Rule Update

[Paddy]

For me while we have alliance limits in PA these have to be enforced. As such rules to prevent "support planets" have to be in place.

The closest analogy I can think of for how I see support planets is diving in football. By diving, players try to bend the rules and use that to give them an advantage over the other team. Some players/teams are better at doing this than others and as such can gain a bigger advantage over their opponents. Using support planets is a close parallel to this in my opinion. Some alliances are better at looking at the rules and finding loopholes. Some alliances have more resources (whether it be money, friends willing to play PA solely to help them or any other factor) and so are more able to use any loopholes they find to gain an advantage.

Whilst these rules need to be in place they are also almost impossible to enforce. As such I think the whole game needs a major rethink rather than just coming up more and more rules to try to make the game work as it is. In the meantime however I feel the MH team need to be very hard (some might say harsh) on "support planets". If MH are still very leniant then this rule achieves nothing and the whole thing is a waste of time.

[Gio2k]

I am so tempted to start a new account to prove this rule is nonsense. In fact, why don't i just theoratically do it:

1. I sign an account and decide to play solo. My previous alliances were let's say, tof, angels, lch, all playing the round.
2. I dislike 1up (or whatever alliance, just as an example), so i make a point of making their life hell.
3. I go to the HCs of all opposing alliances to 1up, and ask them for 1up's coordinates. Furthermore, i set up a channel in netgamers where people can msg it with 1up coords.
4. I don't do scans for any particular alliance, but i do scans now and then for friends, whichever alliance they are.
5. I proceed to covert op 1up planets every 2-3 ticks, since i dislike them soo ooo much.

Right, now go and tell the mh to come and find a reason to close me. I dare you.

[Benneh]

Im a support planet, i just thought id state that, my gal is full of support planets.

Im also zik so technically that makes me so much worse than everyone.

I have distorters too so im ****ing things up.

Im unallied and i sometimes attack with friends.

Im such a cheat

[Kieker Jan]

lol this thread is more action packed then most alliancewars already.

but tbh its all pramature bullsh**.

There was a lot off fuss when PA-team first announced the support plant rule
it would ruin the game and whatmore. that sort of doomsday preaching was proved wrong.
imo the struggle for the alliance win got harder and it last few ticks now.

PA-Team clearly thinks this rule is justified. so give em a chance to prove they made a correct decision..

I'm sure they figured out a way to sep[erate the clear cheaters from the 'honoust'attacks before they implemented this rule.

Originally Posted by appocomaster
Having consulted with alliance HCs in the relevant communication channels last night

apperently the alliance reps. have agreed to give this a try to make the battle more fair. so why shouldnt we before we start pilejumping on all they did wrong

===================

IT'S NOT CHEATING IF IT DOESN'T BREAK THE RULES. IF THE RULES AREN'T CLEAR HOW CAN YOU SAY THEY'RE CHEATING?

Phils response is over the top and put quite crude... hes right tho... there is something called common sence. The support rule have been here for a couple of rounds now JBG... if they still arnt clear to you... well quess this rule update clarifise them a bit more.

[Kieker Jan]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

I am so tempted to start a new account to prove this rule is nonsense.

Right, now go and tell the mh to come and find a reason to close me. I dare you.

erm reason found.. a new account.. so u clearly already have 1...
hasnt any1 told u multiple planets are against the rules?

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by Kieker Jan

erm reason found.. a new account.. so u clearly already have 1...
hasnt any1 told u multiple planets are against the rules?

1. So people without accounts can't create NEW accounts?
2. People with an account can't close it's old account and create a new one?
3. Even if i had an account, let's say i sign up with a new mail, and use different ips (proxy) to play the multi account. _If_ you catch me, you are clearly closing me for multying, not for covert oppping your ass to oblivion.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Fair play , in regards to planetarion is in my view :
Playing within the established rules and not abusing any loopholes within them. You play for yourself, your galaxy or alliance - not someone elses. You do not bend the established rules in order to gain an advantage , not do you break them to do the same.

I really disagree with that for reasons I outlined in another thread. Alliances are chosen organisations you join. There shouldn't be limits on who can choose to join these alliances beyond any those in charge of the alliance put in place.

1) Are planets outside of tag defending a particular tag fair? - No. Breaks the support planet rule.

I'm looking for something more than "breaks the rules". I'm looking for the reasons behind the rules if you will.

2) Are spies fair? Yes. They still play for their alliance

Oh really? What if there are already 65 members in the tag/alliance? By your definition they'd be circumventing the rules wouldn't they?
[quote[4) Is fake-nicking fair? - Yes, but again its distasteful. Only necessary because of spies and alliances wanting to keep their coordinates hidden for as long as possible[/quote] "Spies" doesn't really make sense.

5) Is choosing to attack one planet constantly fair? - No. Easily interpreted as farming if done sufficiently.

Are you sure? So if I find an inactive planet and steal all his ships piecemeal (to avoid losses) that's farming? What if someone just has a hole in their fleet which it's not advantageous for them to bother closing (ie expenditure of resources is less than probable gain off extra roids). Is it farming if I attack him? To a certain extent we saw this type of situation crop up with xp a few rounds ago.

6) Is choosing to attack a planet smaller than you fair? - Yes, for the simple reason thats why the bash limit exists to provide a threshold for what is and is not fair when attacking those smaller then you

The bash limit is a joke now though. I can attack a planet with 10% of my value. The idea of drawing up lines at the 40% mark is daft anyways. It's just an arbitrary distinction and it's primary aim, for those of us who remember why it was introduced, was not to make things "fair" but to make things more fun for the smaller planets. This was an area where the two sort of coincided but the aim still was fun.

The closest analogy I can think of for how I see support planets is diving in football. By diving, players try to bend the rules and use that to give them an advantage over the other team.

Diving isn't bending the rules at all. Diving is against the rules. No contact + going down = dive. Can anyone even give me a vaguely similar definition for what is or is not a support planet? (Diving in PA is more like suiciding ships on people trying to get them closed for farming.)

There was a lot off fuss when PA-team first announced the support plant rule
it would ruin the game and whatmore. that sort of doomsday preaching was proved wrong.

Most things don't "ruin" the game. You'd need to come up with one spectacularly shit rule to destroy a game this community-orientated in a couple of rounds. You could probably get rid of races, make only two classes of ships, make alliances 30 people max and you still wouldn't destroy the game in one round. However that doesn't mean we should do these things. Look at what has happened to the game. It hasn't grown at all. People are attracted by excitement, more options for things to do, more ways to win it, more choice.

Phils response is over the top and put quite crude... hes right tho... there is something called common sence. The support rule have been here for a couple of rounds now JBG... if they still arnt clear to you... well quess this rule update clarifise them a bit more.

Clarified? Are you kidding? I've seen tax laws that were clearer than the support planets rule.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Ah, slight misunderstanding. I'm not claiming farming would make these rounds better. I'm saying claiming it will make them less fun or exciting is groundless.

The same goes for multiing though yet for some reason you want farming to be allowed but not multiple accounts. Don’t make much sense to me.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Treveler

The same goes for multiing though yet for some reason you want farming to be allowed but not multiple accounts. Don’t make much sense to me.

I just think it would be more fun when you only have one planet. More intense, more risk of loss etc etc.

I could be wrong though and I'd be willing to see it tested.

[Treveler]

I don’t really get this talk about fairness though. The most fair this game can possibly get is to have absolutely no rules, or to quote the most quoted quote in the universe 'there is only one rule - there is no rules'.

But that would definitely not be a game I would play. Rules are not there to make it fair; they are there to make the game playable.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Treveler

But that would definitely not be a game I would play. Rules are not there to make it fair; they are there to make the game playable.

We appear to be on the same wavelength then. I just imagine it's a case of hammering out where we're wrong and solution c) is better than solution a) and b) in terms of making the game fun/playable.

[Kieker Jan]

Clarified? Are you kidding? I've seen tax laws that were clearer than the support planets rule.

and yet u obay by them.. clear or not they are there for a reason.. if u try to break em u end u will be punished... if u want to risk it fair enuff ur choise.
if u want to uderstand them call the irs . im sure they willing to explain

same goes here if they aint clear go pm appoco. for the rest play as u think is fair.. u wanna try out loopholes.. go ahead but its on risk of being closed.

with 'ruin the game'iment more that people where screaming half the universe would be closed down. this didnt happen. so lets wait till pa-team is proven wrong before starting to yell murder death kill.
all they did was try to close a a few loopholes in the rules. i find it very doubtfull that people will be closed because they accidently cashed their fleet, attaxck a couple of times with friends or whatever. and u usualy get a chance to explain urself before u get closed

so i repeat see how it works out before u all start flaming rules...

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

1. So people without accounts can't create NEW accounts?
2. People with an account can't close it's old account and create a new one?
3. Even if i had an account, let's say i sign up with a new mail, and use different ips (proxy) to play the multi account. _If_ you catch me, you are clearly closing me for multying, not for covert oppping your ass to oblivion.

Originally Posted by NEG_REPPER

or both reasons. dont be so silly as to presume they only use a single reason for closing. besides you are being silly. want your rattle back?

The rep has nothing to do with this. But the content is, i'd just expect this guy to come and answer in public instead of hiding behind his anonymous rep, so that he could prove his point with something more convincing than 'you are being silly'.

So tell, me which reason is enough to close me. Of course, if i am multying, and you catch me and close me, you are closing me for multying, regardless of whatever i decided to do with that multi account. That is besides the point.

So let's assume i have only one account. Again, even if i was a support planet for one of my earlier alliances, how can you prove i am one, since the only thing i have done is covert opping a single alliance repeatedly. Or hating one alliance is against the rules?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kieker Jan

and yet u obay by them.. clear or not they are there for a reason.. if u try to break em u end u will be punished... if u want to risk it fair enuff ur choise.
if u want to uderstand them call the irs . im sure they willing to explain

I don't really pay tax. I also disagree with most tax laws in general.

same goes here if they aint clear go pm appoco. for the rest play as u think is fair.. u wanna try out loopholes.. go ahead but its on risk of being closed.

The point is that I shouldn't be forced to go find people for help. And appoco should be able to clearly explain to me why certain things are allowed and certain things are not.

with 'ruin the game'iment more that people where screaming half the universe would be closed down. this didnt happen. so lets wait till pa-team is proven wrong before starting to yell murder death kill.

Who's doing that now and who was doing that then?

all they did was try to close a a few loopholes in the rules. i find it very doubtfull that people will be closed because they accidently cashed their fleet, attaxck a couple of times with friends or whatever. and u usualy get a chance to explain urself before u get closed

That's not really what I'm concerned with. I think these rules make the game a) less exciting b) more difficult to integrate new players into and c) unimaginative.

so i repeat see how it works out before u all start flaming rules...

Do you know who didn't like to see how it worked out before he got rid of the rules?

Genghis Khan that's who.

[Kieker Jan]

well johnny tbh i dont have a problem with the clarity of the rules seeing im still not closed.. point is nothing is changing for honoust players who prolly wont even notice it. the cheaters will.

i cba to go find names but try reading a couple of the first post who go on bout this is the end for ziks( for example)

and in all fairness i have very little knoledge bout the life of mr. khan, apart from that he prolly had constant neckpain.. coz tho his helmet looks cool it must have been bloddy heavy.
still if these rules are good or bad remains to be seen. point is that u should wait with judging them till uve seen them in action.coz its been desided to implement so there are clearly people who think they are a good idea. and all arguments that go here pro or con are based on assumptions.
by the end of the round u can base them on facts. so wait till then before jumping the gun.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Right, now go and tell the mh to come and find a reason to close me. I dare you.

Clearly you should be closed for disliking 1up. It's in the rules you know

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kieker Jan

well johnny tbh i dont have a problem with the clarity of the rules seeing im still not closed.. point is nothing is changing for honoust players who prolly wont even notice it. the cheaters will.

Lots of things are changing. It's becoming virtually impossible to play without an alliance. Remember this is how virtually every new player enters PA. If you're forcing people to play in a very rigid sort of way they won't stick around for long.
You're confusing "honest players" with "alliance players".

i cba to go find names but try reading a couple of the first post who go on bout this is the end for ziks( for example)

Zik is probably the most fun race to play in PA. This makes it significantly more complicated. However even the removal of zik altogether from the game altogether probably wouldn't kill it.

and in all fairness i have very little knoledge bout the life of mr. khan, apart from that he prolly had constant neckpain.. coz tho his helmet looks cool it must have been bloddy heavy.

Genghis Khan's helmet was supported by the wings of angels.

still if these rules are good or bad remains to be seen. point is that u should wait with judging them till uve seen them in action.

Come off it. You could use that logic for introducing any rule.

coz its been desided to implement so there are clearly people who think they are a good idea. and all arguments that go here pro or con are based on assumptions.
by the end of the round u can base them on facts. so wait till then before jumping the gun.

I wasn't arguing for changing the rules midround. I think we should stick as close to the rules as we humanly can once the round has started. I'm arguing for changes in future rounds.

I think long-run you really are going to hit into a lot of problems with bias in this area. Inevitably you perceive the people who you know better in a more positive light and perceive the people you know less well in a relatively negative light. With something that we're basically saying is going to be legislated on intentions this problem is massively magnified.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Clearly you should be closed for disliking 1up. It's in the rules you know

I asked bwtmc for 1up co-ords to covert-op your planets but he didn't give them to me

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We appear to be on the same wavelength then. I just imagine it's a case of hammering out where we're wrong and solution c) is better than solution a) and b) in terms of making the game fun/playable.

I think we have overstepped the line were the rules start to hamper the gameplay more then enhancing it. When we reached the point were it’s more or less illegal to be a random, unallied newbie we've gone to far.

As I see it there has to be some restrictions against outside help if alliances is to be hardcoded with a limited amount of members. The problem is that such rules seem to hinder the gameplay to a point were it does more bad then good.

For starters I think the alliance limit has to be removed or at least be put much higher.

Personally I miss the cluster-politics coused by the low attack eta and all the ups and downs that brought to the table and clusters were probably the best opportunity for new players to interact with more then one alliance/gal. The problem was of course that these players was often roided to the ground before they had scanned for their second roid, but then again most of the old school players has been through a period of getting bashed badly and to put it a bit blunt, this isn’t a game for ppl who cant take losing a few roids.

I'm very unsure about what changes I want made, but if there is to be any point to alliance limits, there has to be some restrictions to these so called 'support planets'.

[Kieker Jan]

tbh i wouldnt know how it is to play without an alliance when i started i made the effort to learn to get on irc . ma gc hooked me up with an alliance immedeatly. tho sethmace proved 1 or 2 rounds ago its possible to play without an alliance simply by getting a personal nap with almost every top 15 alliance.

i agree on zik being the funnest race to play.. tho i never tried any of the others

Genghis Khan's helmet was supported by the wings of angels <- has sum1 started using it again then? coz FA seemed to have lost its wings this round

Come off it. You could use that logic for introducing any rule. <- exactly my point. loads of people opposed the slavery abbolishment aswell.. yet now the majority of of the world agrees it was a good thing.


i agree the time of implementing isnt the best chosen 1, im just saying give them the rest of the round to prove it was a good thing to implement them. and then start argueing. coz the u can base te arguments on facts instead of assumptions

biase (or however u spell it) could be indeed be a major problem and i would like to hear how pa-team is planning on prevent this. tho that problem goes for basicly every rule not just for this

[DunkelGraf]

rules..... too many rules already......

[GlowDog]

cool, so If I wanna have a top planet closed, I just get a small planet to suicide one class ships

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I asked bwtmc for 1up co-ords to covert-op your planets but he didn't give them to me

Clearly you should be closed for intent to commit support. If this isn't in the EULA, I think it sould be.

[JonnyBGood]

New point.

We all acknowledge that these restrictions are ridiculous if only applied to untagged planets. Otherwise all these supposed covert-op planets working for exilition can just move into a tag and covert-op 1up to death. So something has to be introduced which legislates against "support alliances". However consider your PA history. Two events particularly spring to mind for me, coincidentally enough both involving 1up. We had r16 and sid's public statement that 1up would concentrate solely on ND. Effectually this is acting as a support alliance to whoever is in the third spot. Moreover it also has the same intentions. 'We intend on hitting you even if it costs us our ranking'. We also have r12 in which 1up publically announced they were going to act as kingmakers. Same actions, same intentions. Were they a support alliance for ND that round?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Clearly you should be closed for intent to commit support. If this isn't in the EULA, I think it sould be.

I don't really like exilition either. Fancy handing over their co-ords so i can covert-op them to death mazz?


Oops guess I'm a support planet for subh now

[lokken]

No as they were using it as a diversion tactic so they could win and people would hit ND instead. Which er means they were supporting alliances while supporting themselves but they were supporting ND while supporting 1up oh

[Heartless]

The only worthwhile solution would have been to either consequently hard-code alliances or remove the ingame alliance system completely. Enough said.

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't really like exilition either. Fancy handing over their co-ords so i can covert-op them to death mazz?


Oops guess I'm a support planet for subh now

YOUR MUM, is recruiting if you are interested. Our home gal is X:7 incase you are wondering.

[rain]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Though it may seem "unfair" to the top planets, we will formalise the actions seen chiefly at the end of round 16, namely that any planet seen to "suicide" on another planet is can have his or her ships / salvage removed from the target and even be closed, even if there is (apparently) no connection between the planets.

In other words: We close who the hell we want, and no one can say shit.
Good one, MH team.

[bmwoody]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood

Genghis Khan's helmet was supported by the wings of angels.

Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood

Inevitably you perceive the people who you know better in a more positive light and perceive the people you know less well in a relatively negative light.

How well did you know this Ghengis Khan bloke, anyway?

Lot’s of people complaining with little to no solutions being presented. I have thought up of some and challenge others to pick up on what I am writing and add to it or tweak it.

Many agree with me that things used to be more fun during rounds 3 and 4 compared to today. I’m not saying to bring it back to what it was, however it could be enhanced.

Here are a few idea’s that can make the game more interesting and fun again like it used to be.

First off, there should be no choosing fellow friends in a buddy pack. We need to make the game as random as it can be when you sign up. No re-shuffling of the galaxy. Second, becoming a Galaxy Commander should be more difficult and harder to earn. Requiring a large percentage of the galaxy members to vote for you, however voting shouldn’t start immediately. There should be at least one week where people within the galaxy are given the chance to explain themselves as to why people should vote for them as a proper election should have. Becoming a GC should have restrictions in place as not to abuse the power. There are a lot of GC’s that are too quick to exile for whatever reason and this to me is the number one reason new PA players stop playing. This can be easily remedied if a set of checks and balances are created. Every vote should count. And that means that the candidate that comes in second place in number of votes should also become minority GC (or with another name) and be able to pick his/her own MOD and MOW. The powers that the minority GC and his/her crew will have would be to be able to stop an early exile, and take over top GC position if those powers are being abused. The way the spot can be taken over is if proof of abuse in terms of words or actions be sent to the PA team and they can decide what actions to take. GC’s identity should not be made public to anyone outside the galaxy since it should be more of an internal thing. Also, bring back some incentive to be GC like 25% score increase per tick. And there would be an option for the GC to be able to automatically give this fund back and redistribute it equally amongst galaxy members. This could be also a sign of trust to its member planets if this is done. If this is not done and the majority of members see the GC as too greedy…Hasta la vista GC…Ofcourse this would only work if there were no buddy packs and everyones trust must be earned. Believe me, this is what made rounds 3 and 4 really fun. I remember many arguments I had with my in galaxy opponent in being GC. We even swapped positions many times during the round and each one of us had a different take as to how to run things. In this current round. the galaxy’s are useless and pointless since most people within a galaxy are in different alliances and that alone brings spies and different things to the mix. Furthermore some people within the galaxy refuse to help others or give out your ship info to their alliances.etc..etc..

Another reason why Planetarion isn’t growing is because of how alliances treat new recruits (as well as galaxy GC’s). It is extraordinarily difficult to get into an alliance at all if you are a new player who knows little of irc and doesn’t have many friends who play. (The tolerance level is very low) I have a way of remedying this situation. Have everyone who isn’t allowed into an alliance after the first week of play ( and they have tried by clicking to join an alliance and have been rejected or not picked) automatically be placed in one large single alliance that has no restriction as to how many members it can have. I imply no restrictions on size because most of these members will be composed of non-paid accounts that already have massive restrictions with a 300 roid max cap and others. So large numbers is the only way for this group to survive against paid accounts and capped seasoned alliances. This one large alliance will be a teaching tool as well as a force to be reckoned with and would add a whole new dimension to the game. This way that particular alliance can compete with the capped alliances that have much larger planets or players. The one particular alliance will also have a voting system where multiple leaders are voted into top positions by all of the members, I would say an amount of leaders allowed proportional to the amount of people in the alliance. There shall be no NAP pacts between this alliance and any other capped alliance. Planetarion would grow exponentially if this was the case because friends can easily invite other friends to join in and play at any time during the round without fear of the larger alliances. I would make the alliance commander ratio at 10% where for every 100 members, the top 10% with the most votes gets to be in charge and get their own private alliance forum. The one caveat is that in order to join this alliance you have to have been rejected, ignored, or kicked out of a capped alliance when attempting to join. I’m sure this could use a lot of tweaks, however it is something to think about.

Again, these are just ideas.

[Kieker Jan]

Also, bring back some incentive to be GC like 25% score increase per tick <<-- i wanna be GC!!!!! say i got a 2mil score and get 25% per tick... thats 500k per tick (without attacking or defending) x 24 ticks a day =12 mil score grow a day and im not even doin accumulate math here coz of the 25% over the 500k bonus etc...

finaly a chance to win pa \o/

It is extraordinarily difficult to get into an alliance at all if you are a new player who knows little of irc and doesn’t have many friends who play. (The tolerance level is very low) <- thats nonsense in all fairness. if a new player makes the effort of getting on netgamers there are plenty alliances that will take them in... and not only the alliances below top 25
F-Crew and ROCK and HR (for example)
gladly take on new players and will teach them to play the game well... and usualy theres even a credit to find in an ally if the new player cant pay for himself..... but a new player will have to put in the effort of getting on irc and maybe the recruitment thread.. tho a galchannel is usualy enuff.. and there are plenty of irc guides out there...


But @least ur opping ideas to improve =) thats more then we can say from a lot of other players
and i actualy do like the 'newbie'alliance idea , tho imo there should be a couple of experienced players in it to fill a couple of hc/officer positions so the new players will actualy learn and not just mocking about

[wielklem]

i am so happy i quit pa now this rule is just completely silly last round i scanned for lch and for friends who where all in differnet alliance tags i scanned for the cos they are my mates. at 1 point i scanned more for the mates then for lch esp one beeing in 1up if i did that this round i could have been closed because i am a suport planets thats just crap. Many people play this game cos they can play with friends or fight friends. The zik things is silly you can not punish ziks for stealing suciders just like that i know many of the landings may be farmed but most are not and if i decide to sucide my paid for ships on a paid acount on some top zik i should be able to do that.

[Mistwraith]

Another reason why Planetarion isn’t growing is because of how alliances treat new recruits (as well as galaxy GC’s). It is extraordinarily difficult to get into an alliance at all if you are a new player who knows little of irc and doesn’t have many friends who play. (The tolerance level is very low) I have a way of remedying this situation. Have everyone who isn’t allowed into an alliance after the first week of play ( and they have tried by clicking to join an alliance and have been rejected or not picked) automatically be placed in one large single alliance that has no restriction as to how many members it can have.

i wasnt going to post on this .. but as an allie that takes new players .. teaches them to use irc .... asks them to com and talk to us when they apply ingame .. etc etc ..

i object , there are alliances out there who take time to talk to people .

[stubbsy]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

But I see why this has been done, and its a shame we have to remove another tactic from the game for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

it obviously wasn't done for no reason whatsoever was it?

[robban1]

well a new rule how fun hehe it doesnt matter how many rules pa got unless the mh actually check up planets now and then.

all this support issue crap are nonsens as it shots over target. the stuff i have reported are clear cases of specific support planets to a single planet in the start up and im suprised how thew hell it works for them round after round.

the incompitence of the mh-crew is that kill the game, turds cheating will always be around in pa but with crapass rules and no follow up in cases is a really sad thing.

oh its kinda silly to not react on stuff for 2 weeks, the cheaters do use the stuff they steal during the time you know.

[Shiprex]

How about being allocated to an alliance once you sign up ?
Then you'd get the chance to perhaps work with some of the more experienced guys aand learn from them and those same players would get the chance to compete against their friends from same allainces in the past who have been put into other alliances to see who comes out top dog.

You dont choose your alliance and they dont choose you only your experience and performance in previous rounds puts you in a league table that sets your next alliance tag. PA team allocate players to the alliance then put them into the different alliances

eg
say 20 alliances in total
players 1-20 ranking fill first slots in each alliance in order then next 20 players in reverse order fill second slots (so alliance #20 gets player 20 and 21 on its books while alliance #1 gets player 1 and 40 etc).

Probably there are flaws with this game but surely the opportunity to pass on skills and experience as well as meeting new people is worth all the moaning and griping about rulings on alliance in and out of tag difficulties.
There shouldnt be a need for alliance limits since in the end dead wood will fill all the empty slots at the bottom