About Alliance Retals

[cypher]

Originally posted by jonni
Well I never said that message receiver (galaxy mates) would be closed. I said that the farmee(your own planet) and farmer(attacker) would be locked since there is 'solid' proof in PA-messages and fleet movements which would indicate farm agreement. Attacker can't do much to to proof otherwise especially if those messages would say attackers nick etc intel data.

re, MrJ

btw. some of my bg members have allready used that tactic succesfully to lock top planets.

then if you are anything but an asshole you would have them kicked and roided. as that is the most pathetic thing someone can ever do. and if you knowingly agree to it then you're just as bad imo.

[Gerbie]

Consent would require both parties agreeing. The one roided wil show it by fleeing as he sees a fleet of pods incomming. For the one doing the roiding I would expect more proof then a msg by the one who is being roided.

[jonni]

Originally posted by Jackal2112
Ok you got a point but we are going off topic..

This thread is to discuss the fact that alliance retals can no longer happen due to PA rules. It's a bit confusing and a totally different subject, we are talking about retals, not farming here, something which will be made impossible (and i agree with that) especially in R10.

Well the original message of this thread is because top planet got locked with reason "farming" while perfoming alliance retal.

So in that sence this thread is also about farming and definition of farming.

And also R10 even if there are alliances in the code, but still there remains battlegroups that are outside alliances, like alliance member can be in multiple battlegroups which also have their own retal rules (which wont show as alliance mates attacking alliance mates, since its bg mates attacking bg mates which can be in different alliances).

re, MrJ

[Sun_Tzu]

MrJ(jonni)'s example applies to this round, that's all he tried to do and he succeeds with a good margin(especially as this method has been used succesfully).

And now to define why retals aren't farming(thought when abused they can be, abusing retals is farming, I agree on this, but the case that sparked my claim is the same as Biusa speaks of, it was harm done to the person who then was awarded the retal, abusing retals is not a question in this case):

in farming the farm is willingly giving away roids. there is no reason for him to do it other than that he wants to aid the farmer.

in a retal the punished has caused the punisher harm and has been presented with options, either make up for it by running your fleet from the attack or stay, defend, die and get kicked from the alliance. ofcourse he can choose to stay and defend, get help from m8s not in the alliance(the alliance has o/c been ordered to ignore his calls for help) and if he manages to scrape together the def needed he'll be kicked from his alliance and targeted anew by a bigger and more crushing force the next time his fleet is returning(i.e. fleetcatching). He has a choice, he doesn't do it for the will of helping the attacker, most often not even for the sake or remorse, he does it because it's the best option he has, he doesn't want to get kicked and have his planet destroyed and roided to oblivion, he wants a shot at keeping on playing and that is why he runs his fleet and complies with the attacker.

now do you see why a retal can't be held as farming? if you don't get it, find me in #strategy and we can have a more prolonged discussion in real time, otherwise I think I've made my point.

Sun_Tzu,
In unity lies strength (********* motto)

[cypher]

if someone attacks me from my own alliance. i don't just want his roids. i want his roids, kill his fleet, kick him from alliance and keep him down for the next 4 rounds.

if you actually think it's a valid tactic i suggest you spend more time in channels like #strategy and get some real pa players in there to discuss with.

[Wishmaster]

I agree with Cyphie, alliance retals are just too lame, either u want the person in the alliance, or u dont. And a good appology should sort things. An alliance consists of m8s..or should do.

[Morden]

/me waits for Attacking to be declared Illegal as it is harmful to the new players.

or will it be illegal to login more than 5 times a day?

these rules get more pathetic every round, the more rules there are, the more the creators have to enforce and thus the more gaps there are.

and thus you spend less time focusing on the harmful cheating and more time on the easy to spot relatively harmless cheating.

has anyone else noticed how much the total roid amount has gone down per player since farming was made illegal? it isnt just a matter of there being less players in the universe there are less roids per player, and thus the gameplay is harmed even more.

and as for alliance retals, the person under attack rarely agree's its more that he/she doesnt have much choice, they either submit or get killed, and thus it isnt farming.

unless of course every time you run because the attacker is bigger that it is farming?

[Cochese]

Originally posted by hAl
Firstly: I'm glad you are nt my HC cause authorised retals are wank.
Secondly: You are wrong (and Zeus was mostly right)

hAl

Firstly, if I was your HC, you wouldn't have lasted in my alliance for a day.

Secondly, well, your ignorance is your own problem.

[Zeus]

Originally posted by Gerbie
This is kinda nonsence. The attacker won't get closed. He didn't do anything wrong and there's no proof that he did.

Btw I don't agree that farming has to be reoccurring. Farming is farming, whether it is done once are more often. Allowing people to farm once would still allow farming. You just need a lot more farms. I therefore disagree with Cochese's about the difference he pointed out between a retal and a farm.

/me nods.

Agreeing to farm planet A once is no different than agreeing to farm planet B twice.

[Zeus]

Originally posted by jonni
Ofcourse it's nonsense, but has allready happened in this round, so how can you say that attacker won't get locked?

Thats the reason why I posted that example, since someone should give hunters some good guidelines about what is considered to be solid proof. As currently pa-messages also affects their lock desisions.

re, MrJ

a pamail messages proves nothing. However, it and other evidence cummilated togeaher can make a very clear picture. But noone would get closed/delted SOLEY because of a message an account recieved. Would be stupid.

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Zeus
"You creep, you have to be retailed for that"

I'm still not sure whether these references to consumer practice during a discussion on retalliation are clever puns or stupid typos. Since so many do it, I suppose it must be a pun; a few hundred people can't be wrong and all that

[Morden]

Originally posted by Ahriman
I'm still not sure whether these references to consumer practice during a discussion on retalliation are clever puns or stupid typos. Since so many do it, I suppose it must be a pun; a few hundred people can't be wrong and all that

your forgetting that 99% of pa is Illiterate(if thats spelt correct and yes that incluedes me hehe)

[jonni]

Originally posted by Zeus
a pamail messages proves nothing. However, it and other evidence cummilated togeaher can make a very clear picture. But noone would get closed/delted SOLEY because of a message an account recieved. Would be stupid.

Yes pamail itself isnt good enough proof, but if you also send your fleets away to def your attacker then thats second proof which could be cumulative be enough proof for the locking. With current farming definition by rules its basicly enough in theory to send your fleets away and report it to multihunter to get basis to lock, since attacker is getting free roids.
"Any attack launched with consent of the attacked planet’s user with the agreed goal of giving the attacking planet asteroids or ships, without suffering what is deemed as normal fleet losses in the process.."

But as some people have also said that its very evil to screw top planets by sacrifice own planet to get him locked too. Although in this round on some cases multihunters have been fooled and they have locked both attacker and target

Here's hint for top planets in the planetarion, who are either retaling, farming, or attacking for real (to countermeasure those evil multihunter report mails): Send pamail to your every target "Flee your fleets or I'll come and roid you again"

Benefits:
1. If your attacking real enemy, you might get free roids if target decides to flee because he doesnt want to see you again. (and their evil "do not def ingalaxy" mails will conflict with your attack mail)
2. If your retaling, its valid reason for target to flee especially if he doesnt mail anything to galaxy mates. Without memberlists its hard to say if its case 1 or case 2, even harder if its battlegroup retals from different alliances.
3. If your farming (like every top50 planet seems to), then its also a valid reason for the target to flee.


Although IMHO I have to admit getting roids from own alliance/BG members from retaling to boost top planets before the round ends would be considered farming in my eyes.

Im just trying to be provoke conversation that how can a hunter know 100% when its case 1 or 2 or 3 going on? With current farming definition all 3 cases can be considered farming because attacker gets roids without suffering what is deemed as normal fleet losses in the process, although for sure case 1 and on some rare occasions case 2 are not farming.

re, MrJ

[Zeus]

Originally posted by Sun_Tzu
MrJ(jonni)'s example applies to this round, that's all he tried to do and he succeeds with a good margin(especially as this method has been used succesfully).

And now to define why retals aren't farming(thought when abused they can be, abusing retals is farming, I agree on this, but the case that sparked my claim is the same as Biusa speaks of, it was harm done to the person who then was awarded the retal, abusing retals is not a question in this case):

in farming the farm is willingly giving away roids. there is no reason for him to do it other than that he wants to aid the farmer.

in a retal the punished has caused the punisher harm and has been presented with options, either make up for it by running your fleet from the attack or stay, defend, die and get kicked from the alliance. ofcourse he can choose to stay and defend, get help from m8s not in the alliance(the alliance has o/c been ordered to ignore his calls for help) and if he manages to scrape together the def needed he'll be kicked from his alliance and targeted anew by a bigger and more crushing force the next time his fleet is returning(i.e. fleetcatching). He has a choice, he doesn't do it for the will of helping the attacker, most often not even for the sake or remorse, he does it because it's the best option he has, he doesn't want to get kicked and have his planet destroyed and roided to oblivion, he wants a shot at keeping on playing and that is why he runs his fleet and complies with the attacker.

now do you see why a retal can't be held as farming? if you don't get it, find me in #strategy and we can have a more prolonged discussion in real time, otherwise I think I've made my point.

Sun_Tzu,
In unity lies strength (********* motto)

I completely understand your point. But as someone pointed out earlier, the rules of an alliance is not the rules of Planetarion.

The only clear cut way to outlaw farming, is outlaw any agreed attack between the attacker & the defender. Rules have to as clear cut as that.

In your example above, the HC (or whomever decided on your alliance rules) has authorised an agreed attack. The person getting attacked knows he must run his fleet or just accept the result. Again this is the rules of your alliance, NOT Planetarion and guess which rules gets enforced regardless if your alliance memebers agree to it or not?

This is the point Im making, not that an alliance cant decide what rules it plays by, but purely pointing out that as farming is illegal, agreed retails is the same as farming, but with your HC's/Alliance's approval. That in essence is the only difference between farming & retals. How many times you do it makes no difference at all. Fact is you did an agreed attack, knowing the outcome and to an individuals benifit.

Because your HC says you can do it, doesnt make it ok to break the rules of PA, and if you got closed because you did a retal with your HC's approval, then you took the risk, you gambled, and if you get closed for it, you and your HC will have to live by it.

[jonni]

Originally posted by Zeus
I completely understand your point. But as someone pointed out earlier, the rules of an alliance is not the rules of Planetarion.

The only clear cut way to outlaw farming, is outlaw any agreed attack between the attacker & the defender. Rules have to as clear cut as that.

That basicly means that if you want to roid your own alliance members, then you just launch attack on alliance mate without approval of HC or target. And put big enough attacking fleets to fly so target has to run away to save his fleet.

That way you are not breaking planetarion rules in any way (although alliance rules are broken, but as we know: alliance rules < pa rules) and you would get your roids in legit way. So the solution is to retal without permissions if you want to follow pa rules.

re, MrJ

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Zeus
That in essence is the only difference between farming & retals.

The difference between farming and retals is that a farm is willingly giving roids up. Someone who is on the receiving end generally is not. While retals are not necessarily a particularly pleasant part of the game, I don't think you can equate them with the detrimental effects farming can have.

What if a dominant alliance kicks a member and roids them. You could argue that they "know" there's going to be no defence. So surely they shouldn't be able to attack since they "know" the outcome of the attack before it's launched.

In R3 I (for a time) shared a galaxy with splatpack. He had a retal against him by someone (can't remember who) who was escorted by Sid. A msg was sent to the gal that anyone defending would be roided. The combination of fleets sent were such that even if Splat ran for one tick and then pulled he'd still be ****ed in 3rd. Basically, I can see no way that that can be compared to farming.

I agree rules need to be simple to understand. Their enforcement does not have to be as black and white, however. Killing someone in the UK is illegal (obviously). However, sometimes people who have killed have not faced criminal charges, or have been found not guilty, if charged.

[Ahriman]

Alliances are being built into the game, presumably diplomacy is too, so that it too can be regulated more thoroughly to allow alliances, but not powerblocking. If it's built into the game properly, then you shouldn't be able to attack people in your alliance or those people in alliances that have relations with yours. So there would be no need for retals.

Of course, this would work superbly if 'galaxy NAPs' could be switched on by alliance HC as per agreements. Otherwise you'd still have people with crap reasons for retals.

So basically it's up to PA Team. Do it properly and there won't be a problem; screw it up and there will be. Not that I don't have confidence in your abilities to write a game, I just don't have too much confidence in your ability to provide for all reasonable circumstances generated by inclusion of alliances. I could be completely wrong, and you could have anticipated all of this and more.

If you're willing to give people the chance to be twats, then they will - give us a inch, we'll take a mile. Don't give us that chance.

[Zeus]

Originally posted by Ahriman
Alliances are being built into the game, presumably diplomacy is too, so that it too can be regulated more thoroughly to allow alliances, but not powerblocking. If it's built into the game properly, then you shouldn't be able to attack people in your alliance or those people in alliances that have relations with yours. So there would be no need for retals.

Of course, this would work superbly if 'galaxy NAPs' could be switched on by alliance HC as per agreements. Otherwise you'd still have people with crap reasons for retals.

So basically it's up to PA Team. Do it properly and there won't be a problem; screw it up and there will be. Not that I don't have confidence in your abilities to write a game, I just don't have too much confidence in your ability to provide for all reasonable circumstances generated by inclusion of alliances. I could be completely wrong, and you could have anticipated all of this and more.

If you're willing to give people the chance to be twats, then they will - give us a inch, we'll take a mile. Don't give us that chance.

Hi there! This is some of the ideas put forward for round 10 plans and alliance intergration...indeed retals shouldnt be possible without kicking the individual out.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Zeus
Hi there! This is some of the ideas put forward for round 10 plans and alliance intergration...indeed retals will not be possible without kicking the individual out.

What's to stop someone being kicked and then readmitted the next day/tick?

[Zeus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What's to stop someone being kicked and then readmitted the next day/tick?

It would be silly to allow someone kicked from allaince and readmitted next tick/day or whatever. So offcrouse an individual can not be admitted for a time period.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Zeus
It would be silly to allow someone kicked from allaince and readmitted next tick/day or whatever. So offcrouse an individual can not be admitted for a time period.

just another advantage for big alliances which have to split in halfs if there is a max member count.

[Sun_Tzu]

Originally posted by Zeus
In your example above, the HC (or whomever decided on your alliance rules) has authorised an agreed attack. The person getting attacked knows he must run his fleet or just accept the result. Again this is the rules of your alliance, NOT Planetarion and guess which rules gets enforced regardless if your alliance memebers agree to it or not?

ok, there's a tiny flaw in your reasoning which actually makes a retal the same as a normal attack. As you yourself recognise the target of the retal has to run his fleet or accept the conseqvences. If I'm attack normally the target still has to either run his fleet or accept conseqvences. The reason this happens less often(percentually) is because in when normally under attack your alliance will do it's darnest to defend you(don't allways count on your gal to do this, especially not in a random round), when being retald you quite often have no chance of getting defence and even if you do you'll only be hit again later. Retals are not farming, it's just a member of an alliance being forced(by his/her alliance) to flee since they can't take the conseqvences. They still allways have the option of staying, of standing up to the alliance and taking those conseqvences, just as in any normal attack, suffering loss of fleet or roids or more. The fact that there are options and that the attacker never quite knows wether he'll run or stay and defy his alliance makes the difference.

Furthermore, this thread was not supposed to specificly be about any one case, but as the case that sparked this thread has allready been mentioned I feel it might be worth noteing that the person doing the retal used(or so I'm told and he doesn't tend to lie) a fleet of 666vultures and also has another fleet of 666vultures aswell as his full attacking force. The fleet launched was the 1st, pure vulture fleet. But with the current military scans the target didn't know that. Now that fact that his attacker was big as all hell, sending what may or may not be his full fleet at him and his alliance denying defence...I'd say even if it was a retal it was a normal xanda attack, even without any agreement, without any messages to the gal, nobody would have been mad enough to defend against that, not as they could see his alliance weren't gonna do anything to help him.

[Biusa]

Originally posted by Jackal2112
Especially brainwashed people like Biusa;

Am I the brainwashed here If I just want to express other views of this topic? I know the rules of the game, and am aware of the law etc.
I am just saying that people who don't want to ruin their relations with that one person / alliance / group of people(as this game is wank enough alone, the community is a reason for some to be here) get a stamp in their forehead that says: "farm". Best part in this is that if they get closed, and the attacker too.

Originally posted by Zeus
a pamail messages proves nothing. However, it and other evidence cummilated togeaher can make a very clear picture. But noone would get closed/delted SOLEY because of a message an account recieved. Would be stupid.

Ingame messages seem to have a bit too much effect on MultiHunters decision. If I can be assed I'll show you an example soon. If they keep acting like they have, whole lotta big planets could get closed before the end of r9.5.

Originally posted by jonni
Im just trying to be provoke conversation that how can a hunter know 100% when its case 1 or 2 or 3 going on? With current farming definition all 3 cases can be considered farming because attacker gets roids without suffering what is deemed as normal fleet losses in the process, although for sure case 1 and on some rare occasions case 2 are not farming.

Indeed. I know they are more trigger-happy now that it's a free round and people are "able to cheat more". But I'm also glad that some people I know didn't have to pay for this round. We'll see if they are ever again willing to do so. (Great way to lose customers btw)

Originally posted by Zeus
In your example above, the HC (or whomever decided on your alliance rules) has authorised an agreed attack. The person getting attacked knows he must run his fleet or just accept the result. Again this is the rules of your alliance, NOT Planetarion and guess which rules gets enforced regardless if your alliance memebers agree to it or not?

"An agreed attack" doesn't have to be withing the alliance. For example, some alliances / HC's could require their members to ask for a permission to hit anyone. HC agrees, very well.
If the target is in a situation where he either flees or accepts the result, even if he was in the same alliance or not, I think that's a PLANETARION RULE / CODE too. If you dont flee you die. If you're in the alliance, you die and lose your last chance to be friendly with them.

With the current set of Planetarion rules (and alliance rules) you can get accused of farming very easily eventho "technically" you were nowhere close to farming. So all you big poms out there, take a hint of what jonni has said or one morning you might wake up and find yourself being closed due to farming.

Originally posted by Sun_Tzu
ok, there's a tiny flaw in your reasoning...

Exactly. If "alliance rules" aren't "planetarion rules" - why should them effect the decision made by the MultiHunters? WTF is it to the target if he's getting hit by some huge-ass planet, he either flees or DIES. End of story.

[ComradeRob]

A retal isn't farming. The person attacked doesn't have to run his fleet, and probably will not want to. The fact that he is being coerced into doing so is no different from someone being threatened via PA mail.

Conversations between attackers and their targets are not uncommon. Often if my target has no defence I will tell him he should just cut his losses and run his fleet, as it benefits neither of us if he stays. He loses ships, I lose ships, nobody benefits from that. Does that mean that I am farming?

The alliance retal is not really any different. The person being attacked is not necessarily forewarned of the retal, the only difference from a normal attack is that their alliance will not defend them. There might be some coercion, but the target has the same choice that my hypothetical target mentioned above. He can keep his fleet home with no other defence, probably lose a substantial chunk of it along with losing his roids, or he can run, save his fleet, and take the roid loss. Just like my original example. I really can't see the difference between the two examples.

A lot of people will say "alliance retals are lame cuz i don't like them"; it is often a common factor between these people that they have never been HC and have never had to figure out an alternative means of punishing misbehaving members.

As an aside, retals are a lot less common than people think, and are not used in such a corrupt manner as people think. I have been HC in several rounds and have never taken part in a retal on a member of my own alliance. I've always refused to grant them unless there was a clear case for it. Personally I feel that if someone refuses to recall an attack or defence on the order of their HC, they should just be kicked instantly rather than have a 'retal' ordered on them. Likewise, an accidental offence should not require punishment, as it was only accidental.

Cases of people carrying out retals on members of their own alliance are extremely rare. If someone commits a direct and deliberate offence against their own alliance, they are normally kicked. Any attack on them is not a 'retal' as such, it's just a normal attack on an unallied planet.

The kind of retals that most people are familiar with are retals on misbehaving galaxy members, in private galaxy powerblock rounds. These can certainly not be classed as farming, as the planet being attacked is not a member of the alliance attacking him/her and so is under much less direct threat.

[cypher]

rob problem here is if you attack someone in your own alliance. it means you can 'handle' him and kill/roid him, even if it is done by mistake. so let's say you done that and took his roids. then how can that same guy actually be big enough to take them back?

if i am 10 mil and i attack a 5 mil guy, that guy won't be able to roid me back without help or me willingly pulling my fleet out of the fight, meaning farming.

add to this the fact that if another member of the alliance/gal does the retal it's not really the same retal anymore is it?
i think we can all agree to the fact it would be farming then.

[The_Fish]

Originally posted by cyphie
if i am 10 mil and i attack a 5 mil guy, that guy won't be able to roid me back without help or me willingly pulling my fleet out of the fight, meaning farming.

which explains how lockhead got roided last round by someone half his size?

[jonni]

Originally posted by cyphie
rob problem here is if you attack someone in your own alliance. it means you can 'handle' him and kill/roid him, even if it is done by mistake. so let's say you done that and took his roids. then how can that same guy actually be big enough to take them back?

if i am 10 mil and i attack a 5 mil guy, that guy won't be able to roid me back without help or me willingly pulling my fleet out of the fight, meaning farming.

add to this the fact that if another member of the alliance/gal does the retal it's not really the same retal anymore is it?
i think we can all agree to the fact it would be farming then.

Well that 5 mill dude can be defening against the attack of 20 mill dude preventing him to land (thus causing harm and reason for retal). So 20mill dude retals on 5 mill dude, and he flees because dont want to see his ships burn in sky.

Or in the other way if the 20mill dude is retaled then alliance launches 50mill fleetscore without pods on attack to escort the 5 mill dude, maybe then he flees or dies if not fleeing.

Different kinds of retals on different scenarios (ie escorting and very rarely getting roids back). Although on recent rounds retals are quite rare, since members usually knows to check their arbiters and follow alliance rules, since they know that they are buttraped if they dont. Luckily I havent had to order retals for couple of rounds, but if some member doesnt follow HC orders, then I wouldnt think two minutes before teaching him a lesson.

Well actually my critic is more towards current hunters mixed up policies to lock planets without 100% proof, seems that they lock everyone even with 50% proof and are waiting to see if planet owner comes to bitch or not. Maybe free round allows this, but on p2p round that kind of policy will get paying customers to run away.

Farming is bad 'mkey, but hunters shouldnt lock people on normal attacks (retals are normal attacks too, usually they are done to enemy planets and very seldom on own alliance mates) if target flees.

And NO, I'm not bitching about my account, it is still open and I havent been locked since round3. Although if biggest enemy happens to attack me, I might test my luck to see if I would be locked based on pa-message and fleet movements.

re, MrJ

[Biusa]

Indeed... If it's gonna be like this, I'll put my planet in delete before MultiHunters can do it... And never open www.planetarion.com again.

*wake up call to MultiHunters*

BTW the one who is in charge ot the multihunters crew should tell them to act in a more mature way. I've had no problems (yet) with multihunters but I hear a lot of complaining from people who have had, for a reason or without. Even if there was a reason for a planet closure the MHs shouldn't act like an ass and sh*t bricks on the dudes face who tries to solve the situation.
People who get closed "without a reason" are obviously pissed, and eventho they would act very calmly they sometimes receive very harsh and childish acting from the multihunters.
I hope the Trigger-happy season ends before r10. Just because people didn't pay for this round they're not supposed to get closed. If they do, I wonder if they'll pay in the future.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by cyphie
rob problem here is if you attack someone in your own alliance. it means you can 'handle' him and kill/roid him, even if it is done by mistake. so let's say you done that and took his roids. then how can that same guy actually be big enough to take them back?

'Accidentally' roiding a member of your own alliance is extremely difficult to do. No competent player is going to be offline when his attack lands, so there is ample time for a recall mail to be sent, and for the attacker to recall. If he refuses to recall, any decent alliance would kick him. Thus the retal problem is solved.

if i am 10 mil and i attack a 5 mil guy, that guy won't be able to roid me back without help or me willingly pulling my fleet out of the fight, meaning farming.

Not alone, no. But it's perfectly possible for others to assist him in getting his roids back, and that would not be farming, would it?

add to this the fact that if another member of the alliance/gal does the retal it's not really the same retal anymore is it?
i think we can all agree to the fact it would be farming then.

Err, no. Let's imagine we're both in the same alliance. You attack me, I lose roids. However, I can't hit you back, as I don't have enough fleet (maybe you killed my fleet attacking me or something). So, I complain to the HC, and they get the alliance's biggest planet to attack you as punishment, and order the alliance not to defend you. Where is the farming here?

[Scouse]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
So, I complain to the HC, and they get the alliance's biggest planet to attack you as punishment, and order the alliance not to defend you. Where is the farming here?

The definition of farming, as far as PA crew are concerned, is when someone launches an attack knowing they will meet no defence, and get roids.

So in your example, to them, it counts as farming.




Alliances shouldn't have to discipline members, or their galaxy mates, with retals. They should either follow the rules or lose all protection. I always thought retals were the 'easy' way out for HC, and it's certainly less of a deterrant than removal of all protection.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Scouse
The definition of farming, as far as PA crew are concerned, is when someone launches an attack knowing they will meet no defence, and get roids.

So in your example, to them, it counts as farming.

That's simply not true. There is no such certainty in this situation at all. What the alliance is doing is invoking the 'do not defend against the alliance' rule, and ordering its members not to defend the person being under attack. This does not preclude him from getting defence from alternative sources, or joining another alliance to get defence from. "Shouldn't" get defence and "couldn't" get defence are often very different things. Perhaps the best example would be Fury's retal on Dinoman in r3. By the Fury/Legion rules, he should not have got defence, the retal should have gone through. And had he not been defended, he would have run his fleet. But he was defended, and the retal was thwarted. Retals do not equal guaranteed roids, as this and plenty of other cases prove.

Consider it like this: if the person was kicked from the alliance 10 seconds before the retal was launched, would it still be farming? The alliance would still be ordering its members not to defend him, in all respects the attack would be identical. And what if, perhaps, after 24 hours he was allowed to rejoin? Would it now not be farming because he wasn't a member of the alliance at the time he was attacked?

Alliances shouldn't have to discipline members, or their galaxy mates, with retals. They should either follow the rules or lose all protection. I always thought retals were the 'easy' way out for HC, and it's certainly less of a deterrant than removal of all protection.

I agree, I'm not defending retals as a system, I'm just arguing that they are not farming.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
This does not preclude him from getting defence from alternative sources, or joining another alliance to get defence from.

I understand your point, the defending planet is still losing out, and is most likely 100% against having it's roids taken, unlike farms. However, most retals arn't launched without confirmation of no defence being gathered.


The problem is when HC get confirmation from a planet that they will not get any defence, from alliance mates, galaxy mates or other friends. This type is what I think this thread is about. The type where a HC simply allow an attack on a planet without any prior agreement or knowledge of the target planet can't be called farming. However, most good HC's simply wouldn't carry out this type of retal as it's pretty much a kick in the teeth to the member, and would in most cases result in the member leaving.

[hAl]

Originally posted by Cochese
Firstly, if I was your HC, you wouldn't have lasted in my alliance for a day.

As I said, a HC that accepts mutally agreed authorised retals is wank and will never be my HC, so you don't haveto worry about that. I do wonder why I wouldn't have lasted in your alliance for a day though.

Secondly, well, your ignorance is your own problem.

Luckily a find myself in good company as most people seem to agree that authorised retals constitute a form of farming. Off course we are all ignorant to you. And off course you are free to disagree but if you ever do an authorised retal or consent into one and are closed for it you can blame in on our ignorance cause obviously after reading this thread you still think it should be allowed.

hAl

[hAl]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
I agree, I'm not defending retals as a system, I'm just arguing that they are not farming.

Retals are not farming unless the alliance orders the defender to give up his roids without trying to defend them. If they do however demand that and the defending planet agrees to keep his alliance status then it is farming. As he consents in giving a way his roids in trade for protection by his alliance. Such an agreement constitutes a from of farming.

Off course withholding alliance defence to a memberplanet on a retal does not constitute farming as the defending planet in that case does not have a deal with his alliance but just gets shot in the back (which for a blatant rule breaker might be a fine solution)

hAl

[JonnyBGood]

Comedy gold++ I'm getting retalled right now for roiding inside a parallel alliance I didn't even know I was in. It's a strange old life. I wonder if I send my fleet away now can I get all my attackers deleted heh? Not to mention the fact that the guy I actually roided isn't even attacking me.




PS Ah well doesn't matter. I just wanted to see if I could roid a top gal after five rounds of inactivity :)