Support planet rule
This round we have certainly needed to take another look at the Support planet rule that has been chosen to enforce since round 32.
Defense support planets (***): These planets are those defending roughly more than the minimum of either 3 times per week or 25% of their defence fleets out of galaxy and alliance. This round we have seen a lot of "out of tag" defence, and the multihunters warned all alliances not to break it when they discovered this. Yet one alliance in particular must have chosen to ignore this, as they defended out of tag all week long against our attacks. This had to stop, so this saturday i reported a good bunch of players in this alliance to see what the multihunters had to say about this. We are now awaiting to see if there will be any action at all. One of the multihunters told me that even if the rule was broken, it was up to them if they chose to enforce it or not Maybe its time to either change this rule drastically, or stop saying it will be enforced, as it is very unclear what punishment you can expect, if any. It is certainly unfair to those of us who chose to stop defending once reached the 3 missions if there will be no punishment. Personally i dont see why we need this rule at all, as you can see it just creates complications |
Re: Support planet rule
I can't say I care about this in the least. The more people that break the support planet rule, the happier I'll be.
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
He's talking about DLR defending Euphoria, by the way.
|
Re: Support planet rule
lol, half of app and vision will b closed if this is enforced
edit: half of app/asc/vision/euph/dlr/nd will b closed if this is enforced.. that would b quite funny round tbh :P |
Re: Support planet rule
Actually we have been counting our OOT defs. (and yours)
Also there are some flimsy details to that. Cluster def does not count because game mechanics are made for that, so it is meant to happen. 25% of total def fleets is to be read as total def fleets of the whole round. 3 times a week, means 3 times in the timespan from monday 0000 till sunday 2359. So you can do 3 on saterday and 3 on tuesday. If you try to 'catch' a wave of fi/co with prelaunched fi/co def (or any other pl'd def) it counts as a def, whether there is a counterparty or not. I.e. even without an attacking fleet, your pl'd out of tag def, counts as out of tag def. Because of the aformentioned, if your total number of defs at some point is 25% out of tag, you can start sending def and recalling ingal for a while without any opposing fleets, so your total number of defenses goes up, so it stays under 25% ..... Its all a bit shifty and it is totally not meant by the rule. Alliances defending other alliances especially when they are the 'main acting alliances' should be allowed. |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
I'm aware this brings us full circle back to the discussion about alliance tag limits...so here we go again :P |
Re: Support planet rule
God help us all please get rid of this rule or if you insist on having it ****ing hardcode it.
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
I'll spell it out for you: we are not interested in overrecruiting. |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
jenova over recruiting is another prime example when they had 100 + players for a 80(?) person tag round. anyway, i have said for a long long time, hard code this into the game so it doesn't have to be enforced in the less than satisfactory way it currently is. |
Re: Support planet rule
Hah, some people actually stop defending out of tag after 3 times, and then do it again next week?
lol I weep for you! |
Re: Support planet rule
In terms of overrecruiting as soon as tag limit is dropped, it's not going to be Asc/App or the likes... they'll stick by their recruitment criteria and not let people in for the sake of it.
The fact of the matter is it'd be the less "strict" alliances, like Conspiracy, NewDawn, Subh, VisioN - as they'd look to compensate for quality with quantity. Also note, I'm not saying that THOSE PARTICULAR alliances would, I just gave examples of alliances outside Asc/App with the desire to win but not the activity. Theam mentioned the cluster ETA before, and said that it shouldn't be included in any OOT defs you send. Sorry to say, Theam, but I've had this argument with the MH before and even though cluster ETA is -1, you're still not allowed to defend the same person/group more than 3 times a week or with more than 25% of total def. It IS stupid, but that's the way it is. |
Re: Support planet rule
Kenny, If you knew about this rule so well, why did you break it ?
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
I asked all these specific points and I got told that cluster def is excluded as the game encourages that and hence not limits it! |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
But, considering what Hanzi stated earlier: Quote:
Edit: changed from "MH team" to "member of the MH team" - I really shouldnīt blame all as long as it isnīt clear if itīs the official team line. Thanks to JBG for indirectly pointing that out. |
Re: Support planet rule
It's a fairly retarded statement alright. Which multihunter was it that said that by the way or is this the official line of the whole team?
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
The information I have I talked through with Ace a couple of times. And I asked him to talk to his fellow MH's too, then he got back to me and this is the short summary of it. |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
Yes.
|
Re: Support planet rule
I really dont care either way tbh. If it isnt gonna be enforced then it really shouldnt be in the 'rulebook' in the first place - if it is then it needs to be taken seriously which should start off by closing or at least warning the biggest offenders. Either way I am happy but the current 'a rule that everyone politely ignores' system really isnt working.
I am however more worried about how many blatent farming episodes there have been this round, with no action taken to close them. Did remy do all the closing and the current MH's enjoy afk'ing and/or feeling important? |
Re: Support planet rule
I've heard of shipfarming cases where ships were removed but no closing of planet. Makes me wanna shipfarm next round. No real punishment if caught tbh.
|
Re: Support planet rule
remove this retarded "rule".
if someone want to use 500 planets to def oot, let them. |
Re: Support planet rule
Just for curiosity, whos been farming?
|
Re: Support planet rule
|
Re: Support planet rule
A lot of rules are broken, often. I agree with JBG; either hardcode it, or scrap the rule. I prefer hardcoding no def outside of alliance or cluster.
Multihunters miss too much stuff like xans and cats purposefully crashing on ziks. If they can't catch all the shenanigans that can't be hardcoded, then they shouldn't waste time looking for the ones that could easily be hardcoded. |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
The punishment should only be enforced on the planet in question, but it should be severe enough to discourage attempts of farming. Closure however should probably remain for repeated farming - itīs a bit of an extreme punishment for a first offense. |
Re: Support planet rule
I don't think closure is extreme tbh. Everyone that has played this game for more than one round knows that it's not allowed and thus shouldn't do it.
|
Re: Support planet rule
Maybe get back to the original topic of this thread and PUNISH THEM OOT DEFFERS!
|
Re: Support planet rule
it's not the support that needs hard coding, it's the state of relations between alliances.
- If 2 alliances decide to be allied: they can't attack each other, they can def each other with eta bonus - If 2 alliances declare war: they can't def each other - If 2 alliances are neutral: they can attack each and they can defend with no eta bonus The support rule is obsolete, when 2 alliances cooperate, it is ridiculous to expect them to set up joint attacks but not defense, especially when it's a block vs block war, with all 3 alliances of 1 block waving a single gal. |
Re: Support planet rule
Just code oogoocooa defense right out of the game.
simples. |
Re: Support planet rule
Hardcode it or abolish the rule entirely.
|
Re: Support planet rule
To be honest the rule is actually to hard to police these days, especially as there doesnt seem to be any consistancy in the MH Team with the rules (i have said this so many times over the past few rounds) for instance, you go to Ace and ask for a set of guidlines/rules of punishments etc then go ask another MH.. i can gaurentee you wont get the same answer.
We understand MHs are only human and somtimes their judgement might be different to another, but never the less their should still be set guidlines which should be followed. Anyway just scrap the rule now its ran its course |
Re: Support planet rule
Shh, you've quit.
But yeah, what he said. |
Re: Support planet rule
Yea, get rid of the rule, itīs pretty ridiculous to limit the options of interactivity in a multiplayer game really.
And itīs ridiculous to have rules as narrow as this one. |
Re: Support planet rule
ban out of ally out of tag def via hard coding .. problem solved.
It then doesnt matter if the person(s) have logmein or pcanywhere or some other means like a proxy etc. because the mechanics of the game prevents this from being of some use. This would then allow multi hunters to then just focus on the def from other allies members and gal members only. this would then lighten their workload. Quote:
I would prefer no def with alliances with a Neutral stance. |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
That shouldn't stop them hardcoding out oogoocooa def, and I find it extremely odd that they haven't especially in light of the fact that they have hardcoded out in-gal / in-alliance attacking. I do think though that arguing the point too strongly about this is a bit moot. Any game whose design rewards multis so strongly yet has absolutely no mechanism which can prevent them is very flawed indeed. |
Re: Support planet rule
Shut up paisely you fool. Limitations are bad, end of.
|
Re: Support planet rule
Blocking is bad, so at least don't stimulate it by providing blocks with rewards (faster def eta). And I wouldn't mind seeing it hardcoded.
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
There is a reason why there are rules to every game... stupid chookter :salute: |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
Obviously every game has rules, the rules define your options in the game. PA, at its most basic, could easily be summed up by 2 rules though. You only get 1 account and don't hack the game. These are the rules pa started with and it's worth pointing out that it was under this set of rules that pa expanded so dramatically. |
Re: Support planet rule
I really liked the old days
Where you had fi/co without pods and eta 1 and all ships with pods 2 or higher. That way there was always a way to get def. Hardcoded alliance or not. Made politics far more fluent.... |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
Is there a memo I've missed? |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
Some players/allys having dedicated support planets just for the sole purpose to def planets. whilst not high enough score/value to be worthwhile in tag. you can be lucky and get some sad bastard... er volunteer to be a support planet rather playing properly (and might have made the cut to be in the proper tag)... or most cases you get players making up additional accounts and access them in a way that they hope that they can get around the rules. either by the use of proxies or using addtional computers with different ip addresses (either local or remotely accessed) and keeping the accounts "seperate" with some folks using the above and some not this creates an unfair advantage/see this as a form of multi-ing. A way to remedy this is having an alliance limit and also hard coding out of alliance out of gal defense thus making a support planet pointless. You might call this restricting gameplay options, I call it keeping PA fair for ALL players. One of the reasons why fighter and corvette (fi/co) class ships are so popular as an attacking fleet is that it is harder to defend against it than frigates,destroyers,cruisers,battleships (fr,de,cr,bs) one of the reasons for this is unless the support planet is in the same cluster / gal or is able to get the launch right whilst the inc is prelaunched and still in base they cant meet the required travel time (eta). Fr/de/bs/cr can still be defended against with a lower class of ship and still meet the same eta. Having to choose a fi/co fleet as a non xan instead of a bs/cr fleet is what I call restricting my gameplay options (as I love having a bs/cr fleet and having the option to do a fake) just to "counter" support planets from defending against me. |
Re: Support planet rule
If some people choose not to receive oot defence, that's their business. Just because they don't like it doesn't mean no one should be allowed to use it.
I don't like cov ops much, you don't hear me clamoring for their removal. Quote:
|
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please, you obviously don't like out of tag planets but phrase your objections in terms of improving gameplay. Calling something unfair when it just isn't is ****ing retarded and how we ended up getting into this pile of shit rule in the first place. |
Re: Support planet rule
Quote:
Quote:
I am sure you dont like being roided but you dont want to prevent any attacks. thats part of the game |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2002 - 2018