originally Posted by Jorinn

On the plus side, you can now just 3 fleet defend me in-gal.

ROFL that actualy hit it right on the spot!!!! obviously you > me \o/

/me goes back to slapping Rhino

cbk

[Walldo]

Originally Posted by Jorinn

On the plus side, you can now just 3 fleet defend me in-gal.

heh yeah Jorinn, don't forget about me . Maybe I get some def from ex against ex

[Kargool]

I totally disagree with this. This is the biggest load of crap i've heard in my time in PA.

Cant you PA team do ANYTHING right.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I totally disagree with this. This is the biggest load of crap i've heard in my time in PA.

Cant you PA team do ANYTHING right.

Well, maybe you'll feel differently if you get defended against by a planet with 9 roids yet 2000 vipers and who when I newsscanned him had attacks on him PURELY to steal his ship. and how conveniently, the ship targetting his attacker were 'out' and the ship the attacking zik was targetting stayed at the base and ... ohh no ... got stolen.

It's quite annoying if you get defended against by support planets which only build 1 type of ship and let other planets fleetfarm their other ship every now and then.

This rule is a good one.

Scanners are also support planets imo if they offer defence. If they do, and aren't part of the alliance or galaxy, then these rules should apply on them aswell.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Well, maybe you'll feel differently if you get defended against by a planet with 9 roids yet 2000 vipers and who when I newsscanned him had attacks on him PURELY to steal his ship. and how conveniently, the ship targetting his attacker were 'out' and the ship the attacking zik was targetting stayed at the base and ... ohh no ... got stolen.

It's quite annoying if you get defended against by support planets which only build 1 type of ship and let other planets fleetfarm their other ship every now and then.

This rule is a good one.

Scanners are also support planets imo if they offer defence. If they do, and aren't part of the alliance or galaxy, then these rules should apply on them aswell.

It's funny, when you look on sandmans, only two players HAVE nine roids, and one is in 1:1 and the other has quite a balanced fleet from what I can see.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

It's funny, when you look on sandmans, only two players HAVE nine roids, and one is in 1:1 and the other has quite a balanced fleet from what I can see.

I'll mail you the coords and a newsscan if you like. he HAD 9 roids and I'm 100% certain of this, as my scan would show you.

He still has 9 roids, he's a cath and yes he got some other ships but like I said, if you newsie him yourself then you'll notice all attacks on him were fleet stealing attacks. In one of the attacks on him his fleet was out and trhe only ship at base were those that the attacker was targetting and happen to get stolen ...

[furball]

Does this apply to in-cluster defenders?

For example, two alliances may ally each other and share cluster channels. Due to the -1 ETA for defending in-cluster, the two alliances can combine their defensive capacity per cluster when one alliance is under particularly heavy attack. This is particularly important this round, as we have seen a tendancy for multiple alliances to attack a single alliance each night in order to leech their defence capacity.



Not that this affects us, of course. I am speaking as a long-standing member of the PA community, not in my role as VGN HC.

[bwtmc]

Not at all Storebo, that's the point.

You can't close players for a rule that doesn't exist, THEN re-evaluate it and THEN establish it.

Scan accounts have offered defence to a degree since I first played in Round 2.

They did in in WolfPack R13 for me, 1up R13 for me, ToF, 1up R14, eXilition R15. <- That's my experience.

You can't go around closing people for it now without warning them.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Not at all Storebo, that's the point.

You can't close players for a rule that doesn't exist, THEN re-evaluate it and THEN establish it.

Scan accounts have offered defence to a degree since I first played in Round 2.

They did in in WolfPack R13 for me, 1up R13 for me, ToF, 1up R14, eXilition R15. <- That's my experience.

You can't go around closing people for it now without warning them.

How many been closed for that allready?

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Not at all Storebo, that's the point.

You can't close players for a rule that doesn't exist, THEN re-evaluate it and THEN establish it.

Scan accounts have offered defence to a degree since I first played in Round 2..

scan planets will show a history of doing something OTHER than sending defense fleets.....and as for your first sentance, you most certainly can close them, as they are acting in a manor that's not in the best interest of fairness

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

scan planets will show a history of doing something OTHER than sending defense fleets.....and as for your first sentance, you most certainly can close them, as they are acting in a manor that's not in the best interest of fairness

That's a moral issue.

Closing planets isn't, at least not when Rules aren't in place.

[Neutrino]

First off if an alliance wants the benfit of a scanner they should include them within there ranks imo.

Secondly the reason in alliance defence gets an eta bonus surely must be to differentiate between an alliance member and some1 who may know people in a particular alliance.
Having said that I see know reason why defence planets ( assuming they are owned and paid for by real non-multiing people) should not be allowed to defend whoever they want to, if they choose to defend an alliance which may containe friends or aquaintances then they should be allowed to. They are indepednat players there can be absolutley no reason for saying who they should or shouldnt be able to defend, or are such players second class citizens? If they do choose to defend an alliance they will receive no eta bonus making it more difficult for them to efectively defend teh alliance.

Finally if the above is not the case and all 'defence planets' are to be closed then why does the alliance defence bonus exist? WHy not just give a bonus of eta-1 to all defending fleets no matter there target? This should make no difference to alliances, since other would not be allowed to defend them anyway, it would simplt make it a bit more fare for those who havnt joined an alliance.

[Judge]

on a similar note,

How is the planet in receipt of this "help" treated ?

should he/she not also be punished for having the cheek to get defence ?