[Baracke]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

Quite agree: the more I think about it, unless they can remove the advantages of multis and planet sharers, trying to enforce any "rules" other than "don't hack the servers" seems about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Besides the fact that you limit the freedom of the players with every rule.

If i take a look at the support planet rules i would violate some of them just by playing "freelancer" with a light connection to friends i played along with.

For example.

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 rule is bendable like hell i could easy undermine the 25% on purpose if i would be aware of it ...
And the 3 times limitation harms my gameplay freedom.
If i would chose to play a round unallied to not get involved in the alliance stuff and would be willing to help some friends that are allied if i got in the mood and possibility to do so. This rule could obviously collide with my desired playstyle.

The funny part is the "***" obviously by creating this rule the creator of it was aware of this fact.

*** The cases will be judged on their individual merits. Those consistently playing at the
limit of the rules may be taken into consideration, and there is always a right to appeal.

Why apply a rule that is harmful to the interest of some players and needs judgement in every case ?!?
Ignoring the fact that such rules tend to not be applied after all under this circumstances.

Well back from this to the OOT def.

If you would get rid of it you would erase all crossover ally cooperation.
You would force any none allied player into in gal stuff regardless if his unboundness is his own interest or because he can't get into a desired ally bunch, besides this maybe a way to get a foot in the door to join an alliance if you show your willingness to help this way.
etc.

Another reglementaion in the downward direction.
And because of what ? Beeing upset about rare OOT def or ally blocks that actualy coordinate out of tag def as strategicaly depth ? In all the rounds i played i had no real problem with OOT def anyway cause it was rarlely the case. Most of the support planets weren't even big ones because the effort into playing them was limited and therefor the benefit of their def were limited , too. Guess JBG was refering to this one allready. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Paisley

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.

I am still wondering how OOT def will force you into doing this as a main reason besides i still lack to see the difference on this point if it is OOT or general def. You can defend FR/DE and BS/CR waves in tag with lower class ships within 2 ticks anyway, why is the the OOT 1 tick possible lower class def disadvantage higher ranked than the in tag one ? Same reason why you would chose FI/CO instead of CR/BS . Ever heard of a strategy called recall/resend ?
You can outrun the OOT def if you are clever enough to use it.
If you cut the lower requirements on research and the mainly strategical reason to go fi/co as advantage in strategic reasons in general it maybe become one but would still be a weak one compared to the times i encounter this during the rounds i played.
The stats compared to general advantage of the lower eta and therefore less reaction time on attack fleets are mainly the reason to choose it this way , besides you can still obey this none the less.
And i wonder why you want "freedom" in this way with limiting "freedom" in another way (like the freelancer way i actualy did play in some rounds).
You would take strategic depth out of the game and restricting gameplay options (wich the actual support planet rules do allready ) for limiting an ignorable sideeffect or beneficial coordination from alliances in general.
Bit hypocrit i guess.