|
3 Feb 2015, 11:00
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
|
Donating cap
Donating to the galaxy fund. Everyone uses it to help the scanners. But what about the scanners helping the others? What do they do with their extra resources? Donating to the gal and helping the others. AKA cheating. They don't build fleets because why should they? They help their team mates with scanning.
Put a donating cap per day on how many resources a person can donate to the galaxy fund.
For example 500.000 of each resources total per day.
Now there are planets who are donating their entire resource income to the gal fund to help gal mates build bigger fleets. Giving them advantage over galaxies who do not have a player donating all their resources.
This is just flat out cheating and should be stopped before everyone starts doing this (most of them are already doing this).
Question: What classes as cheating? Is there any other way my account could be closed or penalised?
Answer: There's a variety of activities that count as cheating. These include (but are not limited to):
Logging into someone else’s account,
Giving out your own password / letting someone use your account,
Using a programmed device to run your account when you're not around, and
Agreeing to donate/receive/swap ships, resources or asteroids.
Agreeing to donate resources is considered cheating...
|
|
|
3 Feb 2015, 11:21
|
#2
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Donating to the galaxy fund. Everyone uses it to help the scanners. But what about the scanners helping the others? What do they do with their extra resources? Donating to the gal and helping the others. AKA cheating. They don't build fleets because why should they? They help their team mates with scanning.
Put a donating cap per day on how many resources a person can donate to the galaxy fund.
For example 500.000 of each resources total per day.
Now there are planets who are donating their entire resource income to the gal fund to help gal mates build bigger fleets. Giving them advantage over galaxies who do not have a player donating all their resources.
This is just flat out cheating and should be stopped before everyone starts doing this (most of them are already doing this).
Question: What classes as cheating? Is there any other way my account could be closed or penalised?
Answer: There's a variety of activities that count as cheating. These include (but are not limited to):
Logging into someone else’s account,
Giving out your own password / letting someone use your account,
Using a programmed device to run your account when you're not around, and
Agreeing to donate/receive/swap ships, resources or asteroids.
Agreeing to donate resources is considered cheating...
|
You will likely see a decline in this tactic from next round as there is gonna be a change to how much resources you can donate out of the galaxyfund.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
3 Feb 2015, 13:08
|
#3
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Donating to the gal and helping the others. AKA cheating.
|
Wrong. This appears to be the premise your entire post is based on, but it's sadly mistaken. There's nothing in the EULA about donations. You may not like it, but it's not cheating.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
3 Feb 2015, 13:17
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Question: What classes as cheating? Is there any other way my account could be closed or penalised?
Answer: There's a variety of activities that count as cheating. These include (but are not limited to):
Logging into someone else’s account,
Giving out your own password / letting someone use your account,
Using a programmed device to run your account when you're not around, and
Agreeing to donate/receive/swap ships, resources or asteroids.
Agreeing to donate resources is considered cheating...
|
Where did that come from?
i.e. from what page?
Also: http://game.planetarion.com/terms.pl
Quote:
Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.
|
Not sure how that fits with the galaxy fund.
Anyway, the discussion is pretty moot since it'll be changed for next round, see also: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=200705
|
|
|
3 Feb 2015, 20:24
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
|
Re: Donating cap
I can speak for myself and say, I do it out of my own free will.
I haven't agreed to anything.
|
|
|
3 Feb 2015, 21:20
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: Donating cap
Scanning/cov opping while being in BP is more fun than scanning while going random.
And I think the random scanning is actually closer to being a pure support planet and you should accuse them of cheating
|
|
|
3 Feb 2015, 22:37
|
#7
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: Donating cap
i dislike it and class it as cheating.
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 06:26
|
#8
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adapt
i dislike it and class it as cheating.
|
What would we do without you applying your likes and dislikes as God's Law for us all to follow.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 06:51
|
#9
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
What would we do without you applying your likes and dislikes as God's Law for us all to follow.
|
Considering it is his first post in this thread, i do not see him imposing his opinions as law, he is merely stating his opinion. In the end it's for PATeam to decide if they really feel it is cheating. Regardless of that, he is free to express his opinion on the matter, tho it would be better if he provides reasoning for his opinion. Either way, your response is completely unwarranted in this instance.
As for a debate on what cheating/cheesing is, just because it isn't specifically mentioned as cheating doesn't mean it isn't. In a lot of games a lot of non-designed use of features is classed as cheating when they come to the attention of the game designers, or are frowned upon within the games community (look at the many cheeses in Destiny for instance). By design the galaxy fund was to help those who crashed or were heavily roided recover with the help of the galaxy, it was never designed to be a deposit where one could hide their value, or bankroll others. However, through the ages it has become exactly that. That, to me, is grounds for at least calling it cheesing, if not cheating. And 'everyone can do it' should not necessarily justify not fixing the issue to return the galaxy fund for what it was originally designed for.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 07:35
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
By design the galaxy fund was to help those who crashed or were heavily roided recover with the help of the galaxy
|
Why is this true?
At most you could say by design it's made so you can only donate to players below the average score and with limits on how much you can donate. Which means it wasn't intended to be used to create 1 super fleet/planet in the gal with multiple people all donating to 1 person.
If it was specifically designed to be used for the reasons you mentioned, the planet would have had to have some kind of score/roid loss to be allowed to get a galfund donation, but you have to be below the average gal score to get a donation.
Ofcourse the 50mil res donation that you can give at once kinda messes up the average galscore limit, since if you get that amount early in round, you jump up and are still far above average gal score after and you do get a bit of the 'create 1 big fleet/planet' , but over the course of the round the 500k value extra becomes less impressive.
Either way, sure maybe it makes sense to balance it a bit more, but any mention of 'cheating' is very silly.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 09:18
|
#11
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
Considering it is his first post in this thread, i do not see him imposing his opinions as law, he is merely stating his opinion. In the end it's for PATeam to decide if they really feel it is cheating.
|
My opinion is that gravity goes up instead of down. Also, I like to call this red. Well, whoop-ti-****ing-doo. Some things are facts. You can argue with them, but that just makes you look like a fool.
You're exactly right, it becomes cheating when and only when PA Team add it to the EULA, or, within a round, the MHs make it clear that some new method of exploiting some game mechanic in an unforeseen way is no longer allowed (which is also provided for in the EULA). Neither has happened, so it's perfectly legal. You may not like that it's legal, and we can have a debate about what should or shouldn't be allowed, but that's a completely different discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
As for a debate on what cheating/cheesing is, just because it isn't specifically mentioned as cheating doesn't mean it isn't. In a lot of games a lot of non-designed use of features is classed as cheating when they come to the attention of the game designers, or are frowned upon within the games community (look at the many cheeses in Destiny for instance).
|
And when a tournament or league or owner makes it clear something is not allowed, then you can go ahead and call it cheating. This is hardly a new issue. Hiding resources, in various ways, been going on in some form since at least r22, that is, for more than half of PA's entire life span. I don't see Appoco condeming the systemic use of donations, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
By design the galaxy fund was to help those who crashed or were heavily roided recover with the help of the galaxy, it was never designed to be a deposit where one could hide their value, or bankroll others. However, through the ages it has become exactly that. That, to me, is grounds for at least calling it cheesing, if not cheating. And 'everyone can do it' should not necessarily justify not fixing the issue to return the galaxy fund for what it was originally designed for.
|
I would like to see some citation for the claim 'the gal fund was designed for helping crashers'. I think you just made that up, which brings me to my actual point.
To me, this is one of the main issues of the gaming community in general. Any move that's even slightly off the beaten path is instantly decried as 'cheating' or 'unfair' or 'cheesing' or 'lame' or 'cheap' or whatever. In reality, this is a competitive game, and anything that can give you an edge that is not explicitly banned by the game rules is allowed, and any innovation that is not banned by same should be applauded, not disparaged.
Quote:
A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win. (...) The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win. The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing.
[T]he scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. [In Street Fighter, if] you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. (...) If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap.
|
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 10:05
|
#12
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
You're exactly right, it becomes cheating when and only when PA Team add it to the EULA, or, within a round, the MHs make it clear that some new method of exploiting some game mechanic in an unforeseen way is no longer allowed (which is also provided for in the EULA). Neither has happened, so it's perfectly legal. You may not like that it's legal, and we can have a debate about what should or shouldn't be allowed, but that's a completely different discussion.
|
Isn't that the exact thing I said? Except for the fact that I believe everyone can be of the opinion that these tactics are cheating. Regardless of their opinion, it can still be a legit tactic. In the end, like i said, it's up to the powers that be to decide if it actually is illegal. And if they deem it is, to prevent it from being used in the future, either through repression (like a ban) or prevention (like the change that PATeam plans to put in place for next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
And when a tournament or league or owner makes it clear something is not allowed, then you can go ahead and call it cheating. This is hardly a new issue. Hiding resources, in various ways, been going on in some form since at least r22, that is, for more than half of PA's entire life span. I don't see Appoco condeming the systemic use of donations, do you?
|
Hiding value has been going on since r1, throughout history there have been multiple meassures against it. Like in r1 stocked resources didn't count toward value, and in r10 units in production didn't count toward value. In those rounds it was a tactic to put ships into production at eta 2, have your value drop because of that, and increase your cap/xp gain at land. In my opinion it shows that PATeam isn't entirely happy with the practice of value-hiding like that. However, with next to no development in at least 30 of the last 40 rounds, it is little surprise that there haven't been sufficient ways to counter it. The fact there is a change pending for next round (which was actually introduced for this round already but not properly announced, and as such retracted) shows that PATeam isn't entirely happy with the systemic use of donations and valuehiding that is rampant today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I would like to see some citation for the claim 'the gal fund was designed for helping crashers'. I think you just made that up, which brings me to my actual point.
|
I'm sorry, due to the lack of a public design document and documentation of game mechanics from back when the galaxy fund was introduced i can't provide such a citation. I recall some explanatory text on the original galfund donation pages that explained what uses the galfund 'could' be used for. There were no absolute limitations on it afaik, apart from the 50m / 200 ticks maximum to a donation, and the by design limitation of 75m that used to be circumvented by trading resources as the limition was only set to incoming donations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
To me, this is one of the main issues of the gaming community in general. Any move that's even slightly off the beaten path is instantly decried as 'cheating' or 'unfair' or 'cheesing' or 'lame' or 'cheap' or whatever. In reality, this is a competitive game, and anything that can give you an edge that is not explicitly banned by the game rules is allowed, and any innovation that is not banned by same should be applauded, not disparaged.
|
And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. But in the end, it is the game designers that decide whether the innovation should be banned or not, as not every innovation is a good one. Aside that, whoever plays the game is allowed to form, and voice, their own opinions about the innovation. After all, once upon a time alliances were an innovation to this game (one that was definitely not 'by design').
Which again brings me back to the cheesing in Destiny, where some cheese tactics have been removed in updates, yet others haven't. Just like I have applauded some of those tactics, but found others to be incredibly lame. Some of the ones I find lame are still possible, some of the ones I applauded have been removed. I, however, am still entitled to my own opinion about them.
In the original post you responded to, Adapt merely said he is of the opinion that it is cheating. Again that doesn't make it actual cheating, but he can still feel that way, and he can still value those that win without tactics he feels are cheating higher than those that used these tactics, as in the end, THAT IS HIS OPINION.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Last edited by Influence; 4 Feb 2015 at 10:30.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 12:58
|
#13
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
Isn't that the exact thing I said? Except for the fact that I believe everyone can be of the opinion that these tactics are cheating.
|
"That is cheating" is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. An incorrect one. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to wrap their head around. The definition of cheating is 'actions that break the rules'. There are no rules that cover hiding resources in the galfund. Therefore, hiding resources in the galfund is not cheating. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
I'm sorry, due to the lack of a public design document and documentation of game mechanics from back when the galaxy fund was introduced i can't provide such a citation. I recall some explanatory text on the original galfund donation pages that explained what uses the galfund 'could' be used for. There were no absolute limitations on it afaik, apart from the 50m / 200 ticks maximum to a donation, and the by design limitation of 75m that used to be circumvented by trading resources as the limition was only set to incoming donations.
|
If they wanted the gal fund to only be used by people who crashed, that would be easy to do: if current value is lower than max value this round, allow donations up to the difference in value, with a ceiling.
In any case, even if you came up with a hand written statement by Appocomaster, signed in blood, it still wouldn't matter. Intentions are irrelevant. What matters is if a certain strategy makes the game better or worse. That's a discussion worth having, though apparently the decision has already been made. Note how that's different from cheating or not cheating, and also note I've made no comments about whether this use of the galfund is good or bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion.
|
You're 'entitled' to the opinion 'the way the gal fund is currently used is harmful to the game'. You're not entitled to having your own facts. If your opinion is that the sky is orange, I'm going to call you a fool. If your opinion is that something legal is cheating, then I'm going to call you a fool.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 13:40
|
#14
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Donating cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
"That is cheating" is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. An incorrect one. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to wrap their head around. The definition of cheating is 'actions that break the rules'. There are no rules that cover hiding resources in the galfund. Therefore, hiding resources in the galfund is not cheating. End of story.
If they wanted the gal fund to only be used by people who crashed, that would be easy to do: if current value is lower than max value this round, allow donations up to the difference in value, with a ceiling.
In any case, even if you came up with a hand written statement by Appocomaster, signed in blood, it still wouldn't matter. Intentions are irrelevant. What matters is if a certain strategy makes the game better or worse. That's a discussion worth having, though apparently the decision has already been made. Note how that's different from cheating or not cheating, and also note I've made no comments about whether this use of the galfund is good or bad.
You're 'entitled' to the opinion 'the way the gal fund is currently used is harmful to the game'. You're not entitled to having your own facts. If your opinion is that the sky is orange, I'm going to call you a fool. If your opinion is that something legal is cheating, then I'm going to call you a fool.
|
but he didn't say 'that is cheating' what he said was 'I dislike it, and class it as cheating' which means 'I dislike it, and to me it is/should be cheating'.
Aside from your definition of cheating being different than mine, and probably adapts in this case.
The one I am using here is this one:
that doesn't say anything about breaking a written rule. It does include two subjective words, being 'dishonestly' and 'unfairly', which imho points to the term being subjective as a whole, and therefor can never be a fact, since the definition of a fact is that it is something objective.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Last edited by Influence; 4 Feb 2015 at 13:51.
|
|
|
4 Feb 2015, 18:29
|
#15
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Donating cap
That definition has nothing to do with gaming, and certainly nothing with PA, for which the definition of cheating requires no debate.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2015, 13:39
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 31
|
Re: Donating cap
I disagree with the change in a small extent, it's not ideal to limit the ways how to play PA but currently it is way too safe to do.
It definately has to change in some way to make it more riskier tactic, ie. make the gal fund raidable somehow (through MoD? Cov-op?). Should be capped until a final solution is decided.
__________________
HeX HR CT
R61&62 Rogues HC
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00.
| |