View Poll Results: What is your view on support planets for alliances/galaxies?
|
Unfair advantage for the game
|
|
89 |
52.05% |
Fairplay - "all is fair in love and war"
|
|
74 |
43.27% |
Don't know / not sure
|
|
8 |
4.68% |
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 10:18
|
#51
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Support Planets
why don't you do something more useful and get that income instead ...
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 10:22
|
#52
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome
why don't you do something more useful and get that income instead ...
|
I have too much fun watching the drama on the PA Forum, if I had more income and more responsibility, I might lose out on the current argument of the day.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 11:39
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: Support Planets
If there's going to be alliance-size restrictions then they should be 100% enforced - and that has to include scan planets as well. Otherwise we end up back at square 1, but with the argument becoming whether or not specific support planets are scanners or not. As with other areas of PA (e.g. score/xp) the problems arise because PA team are unable to make a firm decision between two alternatives and so end up implementing a confusing compromise.
In this particular case the two clear options are:
1. No restrictions on alliances/support planets (which does not prevent implementation of a "Only top X members count for alliance score").
2. Full restriction of alliance size to a limit - with no support planets for alliances or for planets allowed. This would require specific things to be hardcoded into the game including (but not limited to):
* No defence allowed other than ingalaxy, in-cluster(seperate area of indecision from PA team applies to clusters), and in-alliance.
* JGPs only work if you, or a member of your alliance, is at least 1 tick moved towards a planet on attack OR if if the planet being scanned is a member of your own alliance.
* News-scans only work if you or a member of your alliance is at least 4 ticks moved on attack towards the target, OR if the target is a member of your own alliance OR if the target has no incoming attack fleets which have moved at least 4 ticks towards it (to allow news-scanning for intel).
* Struct killers can only be launched by planets who are in an alliance. Note: while it would be nice to restrict struct killers to wars it's not possible to do so without allowing tets-launching to gain all coords of an alliance.
* Cov-ops other than resource-stealing can only be done to planets which are either attacking your galaxy, attacking a member of your alliance or have doen one of the above in the previous 24 hours.
etc.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 14:40
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9
|
Re: Support Planets
I would rather it JUST be the tagged members of the alliance counting and working towards their alliance winning, but the reality is there are ALWAYS going to be allies and friends that will help you. How is the PA staff going to guard against this? It might make things a little muddy, but i dont see how to stop it...
__________________
.....KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 14:48
|
#55
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrandin
I would rather it JUST be the tagged members of the alliance counting and working towards their alliance winning, but the reality is there are ALWAYS going to be allies and friends that will help you. How is the PA staff going to guard against this? It might make things a little muddy, but i dont see how to stop it...
|
You can't. Consider this, currently the EULA does not prohibit 250,000 planets signing up, building nothing but a particular kind of ship and sending one off defence to defend a particular alliance. The bottom line of the support planets rule seems to be an attempt to remove politics from the game. Having the alliance with the best man-for-man player quality winning every round and the second best coming second and the worst coming last isn't interesting. It's insanely boring.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 16:08
|
#56
|
Jolt took my jap girl :(
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Only 5 times World Cup Winner Country
Posts: 498
|
Re: Support Planets
About all of this i have just a few opinions:
- For a start the call on Overview should be reformulated to some more explanatory text. Ive noticed many people stop reading overview after a while due to presume same stuff and the importance of this matter whould be highlighted. This should not be left on the hands of only the active users of the forum.
- Second. A explanation about what is this thread about should have been posted together. Tbfh all that cr*p on Double Standards is boring to read and people shouldnt have to read it over to know what is this thing about. A resume about the points on Support planets, and both claims of the community both approving and against it whould be resumed so People who dont keep reading the ego massage of the few remaining selective-invite-only club who is this forum can have information enough about such important subject.
- I dont care about what all those blahblahblah people posting above (except nadar <3 ) actually think and i know most people on community dont too, and tho obviously is the opinion the PA Team only cares the rest who actually makes the game have meat whould be reminded
- I would like to remind apocco that this game isnt only about the few HCs/active posters who resume less than 10% of the whole 2000 players/community. Expose only to the people who dont read forums cos of the 10 1up/10 ex-Fang / 15 others/15 forum-users-who-say-will-never-play-it-again
will only give them the partial point of view who ofc will benefit/unbenefit top tags/players and no one else. Sily to worry about only this group who anyway is being scared off the game due tho all this sheet and they are stopping playing anyway. Everytime we have a important matter on wich the whole community should have voice (cos even if not involved in politics, this whole support thing by example if kept will limit players who dont have alliance but likes to help their friends who do, we brazillians by example usually recruit brazillians who just hang on the channel to keep in touch to be scanners for brazillian players since they dont want to play due to other clones and tho we didnt have this rnd this will keep us to have from now on since the PA players are all into major allies) and always i see this kind of thread clearly aimed for the few who have close ties with PA-Team. Remember most of us only hangs on IRC and do his job as ally-member. Check how much active on the forums compared to the playbase, you can think different but this forum is not new-user friendly, and why bother to read/post if most notice you have no voice here if not regstered since 2000? If the rest of the community dont like the changes, they wont come here to complain like those you worry about came. They simply will go away. Since they are just the 95% the remaining community, i think its time for you to start to worry about them.
__________________
Alliances:
|| Absolute || eXilition || FAnG || Insomnia || Seraphim || Silver || Vengeance ||
Channels:
#brasil #Counter-Strike #ChillSpot #cro #dawnofthedead #dragonslair #elurstaheht #Exilition #fang #fnp #g33k #HoneyBunny #insomnia #kon #Mirage #nebula #OuZo #planetarion #pta #rpg #Silver #the_witches #vgn
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 16:14
|
#57
|
1up on you
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,007
|
Re: Support Planets
I disagree, I believe the forums are a good way to gage peoples opinions. It houses quite a wide range of alliance HCs, people in alliances and those who are allianceless. I am sure that there are a lot of people who read the forums and dont actually post, I know for sure that I used to read GD and AD and not post there for a bit before I started, the same goes for a lot of other people. The forums are an open place for discussion and ideas, anyone can come here and write down what they think, how else will there be a play consensus?
__________________
pig
[ 1u p]
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 16:17
|
#58
|
InSomniac
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 1,473
|
Re: Support Planets
voted for the 2nd option. i agree there has to a blanket rule for all alliances. 1 alliance cant be allowed to break the rules without punishment and then another to break them (debateably) and be harshly punished.
get it sorted PA Team
__________________
Runner up in the InSomnia 'Drunkest HC' competition - Currently on the wagon
Elysium | HR | eXilition | OuZo | ND | InSomnia | DLR
db battlegroup founder and spiritual leader
Sexytime HC of Belgians (#s3xytime)
Not so retired anymore....
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 16:19
|
#59
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intruder
- For a start the call on Overview should be reformulated to some more explanatory text. Ive noticed many people stop reading overview after a while due to presume same stuff and the importance of this matter whould be highlighted. This should not be left on the hands of only the active users of the forum.
|
What about an additional button like the mail and news buttons except it's "PA news" and clicking on it brings you to a list of new news items, with brief descriptions and further links, since last time you logged in with a list of all previous ones below it.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 16:40
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4
|
Re: Support Planets
Anyone can create many Hotmail accounts, create many planets and build up those planets as farms (roids and ships) for both their allaince and themselves.
They can use their planets as spys to gather information on alliances and are expecially useful in the early ticks to act as a JPG.
To STOP this from happening, a Credit card MUST be provided to ensure that the player does not have many planets because not all use 2 cards. The use of the credit card is for validation purposes, not for payment, unless they wish to purchase credits. Purchacing a credit to a planet outside of the player's alliance will raise a flag to a possible multi.
It is possible to still create farms, but the number of cheaters will be reduced dramatically. This will leave the game more fun and the real players will not get frustrated and leave to a competing system.
Steven Penning.
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 16:54
|
#61
|
Registered AbUser
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 242
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Penning
To STOP this from happening, a Credit card MUST be provided to ensure that the player does not have many planets because not all use 2 cards. The use of the credit card is for validation purposes, not for payment, unless they wish to purchase credits. Purchacing a credit to a planet outside of the player's alliance will raise a flag to a possible multi.
|
Simply because not everyone has access to credit cards.
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 17:53
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
* Struct killers can only be launched by planets who are in an alliance. Note: while it would be nice to restrict struct killers to wars it's not possible to do so without allowing test-launching to gain all coords of an alliance.
|
How would it give you the coords of a single alliance? Surely it would just give you coords of people not in alliances?
(I edited your typo because it kept making me think of the Tet offensive)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
I disagree, I believe the forums are a good way to gage peoples opinions. It houses quite a wide range of alliance HCs, people in alliances and those who are allianceless. I am sure that there are a lot of people who read the forums and dont actually post, I know for sure that I used to read GD and AD and not post there for a bit before I started, the same goes for a lot of other people. The forums are an open place for discussion and ideas, anyone can come here and write down what they think, how else will there be a play consensus?
|
I still think the forums aren't a true reflection with either alliance HC's or alliance members contributing the main discussion, with the odd noob making a thread wanting PDS back. Having said that, with the dwindling playerbase, most of the players left are the more serious alliance players, so give it a few rounds and you'll be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Penning
Anyone can create many Hotmail accounts, create many planets and build up those planets as farms (roids and ships) for both their allaince and themselves.
|
You'd still need to have different IP's for each of them, and log in at different times and be careful how they interact.
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 18:00
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon_Fodder
How would it give you the coords of a single alliance? Surely it would just give you coords of people not in alliances?
|
I said I considered the idea of restricting struct killers to be used in WARS. To do that would require alliances declaring war in some ingame fashion - which would mean you'd be able to gain coords of all of the alliance you were at war with.
I did consider (very briefly) the idea of restricting their use to only hitting planets in an alliance. But that idea was plainly stupid as it would allow people to ID allianceless planets to bash very easily (which incidentally is also why displaying the alliance of planets ingame is a bad idea).
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 18:02
|
#64
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon_Fodder
How would it give you the coords of a single alliance? Surely it would just give you coords of people not in alliances?
|
a planet creates an alliance of one. this alliance declaires war on whoever you want to get the coordinates of.
You then launch SKs at every planet in the universe, noting where you can or cannot attack.
The planets you can attack, are in the alliance you want to know the coordinates of.
rinse, repeat, etc
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 20:13
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 77
|
Re: Support Planets
*maybe include something like this in the rules*
Support Planets, Defined:
When a planet follows a development path designed to enhance a limited number of game play aspects- such as amps, cov-op, specific defense ship design exclusive of roiders, roid/ship farms, or a combination of these- AND when that planet uses its specialized abilites to assist an individual, or set of individuals repeatedly (or in even a single instance if the offense is roid/ship farming), OR when that specialized planet repeatedly uses its specialized abilities AGAINST a specific individual, or group, AND when said specially developed planet has no detrimental effect upon the assisted individual's, or group's, overall score as a direct result of the scoring limitations inherent in a specialized building program, such a planet shall be deemed to be a "support planet".
Support planets shall include, but not be limited to, Scan Planets (excessive amps/scan ability with little or no regard for ship development), Cov-Op planets (excessive cov-op development with little or no regard to ship development), Defense Planets (excessive production of non-roiding ships with little or no regard for production of roiding ships), Roid/Ship Farms (production of indefensible ships, or roids, for the purpose of allowing capture by others, either through direct attack upon the speciallized planet, or through the speciallized planet attacking another planet).
Upon discovery, support planets shall be given an oppurtunity to include themselves in an alliance tag, so long as the tag they are to join is the one which has received material benefit from their actions. If such an option does not exist, either because the support planet is not affiliated with a given alliance or because the given alliance is at its tag limit, the support planet shall be re-set to eliminate the specialized abilities, and all negative effects caused by the planet (insofar as is possible to identify) shall be eliminated. In the case of Roid/Ship farming, all effects of the speciallized planet's actions shall be reset, and the speciallized planet shall be closed.
__________________
You may call me Master
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 20:44
|
#66
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
It amazes me why people are sad enough to do such a thing.
Saying that there are a lot of sad people who play this game.
However is it fair to the players? I argued a case to allow multiple planets. I would love multiing to be legal. However the argument that kept on creeping up (and the only sizeable argument at that may I add) is that the game will just become a game about this who have the most money. It will be less about skill, team work and working within the bounderies and more about the individuals bank balance.
This is what support planets effectively are. If I wanted to I could get 20 mates today signed up and cov-opping say eXilition within a week. However quite frankly im not that sad enough and dont take the game that seriously. I believe like Multiing support planets give an unfair advantage.
The point is that cant we all be content with one planet and a circa 65 member alliance? Why do we need anymore than that. Anything else seems pathetic to me.
|
Humour me what are the plus sides to Multing?
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 21:10
|
#67
|
1up on you
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,007
|
Re: Support Planets
Extra Income for planetarion
More planets in the game
More alliances
More galaxies
More polititcs
I suggested 2 planets max. Some like Jester said sod limitations and make it open ball.
I just think planetarion is quite a boring game. Gosh I find it hard enough to manage one planet well, but if I was a newbie (and I remember being one) having multiple accounts (gosh I multied back in the day) was loads of fun. They didnt even interact all that much each had there own little story.
It also allows you to have a bit of fun, go crazy with one account and play zik and safe with the other and play cathaar.
I also think I could use it as a scan account, thus making the use of scanners null and void.
Like I said it would seem as though more people are playing and when numbers are increasing more players are more likely to join the game.
__________________
pig
[ 1u p]
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 22:36
|
#68
|
No Alliance
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 125
|
Re: Support Planets
all i think is that multi accounts can't possibly work i know you should reward dedication and online time spend playing this game however there has to be a cut of point with how much time is to much time I dedicate a fair amount of my time to this game and i play PA a lot lol but there has to be a cut of point
__________________
How about i paste all my co-ords form previous rounds below, it might make me look more important??
or not
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 22:49
|
#69
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Support Planets
Multi accounts would be fine as long as they didn't interact with each other.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 23:05
|
#70
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Support Planets
Invite multis, invite the fags who abuse it.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
25 Jul 2006, 23:27
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid and phil
War stuff
|
I seem to have missed the memo about this declaring war malarky, which made me look like a fool.
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 08:09
|
#72
|
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
|
Re: Support Planets
1. Alliance limits may be forcing once loyal alliance members to either play for the opposing team or quit the game. TomKat was 1up when I joined 1up and now he is Exilition. On the other hand alliance limits are good for encouraging more competition/cooperation between alliances.
2. Defining an alliance may be in the best interest of all. Last round 1up used the ability to shuffle players in and out of tag to hide the score. This round shuffling is detrimental to the alliance but keeping players untagged is still ok for the moment. 1up only had the hard coded limit of active players. While I have seen allegations of abuse of the alliance fund it simply never happened on a wide spread, consistant, or official basis. This round 1up has done nothing more than allow a few players to remain un-tagged. Un-tagged planets cannot defend or recieve defense but are required to attack. This is a benefit to the player more so than the alliance due to free scans without having to pay any tax. There is also the case that if they did not tag with 1up for some reason their accumulated score would go to another alliance so this is not benificial to the alliance that allows their members to remain untagged. How is this helpfull again? This is way different that un-tagged planets that never will be tagged doing covert ops against members of 1up almost exclusively. The fact that these planets are not being supported by members from any alliance except Exilition speak volumes as to how blatent the HC of Exilition thinks they can get away with cheating right in front of everyone and PAteam.
3. War is not fair. Yet we still have rules for that such as no nukes, no chemical/biological weapons, no raping and torturing of civilians etc. War games must be coded and part of that coding creates an environment where fair play is possible. If 1up has such pull with PAteam why don't our ships travel 1 tick faster? Because that would not be fair. I suggested 2 or 3 rounds ago that to get around the alliance limit all you need is a second alliance. It seems that not many tried it for R16. I know that TGV did as a galaxy member Ionos commented that he was in the smaller alliance and was promoted into TGV once his score was acceptable yet both were basically under the same command. Seems that limits and rules will always try to be broken by folks desparate enough to win. 1up strategy last round was alot more than hiding our numbers. We also did not defend and that kept our coordinates safe for the majority of the round. Most of my non-buddypack Galaxy mates last round had no idea I was 1up until I posted the end of round galaxy banner. Even then some did not catch on till a week later when I tagged with [1up] in IRC. To anyone outside 1up our strategy may have seemed like cheating or unfair but HC did confirm that it was acceptable under the rules before the beggining of last round. As a result of public outcry the rules were changed and the alliance scoring system was altered. One thing about the covert op attacks is that a database outside Planetarion was attacked and hacked into in order for the information about 1up planets to be available. And since I have yet to see those coordinates posted anywhere on the web it seems quite surprising that only a handfull of covert oppers have these coords and are of course covert opping 1up planets mostly. If all is fair would it be ok to track down IP addresses of Exilition members and supporters and pay them all a little "Visit?" I doubt that any member of PAteam or Jolt would allow hacking into the Planetarion systems as a strategy to win.
Planets not in tag can be taxed by an alliance as long as the planet has applied to the alliance and accepted the tax on the Preferences menu. Please tell me how this is not abusable?
Fair play may not totally be possible but allowing anything and everything would be a disaster.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.
CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 09:30
|
#73
|
Choice of Whacker sir?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 679
|
Re: Support Planets
I voted unfair for the game, but tbh all the support planets have to do is create a seperate ally and join that tag. Then they wage their war, send their support def or do whatever they want and be protected by eula.
I do think the eula needs to changed because everytime I read the support planet rule, I keep thinking oh no I'm going to get closed my repetitive successful roid capping is helping my alliance un fairly vs all those alliance of a below rank.
tsm
__________________
* thanos sets mode: -brain The_Shadow_Man
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 09:58
|
#74
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
The fact that these planets are not being supported by members from any alliance except Exilition speak volumes as to how blatent the HC of Exilition thinks they can get away with cheating right in front of everyone and PAteam.
|
I see. I imagine I must have signed up drunk for exilition this round. Ah well I've signed up for worse things when I've been drunk before
Quote:
3. War is not fair. Yet we still have rules for that such as no nukes, no chemical/biological weapons, no raping and torturing of civilians etc.
|
Those rules, as has been adequately demonstrated throughout history, are only obeyed when it is convenient.
Quote:
One thing about the covert op attacks is that a database outside Planetarion was attacked and hacked into in order for the information about 1up planets to be available. And since I have yet to see those coordinates posted anywhere on the web it seems quite surprising that only a handfull of covert oppers have these coords and are of course covert opping 1up planets mostly.
|
I dunno dude, I know people who had most of the 1up co-ords last round by about tick 300. And that was in a round where you weren't bothering to defend each other that much. I really wouldn't advise making such wild accusations without any proof to back it up (mainly as that's not allowed on this forum and I'll delete the posts if you do so again).
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 10:53
|
#75
|
No Alliance
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 125
|
Re: Support Planets
getting co-ords is hardly that hard you just get your alliance to copy paste the gal screen and work it out from there.
Hmmm 50 ppl bashing two gals with Landing ticks rougly the same its hardly a coincendance really
a support planet should be described as
A person ( not alliance) who is helping an alliance or planet by giving them an unfair advatage, who isnt affiliated in the game to that alliance.
you dont have to talk about scanners co oppers its simply that above
__________________
How about i paste all my co-ords form previous rounds below, it might make me look more important??
or not
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 11:00
|
#76
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
You can't meaningfully define unfair advantage though. And your first bit "A person ( not alliance)" is silly. If all those planets had been in a separate tag called "I dislike 1up" would their actions have been somehow different?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 14:03
|
#77
|
This is bat country
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,693
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
well i just cant vote on the poll as long as pacrew decides what is support and what is not. 1up use the loophole that means they isnt supportplanets by admin's rules (mh) but still use shipfarmings within their ranks. other allies use random planets and mates and they are called support atm
so sort the main issue before starting a poll like this
|
Got coords of these planets? If so, just PA mail me them and Ill be happy to break the forum rules by posting them here.
__________________
Burárum!
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 14:09
|
#78
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
I'd say -> all Alliance Players including Members,Scanners and Cov Oppers have to be forced to be in tag! Therefore I voted for "Unfair advantage for the game".
What we could do is to upper the Alliance Tag Limit up to 75/80 again. So everyone has room to add his Scanners/CovOppers to their tag and its still fun for everyone.
+
we wouldnt have discussions about support planets anymore.
Cheers-
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 14:13
|
#79
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
What we could do is to upper the Alliance Tag Limit up to 75/80 again. So everyone has room to add his Scanners/CovOppers to their tag and its still fun for everyone.
|
I would probally say 70 with only the top60 counting towards score
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 14:23
|
#80
|
InSomniac
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 1,473
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
I'd say -> all Alliance Players including Members,Scanners and Cov Oppers have to be forced to be in tag! Therefore I voted for "Unfair advantage for the game".
What we could do is to upper the Alliance Tag Limit up to 75/80 again. So everyone has room to add his Scanners/CovOppers to their tag and its still fun for everyone.
+
we wouldnt have discussions about support planets anymore.
Cheers-
|
upping the tag limit solves nothing m8. all it does is encourage alliances too add more fully playing members and keep their scanners out of tag still... this ofc solves none of the problems mentioned
__________________
Runner up in the InSomnia 'Drunkest HC' competition - Currently on the wagon
Elysium | HR | eXilition | OuZo | ND | InSomnia | DLR
db battlegroup founder and spiritual leader
Sexytime HC of Belgians (#s3xytime)
Not so retired anymore....
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 14:33
|
#81
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 258
|
Re: Support Planets
I never had a problem with alliance size in the first place. A limit is only required because of the small playerbase at the moment. Nontheless, a support planet rule is unenforcable in any kind of coherent manner. Alliances cooperate with one another and planets cooperate with one another (and with alliances). Accept it.
__________________
You ain't seen me, right!
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 14:38
|
#82
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
What we could do is to upper the Alliance Tag Limit up to 75/80 again. So everyone has room to add his Scanners/CovOppers to their tag and its still fun for everyone.
|
I think you're missing the point. Why are the planets closed considered to be part of exilition? Are all planets who covert-op 1up a lot considered to be part of exilition?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 15:30
|
#83
|
1up on you
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,007
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I think you're missing the point. Why are the planets closed considered to be part of exilition? Are all planets who covert-op 1up a lot considered to be part of exilition?
|
Thats the assumption, although in a film featuring Steven Segal the words used which describe this situation perfectly are:
"Assumptions are the Mother of all F*ck ups"
__________________
pig
[ 1u p]
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 15:33
|
#84
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mek
upping the tag limit solves nothing m8. all it does is encourage alliances too add more fully playing members and keep their scanners out of tag still... this ofc solves none of the problems mentioned
|
I think it does. We had this cov op discussion recently and if u force alliances to have their Cov Oppers in tag you can easy close those players who support an alliance/organization outta tag. It's NO coincidence (considering the fact that we got above 2k players ingame) if a nontagged players cov ops (lets say) 50 planets and 40 of them are F-Crew for example. This is an unfair benefit for an alliance and the planet therefore has to be closed.
But this Rule has to be written and therefore the EULA needs to be changed.
Scanners is another issue...and atm I dont have an idea how to check if all Alliance Scanners are intag or if there are any "supporting scanplanets"
But uppering the Alliance Tag-Limits should work for the Cov Op Issue we had .
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 15:35
|
#85
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I think you're missing the point. Why are the planets closed considered to be part of exilition? Are all planets who covert-op 1up a lot considered to be part of exilition?
|
I'm clearly not missing the point dude.
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 15:48
|
#86
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
I'm clearly not missing the point dude.
|
I like how you didn't reply to my questions there.
Quote:
It's NO coincidence (considering the fact that we got above 2k players ingame) if a nontagged players cov ops (lets say) 50 planets and 40 of them are F-Crew for example. This is an unfair benefit for an alliance and the planet therefore has to be closed.
|
What alliance? How is covert-opping a planet regularly different to say attacking a planet regularly? What if I decide I don't like you and start covert-opping your alliance. Are you going to demand my planet is closed because you feel this is unfair?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 15:55
|
#87
|
I'm who you want me to be
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In a flat place, enjoying RL
Posts: 418
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
It's NO coincidence (considering the fact that we got above 2k players ingame) if a nontagged players cov ops (lets say) 50 planets and 40 of them are F-Crew for example. This is an unfair benefit for an alliance and the planet therefore has to be closed.
|
I would like to ask you to think this over, cause surely you cannot mean what you seem to be suggesting here.
If I'd play allianceless I should be allowed to cov-op any planet in the game I want. If I sign up for a personal crusade to setting exil's HC's research back xx ticks, you would have me closed because, say, 1up, would benefit from this?
Some people still hang around these forums while they don't play (like me), and some may sign up just to have a laugh (I've done so in the past). Your suggestion aims to control what individual planets do. What's next? MH's logging into people's planets to recall attacks that were double-booked cause it's giving an 'unfair advantage'?
Seriously, think it over.
__________________
And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count... it's the life in those years
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 17:20
|
#88
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17
|
Re: Support Planets
We should ban alliances.
No out-of-gal defense possible. AT ALL.
10 men vs the universe. Yeah.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 17:23
|
#89
|
Waging a war on errorism
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Come Clarity
Posts: 249
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
Nitin,
I left 1up a full round before I became an MH. You have no idea why I left 1up, and, in fact, 1up has no idea why I left 1up because no one from 1up has ever bothered to ask me why I left them. I couldn't care less about 1up because they have shown me time and time and time again that they don't give a rat's ass about the people in their own alliance unless those people are top twenty planets. Why you think I would give a shit about them over alliances that have my friends in them is beyond my ken.
|
Actually, thats not true, I specifically asked you why you left.
__________________
Titans forever.
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 19:39
|
#90
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 904
|
Re: Support Planets
I stand corrected. Yes, ska, you did ask me... this round, a couple weeks ago... after I'd already joined the MH team. . . and over a full round since I'd left 1up. . . sorry, doesn't really mean much...
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 21:34
|
#91
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I like how you didn't reply to my questions there.
What alliance? How is covert-opping a planet regularly different to say attacking a planet regularly? What if I decide I don't like you and start covert-opping your alliance. Are you going to demand my planet is closed because you feel this is unfair?
|
you cov op me then. 1,2,3....thats one planet only. why not, just do it.
I was talking about the example if 80% of your cov ops are directed to a special alliance = not only one planet - more of their members! and you arent tagged to any ally ingame. This is something what should be investigated when a new rule is written. clear now?
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
26 Jul 2006, 21:38
|
#92
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by hook
If I'd play allianceless I should be allowed to cov-op any planet in the game I want. If I sign up for a personal crusade to setting exil's HC's research back xx ticks, you would have me closed because, say, 1up, would benefit from this?
|
last reply to JBG, if you still dont understand pm me on forums and I'll edit it to BOLD
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 00:05
|
#93
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
you cov op me then. 1,2,3....thats one planet only. why not, just do it.
|
Well, let's say I know you're the sort of guy who wouldn't mind his personal planet rank being 19596th as long as his alliance won. I'd want to counter your wishes and nail your alliance. Similar for any grudges against HC or grudges against particular alliances
Quote:
I was talking about the example if 80% of your cov ops are directed to a special alliance = not only one planet - more of their members! and you arent tagged to any ally ingame. This is something what should be investigated when a new rule is written. clear now?
|
As I said above, what if I just don't like that alliance? Equally what if all the supposed exilition covert-oppers joined a new tag called "eXhalation". Would that tag be deleted and all planets involved in it banned? More over what if myself and a few friends decided to start a covert-ops tag next round and declare war on a particular alliance. Would that be banned?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 00:27
|
#94
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Well, let's say I know you're the sort of guy who wouldn't mind his personal planet rank being 19596th as long as his alliance won. I'd want to counter your wishes and nail your alliance. Similar for any grudges against HC or grudges against particular alliances
As I said above, what if I just don't like that alliance? Equally what if all the supposed exilition covert-oppers joined a new tag called "eXhalation". Would that tag be deleted and all planets involved in it banned? More over what if myself and a few friends decided to start a covert-ops tag next round and declare war on a particular alliance. Would that be banned?
|
Taking your last point even further: what if an alliance created a second tag and ran it with same officers etc but sent them on seperate attacks and only defended with their own tags. WOuld that be legal? WHat if it had different HC - who were "advised" by the HC of the primary alliance? I can't see where PA team could draw a neat line between 2 alliances who were allied (presumably allowed) and 2 alliances who were in effect wings of the same alliance but with no defence interaction: the two scenarios would behave near enough identically when viewed from the outside.
And that's one of the problems with the whole support-planet issue: all the attempts at defining support planets address allianceless planets (with the sole exception of defence). Any alliance could achieve exactly what is trying to be stopped just by having a second tag.
Makes me wonder who Scanners Union were (no offence intended if it was a genuine alliance rather than just the support planets for another alliance).
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 00:55
|
#95
|
PGLee
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 70
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Taking your last point even further: what if an alliance created a second tag and ran it with same officers etc but sent them on seperate attacks and only defended with their own tags. WOuld that be legal? WHat if it had different HC - who were "advised" by the HC of the primary alliance? I can't see where PA team could draw a neat line between 2 alliances who were allied (presumably allowed) and 2 alliances who were in effect wings of the same alliance but with no defence interaction: the two scenarios would behave near enough identically when viewed from the outside.
And that's one of the problems with the whole support-planet issue: all the attempts at defining support planets address allianceless planets (with the sole exception of defence). Any alliance could achieve exactly what is trying to be stopped just by having a second tag.
Makes me wonder who Scanners Union were (no offence intended if it was a genuine alliance rather than just the support planets for another alliance).
|
totally agree with that one, tag ppl up, give that ally a specific mission (orders are given from the mother alliance) < but u cant prove that as this alliance can simply say we dont like the ally we are targetting and wanna hit them, even more, they can hit the same targets by saying we are forming a block etc
__________________
Rd 14 - [Hydra Officer]
Rd 15 - [eXi Officer]
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 05:25
|
#96
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Taking your last point even further: what if an alliance created a second tag and ran it with same officers etc but sent them on seperate attacks and only defended with their own tags. WOuld that be legal? WHat if it had different HC - who were "advised" by the HC of the primary alliance? I can't see where PA team could draw a neat line between 2 alliances who were allied (presumably allowed) and 2 alliances who were in effect wings of the same alliance but with no defence interaction: the two scenarios would behave near enough identically when viewed from the outside.
And that's one of the problems with the whole support-planet issue: all the attempts at defining support planets address allianceless planets (with the sole exception of defence). Any alliance could achieve exactly what is trying to be stopped just by having a second tag.
Makes me wonder who Scanners Union were (no offence intended if it was a genuine alliance rather than just the support planets for another alliance).
|
exactly. thats all stuff that has to be considered aswell ofc. as I said, a new rule has to be written. but afaik PA team can look in every account and tag (I'd guess) I don't think a second tag for Ally CovOps/Scanners etc. would be working as it would be easy to find out where those fleets/covops/scans go.
its all about suggestions and to find the best way to solve the problems. and we are on a good way atm.
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 09:39
|
#97
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigone
exactly. thats all stuff that has to be considered aswell ofc. as I said, a new rule has to be written. but afaik PA team can look in every account and tag (I'd guess) I don't think a second tag for Ally CovOps/Scanners etc. would be working as it would be easy to find out where those fleets/covops/scans go.
its all about suggestions and to find the best way to solve the problems. and we are on a good way atm.
|
The problem is it's basically impossible to define because groups in PA are in a constant state of flux. So what you will end up with is multihunters having to decide on a case by case basis and basically been unable to offer valid reasons for why one planet is closed and not another because it's entirely possible for the exact same actions to be performed by two planets but if PAteam believe their intentions differ they might close one and not the other.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 10:19
|
#98
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
More over what if myself and a few friends decided to start a covert-ops tag next round and declare war on a particular alliance. Would that be banned?
|
Let's do it!
We'll be mercenaries, available to the highest bidder!
They can pay us not in money or roids, but compromising images of their mothers!
Hurrah!
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
27 Jul 2006, 19:21
|
#99
|
Laziness pays off NOW!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pensacola, FL, USA
Posts: 596
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Makes me wonder who Scanners Union were (no offence intended if it was a genuine alliance rather than just the support planets for another alliance).
|
I think round 16 (or was it 17?) there was a tag similar to the one you're probably dicussing which was called "Scanners Guild" and had a public channel to do scans for anyone. It was an intresting concept, but I don't think it worked out in that picticular case, as it wasn't continued the next round. It was, though, very useful and I often saw 10-15 people in their channel. I beleive they were primarily used by F-Crew and ToF members in that round.
__________________
Proud to have been :
[ReBorn] High Council - Wing Leader
[Knights] High Council - Founder
[Silver] High Council - Military
[WolfPack] High Council - Military
[Ascendancy] Member
[eXilition] High Council - Defence
7-Round Official Planetarion #Support Team Member
Retired Since Round 21
|
|
|
29 Jul 2006, 16:49
|
#100
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Support Planets
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Makes me wonder who Scanners Union were (no offence intended if it was a genuine alliance rather than just the support planets for another alliance).
|
forgot to explain. Scanners Union was the tag for all Insomnia Scanners in R17 and it was lead (more or less) by Jinstarro.
We had some Fights with ND going on and they complained about us having Scanners out of tag. In R17 they werent considered as Support Planets but we asked Appocomaster if its okay or not as we wanted to play fair ofc. But this should change hopefully soon. Imho at least.
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56.
| |