Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
BAH
posted in wrong forum again, if a mod wants to move it go for it....my fingers dont want to cooperate atm |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Why would we need to be consulted beforehand?
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Probably someone was convinced that there was too much cheating among ship cov opers. My suggestion for next rounds stats, if there is a ship that can be a form a good team-up with another race, give it a pod.
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
I am not sure if I like the alliance fleet limitation in conjugation with the alliance limit being 60 with 40 counting. The alliance fleet did make it nice for smaller less active alliances who now have a better chance of defending vs incomings at bad times. But now that they are limited to only 30 launches in a 24 hour period the bigger and/or more organized alliances will be able to drain alliance fleets quicker. Making war more profitable is always good and the cov op change will help combat farm planets (hopefully). Or at least make it more obvious so hunters can now close planets easier. @BButcher Kindly go away. You always post things and try to derail the original post/topic with whatever axe you have to grind coming from that imaginary brain of yours. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Pre-launch bug also fixed.
Alliance fleets adjustment is ok, let's see if something changes. I thought there would be whining about the cov op change. It clear states that cov op is not to be used for fleet adjustment. I think there should be an alternative, like being able to select an extra pod before tick starts. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
There should be an option to steal only a certain class and only pods through cov oping
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Thread's been moderated, please stay on topic.
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
Seeing the change mz/benneh brought upon PA, the ship cov-op was a natural change after last round? Im pretty sure that soon we will have to remove steal ships and roid stealing, as removing ship covopping wont be sufficient. RexDrax obviously aint paying much attention if he feels that the changes hasnt been alerted for quite some time. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
In the past, prior to mz/benneh paid of Ace i guess, you would get closed if you built only pods to be covop/stolen or if you initiated roids only to get stolen. This was practised, even though the rules mightve been claiming that it had to be an agreement between attacker/covopper and the farm, wich you cant prove ever unless it was agreed upon through ingame mail. The rules/practise was changed to suit Mz/Bennehs strat, norse simply abused this to covop CO pods for free last round. Or maybe you think pod covopping was randomly removed for this round? |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
If you keep making things up then no one is gonna believe you when you have a genuine issue. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
You are free to belive what you want.
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
Mz/Benneh is not denying what they did, neither is Norse |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
I think not. When you actually have proof they are guilty of something then present it along with your accusation. Until then you are slandering them and are the one in the wrong. Constantly accusing and abusing individuals on here is a bannable offence I believe. Maybe a mod should look into that |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
The rules were changed, after r67 you cant get closed for being a farm, unless the MH proves there is an agreement(only ingame mail confession/agreement mail is valud evidence) |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
Go ask the MHs |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
What I know you actually mean is that the MH team took on the case, assessed the information and made a decision, which you disagree with. This has happened on many occasions over many rounds. They did their job and made a decision. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
It was a legitimate way of playing, pretty boring tbh but if high ranking and trolling emotional players are the objectives then do it. I refused to attack any of them that round. How many Bows launched on them? What did you do to deter that kind of behaviour? Nothing other than frowning on it. As the leader of one of the biggest ally's in the game you really should have done more. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
Besides that, what could Bows have done? Prayed more? |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
After i joined i got one guy that attacked them kicked out, after all members had been warned to NOT ATTACK them through ally mail. Looking at the preliminary inc stats on that gal, BowS sent 0,6% of the fleets that was sent at mz/benneh, or 6/1000 fleets if you wish. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Butcher just likes to skew the rules to justify his round on round inadequacies and his alliance (bows) allows him to make them look like fools. Says a lot about the competence there.
It has never been frowned upon to init roids. Intact it's been a staple of fort play as long as I have been here. The issue is init WHEN you have incommings, which gives the attacker extra roids. This is not allowed and is a closable offence. Benneh et al didn't do this, which is why they weren't closed. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to defend your incommings, nor that you have to send a certain amount of ships/value when defending. So again no rule broken there. Advertising you aren't going to defend via your gal or r/p name is very much a grey area as names and slogans can be interpreted differently. That is solely up to the MH to decide, which they did, and the names stayed. That's all there is to it. End of. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
Still doesn't mean Benneh breached the EULA. It was a very clever way of playing, albeit, boring. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
In the past you would get closed for stuff like this, now you dont. If you disagree please show examples for this not being true in the past. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
@BButcher
As Kaiba already mentioned there was no announcement or anything given to the general community regarding the changes made to the upcoming round. That is why I posted the original thread and the reason I posted what I did when I asked you to go away is because all you always seem to do is bring up past items which have been discussed in other threads to death. Hell if I remember correctly you have even been banned at least once from the forums. With respect to the whole benneh/mz win, good for them. Hell if I thought of that strategy and gotten my friends to go along with it and make a gal/bp and make us such an attractive target that others keep attacking us so I can get lots of XP I would have done the same thing. They came up with a original way of playing the game that was not done in the past. Minimal effort required on their part and all you have to do is defend in gal so you can even sleep longer. Nowhere in the rules does it say you are not allowed to initiate roids even though there is pretty much no chance in you keeping them. I know some people on purpose init up to 500 roids when tick starts because they want incomings and want to be able to steal ships. Same tactic that benneh used but nobody has been screaming about them. Guess it must be because its benneh and the fact that BB didnt think of it sooner or implement it. Notice I did not talk about any collusion or agreement between people to purposely attack bennehs gal. Too much of a grey area and its up to the MH/Admins to make a decision on it. They have so we just move on with it since none of us are the Admins. @lokken Thanks for moderating the thread |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Well this is where you might not be up to scratch with what is actualy happening ingame, and perhaps behind "closed" doors.
The changes to cov-op was more or less "set in stone" once people started to use the same approach to the rules as Benneh/Mz regarding setting up "pod farms". It is not against the rules, what so ever, to build pods and not log in for the next week, and then suddently half the univers had cov-opped all your pods while you was away. Unless you can prove there is a agreement between part A and part B, you cannot ever get closed for farming after the Benneh/Mz incident. Are you surprised that pod cov-opping was removed now as theyve allowed farming to take place? If you are this out-of-sync with what is actualy happening around in the univers, perhaps it would be better to just stay away from bothering your mind with what ever changes PA crew does each round? |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Quote:
Are you denying this, or is anyone denying, that giving away roids or ships for free wasnt a punishable offense earlier? Im sure, even though its prolly 15 years since you last played, that you remeber someone that was closed for giving away roids for free, or giving away ships for free? What Ace has said, wich is the new changes to the rules, that unless you can prove that there is an agreement between farmer/farmed, they wont close anyone. And the ONLY acceptable proof of a farming agreement is that farmer/farmed agreed upon this through ingame mail, wich only admins/MHs have access to. IRC logs as proof? Not accepted. Whatsapp/SMS/telegram log as proof? Not accepted. If you are in doubt, go ask Ace yourself. and/or ask lunar_lamp/cin/appoco or any of the other PA team for trollz aswell. |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Nobody can post logs, and apparently PA Team aren't going to comment.
Seems pretty pointless to continue this then doesn't it? |
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Or we can continue ranting untill PA team starts commenting ;)
|
Re: Round 69 PA mail from PA HQ
Well yeah I suppose there is that.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:09. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018