New Rule

[Assassin]

Due to the rising tactic of registering a number of planets for the sole purpose of alliance defence that remain out of the alliance tag, we have been forced to make a rule change.
The reason for this is that the alliance limit is there for a reason. It is unfair on the smaller alliances and unbalanced the gameplay when a large alliance creates these dummy planets for the sole purpose of unofficially increasing the size of their alliance.
This tactic has been named "OOGOOA Defence" (out of alliance, out of gal defence) and is now deemed an offense. If you are caught practising this tactic you will be put under investigation and closure. (Bassicaly there called Support planets That was kloopys name for them above)

For any more information on this issue feel free to join the channel #Multihunters on Netgamers and speak to myself or any other member of the MH Team. Also you can email me at [email protected]. If you have any information about any members abusing this new rule please inform myself or another MH ASAP. As i see this as making it unfair for planets who are obiding by the alliance limits (member limits)

Let me just clarify somthing. Galaxy defence is allowed before i get pms regarding that. As that is of course always aloud 9As in defending members in your gal that are not in the same alliances which is obviously always aloud). And cluster defence is also allowed but will be watched so it isnt abused. Any other Support offered will be investigated.


MH Manager

Assassin

Originally Posted by Marv

Please excuse the way this is chosen to be worded. This was said in #support by me in the past 30mins ish and I think it sums this all up pretty nicely. 
----

This system is to stop planets that are being build to PURELY increase the size of an alliance just un officially. Thus getting themselves around the limits currently in place.

As I have tried to say before, the MH will not just look at a planet, see it has out of alliance defended and out of galled and then close it. We will look for specific patters to see were this defense is coming from / going too. If we find that a planet is purely defending the members of one alliance all the time then it will look slightly suspicious to us, and could result in a closure of the planet in question.

We are not just going to suddenly close every planet that defends their mate.

You are all looking at this form a way to extreme point of view.

Try too see what we have put in place, a method to prevent alliance from getting round the new limits and to try to level out the game and give the smaller alliances more of a chance.

[ChipZ^]

Lollyroffle

[Phil^]

a good move imo.
It should be noted that planets created for this sole purpose are the ones likely to be closed.
Those people who occasionally defend a friend who is in a different alliance, but not the alliance as a whole arent likely to be affected.

[Kloopy]

Absolutely, Phil.

[Judge]

What a load of bull

[Heartless]

First of all I think it is another of those sad days where the Game Administration has to put in another restriction on the players freedom just because a minority wishes to exploit every source possible to gain advantages over others.

Apart from that I have to say: "Finally". I guess I cannot speak for everyone but personally I am fed up with launching attacks and seeing some small cathaar planets which only got vipers/beetles and maybe 20 mosquitos as alibi ships in their fleets.

If people would stick to the existing limits and not try to find another way for exploitation, then we wouldn't need this. But all in all it is good to see that the game administration does not simply ignore it when trouble rises.

edit: maybe some PD mod would like to pin this thread so that it always appears pretty far up. Maybe a game admin would like to put a link to this thread on overview, so that everyone gets to know it.

[Incredible]

What about the planets you have closed for this, BEFORE you made the new rule, they're still closed.. Shame on you PA tem, shame on you.

[bwtmc]

I think it becomes a problem when a very loyal member of an alliance can't be active enough to play for them in their name but is still loyal to the cause, and wants to repay the help they've had from others for a number of rounds.

Under what justification do you keep Scanners open then?

How shortsighted, or am I wrong?

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Incredible

What about the planets you have closed for this, BEFORE you made the new rule, they're still closed.. Shame on you PA tem, shame on you.

Yes, sigh.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think it becomes a problem when a very loyal member of an alliance can't be active enough to play for them in their name but is still loyal to the cause, and wants to repay the help they've had from others for a number of rounds.

Under what justification do you keep Scanners open then?

How shortsighted, or am I wrong?

Well put

[bwtmc]

Same old shit in all honesty.


Where's the information regarding this in PA-mail or In-game at all for the 2000 players that don't use the forums?

[hondaman]

So if understand it, alliances are creating accounts/planets that are used for support, either on attack or defense, but these planets arent wearning the alliance tag, or otherwise havent officially joined the alliance in-game?

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Phil^

a good move imo.
It should be noted that planets created for this sole purpose are the ones likely to be closed.
Those people who occasionally defend a friend who is in a different alliance, but not the alliance as a whole arent likely to be affected.

Yeah I agree, yet I think there was an account looked at for just two defences.

[Kargool]

I totally disagree with this. This is the biggest load of crap i've heard in my time in PA.

Cant you PA team do ANYTHING right.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by hondaman

So if understand it, alliances are creating accounts/planets that are used for support, either on attack or defense, but these planets arent wearning the alliance tag, or otherwise havent officially joined the alliance in-game?

No, that isn't quite the truth, altho the PA team wants us to think that.

Theese so called "defence planets" are mostly scanners, and as a scanner, you belong to an alliance ofcourse, but as the PA team got that 80 member rule, the scanners are left out of the tag. Scanners are AFAIK allowed to build ships, but obviously, the pa team doesnt like scanner fleets defending their respective alliances.

[sigrid]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think it becomes a problem when a very loyal member of an alliance can't be active enough to play for them in their name but is still loyal to the cause, and wants to repay the help they've had from others for a number of rounds.

Under what justification do you keep Scanners open then?

How shortsighted, or am I wrong?

they dont screw up ppls attack. They scan.

Great new rule, i totally agree wih it.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by hondaman

So if understand it, alliances are creating accounts/planets that are used for support, either on attack or defense, but these planets arent wearning the alliance tag, or otherwise havent officially joined the alliance in-game?

Apparently so, yet there planets are generally owned by real persons and not multiple accounts.

Pretty much sux that a player cannot choose his own prefered playing method.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think it becomes a problem when a very loyal member of an alliance can't be active enough to play for them in their name but is still loyal to the cause, and wants to repay the help they've had from others for a number of rounds.

Under what justification do you keep Scanners open then?

How shortsighted, or am I wrong?

Levels the playing field..
And I'm sure multihunters won't close em if a biggish planet defend a very small scanner planet from structure killers if that was what u where talking about.

Might be decent people just wanting to help out.. but since some abuse this and cheat. There now have to be a rule against it. But whatever.. it is that way for everyone right?

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Yeah I agree, yet I think there was an account looked at for just two defences.

consider your info source i doubt the multihunters will have made case info public.
that said, theres probably something in the fleet composition which looks suspect. ie a cath with only vipers, etc

[Judge]

Snip

Originally Posted by Storebo

.. but since some abuse this and cheat.

How is it cheating to defend of your own free will and volition an old buddy / alliance mate ?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Incredible

No, that isn't quite the truth, altho the PA team wants us to think that.

Theese so called "defence planets" are mostly scanners, and as a scanner, you belong to an alliance ofcourse, but as the PA team got that 80 member rule, the scanners are left out of the tag. Scanners are AFAIK allowed to build ships, but obviously, the pa team doesnt like scanner fleets defending their respective alliances.

I like to disagree with you. We have had scan planets since the member limit on alliances was introduced and this issue has never been a problem.

What has become a problem is the unbelievably high amount of those defense planets - we all know cathaar is not the best race for scans as they cannot build Wave Amplifiers fast enough to keep up with Distorter-whoring Xans/Terrans... and, on a sidenote, most of those "Scanners" you are talking about have had hardly any amps but far more crystal refineries (and those only).

Let's face it: Even if all those planets are played by single people it still doesn't change the fact that some players thought this exploitation would be cool - we had the same with farming a few rounds back, every farmer complained but the rest thought it'd be cool.

I hope something to enforce this rule will be hard-coded into PA:N

[furball]

Does this apply to in-cluster defenders?

For example, two alliances may ally each other and share cluster channels. Due to the -1 ETA for defending in-cluster, the two alliances can combine their defensive capacity per cluster when one alliance is under particularly heavy attack. This is particularly important this round, as we have seen a tendancy for multiple alliances to attack a single alliance each night in order to leech their defence capacity.



Not that this affects us, of course. I am speaking as a long-standing member of the PA community, not in my role as VGN HC.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by Phil^

consider your info source i doubt the multihunters will have made case info public.
that said, theres probably something in the fleet composition which looks suspect. ie a cath with only vipers, etc

So what you actually are saying is, that caths are FORCED to build other ships than vipers?

[bwtmc]

Not at all Storebo, that's the point.

You can't close players for a rule that doesn't exist, THEN re-evaluate it and THEN establish it.

Scan accounts have offered defence to a degree since I first played in Round 2.

They did in in WolfPack R13 for me, 1up R13 for me, ToF, 1up R14, eXilition R15. <- That's my experience.

You can't go around closing people for it now without warning them.

[Judge]

on a similar note,

How is the planet in receipt of this "help" treated ?

should he/she not also be punished for having the cheek to get defence ?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Judge

Snip
How is it cheating to defend of your own free will and volition an old buddy / alliance mate ?

From experience, I would guess 3/4 of these planets are multis/used in some cheating way.
I doubt this has changed.

[^MDK^MAN^]

A good rule, could even add that u cant def anyone except your ally or gal (Cluster allys also perhaps)

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

From experience, I would guess 3/4 of these planets are multis/used in some cheating way.
I doubt this has changed.

Then close them for Multi'ing not defending.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by Heartless

I like to disagree with you. We have had scan planets since the member limit on alliances was introduced and this issue has never been a problem.

What has become a problem is the unbelievably high amount of those defense planets - we all know cathaar is not the best race for scans as they cannot build Wave Amplifiers fast enough to keep up with Distorter-whoring Xans/Terrans... and, on a sidenote, most of those "Scanners" you are talking about have had hardly any amps but far more crystal refineries (and those only).

Let's face it: Even if all those planets are played by single people it still doesn't change the fact that some players thought this exploitation would be cool - we had the same with farming a few rounds back, every farmer complained but the rest thought it'd be cool.

I hope something to enforce this rule will be hard-coded into PA:N

Maybe there are cases with players only doing this, and IMO PA team can't close them for this 'defence farming' untill now, but they have done it before they stated out this 'warning' of a new rule. But scanners are also affected to this. I think you forgot that caths have faster research = faster JGP scan ability, so many scanners are caths.

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by Assassin

Due to the rising tactic of registering a number of planets for the sole purpose of alliance defence that remain out of the alliance tag, we have been forced to make a rule change.
The reason for this is that the alliance limit is there for a reason. It is unfair on the smaller alliances and unbalanced the gameplay when a large alliance creates these dummy planets for the sole purpose of unofficially increasing the size of their alliance.
This tactic has been named "OOGOOA Defence" (out of alliance, out of gal defence) and is now deemed an offense. If you are caught practising this tactic you will be put under investigation and closure. (Bassicaly there called Support planets That was kloopys name for them above)

For any more information on this issue feel free to join the channel #Multihunters on Netgamers and speak to myself or any other member of the MH Team. Also you can email me at [email protected]. If you have any information about any members abusing this new rule please inform myself or another MH ASAP. As i see this as making it unfair for planets who are obiding by the alliance limits (member limits)

Let me just clarify somthing. Galaxy defence is allowed before i get pms regarding that. As that is of course always aloud 9As in defending members in your gal that are not in the same alliances which is obviously always aloud). And cluster defence is also allowed but will be watched so it isnt abused. Any other Support offered will be investigated.


MH Manager

Assassin

Very nice indeed ....
I support this to the boone!

[Kargool]

How can you justify doing this, how the HELL can you justify doing this? Radical changes mid game is what is killing PA. You see everyone complain about the uberness of the TZEN and you do nothing.

You see someone complain about people getting defence and you react?

Have you guys totally lost it? Have you no brains at all anymore?

You decide to change the rules midgame, and that's like removing the offside rule in the middle of a football game.

You just DONT do IT!


I will definitly leave PA after this round because i've had it with an incompetent PA crew who never listens when someone raises questions and issues but react while others do it. This favourism i've been seeing from the PA crew this last round clearly indicates that they are "bought" and corrupted.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by Kargool

How can you justify doing this, how the HELL can you justify doing this? Radical changes mid game is what is killing PA. You see everyone complain about the uberness of the TZEN and you do nothing.

You see someone complain about people getting defence and you react?

Have you guys totally lost it? Have you no brains at all anymore?

You decide to change the rules midgame, and that's like removing the offside rule in the middle of a football game.

You just DONT do IT!


I will definitly leave PA after this round because i've had it with an incompetent PA crew who never listens when someone raises questions and issues but react while others do it. This favourism i've been seeing from the PA crew this last round clearly indicates that they are "bought" and corrupted.

I must say i totally agree. I wonder who control the PA team

[Phil^]

conspiracy theories ahoy!

[-=Zyth=-]

It seems to me that the main plank of defence for these support planets is that they could be scan planets. This is however somewhat spurious as those shouting about it dont give the MHs credit for actually having a brain and knowing that a planet with gigantic amounts of amps and have done gigantic amounts of scan could be scanners. Give them some credit, I my self doubt they would close such a planet, the ones that should be worried here are the ones who aren't actually scan planets.

[hondaman]

Originally Posted by Kargool

How can you justify doing this, how the HELL can you justify doing this? Radical changes mid game is what is killing PA. You see everyone complain about the uberness of the TZEN and you do nothing.

You see someone complain about people getting defence and you react?

Have you guys totally lost it? Have you no brains at all anymore?

You decide to change the rules midgame, and that's like removing the offside rule in the middle of a football game.

You just DONT do IT!


I will definitly leave PA after this round because i've had it with an incompetent PA crew who never listens when someone raises questions and issues but react while others do it. This favourism i've been seeing from the PA crew this last round clearly indicates that they are "bought" and corrupted.

I'm going to take a guess and say that they didnt listen to you complaining about someone else exploiting the game, but you got caught, or a m8 did, and now they are closed. This is why you are angry.

[CrazyConrad]

Totally agree on this, good move PA!!

Quite fed up now getting defended against by a 9 roid cat with only vipers and beets.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by -=Zyth=-

It seems to me that the main plank of defence for these support planets is that they could be scan planets. This is however somewhat spurious as those shouting about it dont give the MHs credit for actually having a brain and knowing that a planet with gigantic amounts of amps and have done gigantic amounts of scan could be scanners. Give them some credit, I my self doubt they would close such a planet, the ones that should be worried here are the ones who aren't actually scan planets.

And yet you haven't understood, that they also have closed scanners?

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I will definitly leave PA after this round because i've had it with an incompetent PA crew who never listens when someone raises questions and issues but react while others do it. This favourism i've been seeing from the PA crew this last round clearly indicates that they are "bought" and corrupted.

PA Team is imo much better now than a few years ago.

[Paisley]

About time this was done.I am sick of the farms/def pools coming out of thin air...
The ally that are doing it know who they are.
Scanners should really be in tag. only expection I would make is if a person has left an alliance and his new ally has promised to def them whilst serving the 72 hour notice.

In which case maybe an expection could be applied for to the PA team.

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Radical changes mid game is what is killing PA. .

You should ask Sid all about the PDS changes in r4, hes still playing.

[MotoX]

Originally Posted by Kargool

How can you justify doing this, how the HELL can you justify doing this? Radical changes mid game is what is killing PA. You see everyone complain about the uberness of the TZEN and you do nothing.

You see someone complain about people getting defence and you react?

Have you guys totally lost it? Have you no brains at all anymore?

You decide to change the rules midgame, and that's like removing the offside rule in the middle of a football game.

You just DONT do IT!


I will definitly leave PA after this round because i've had it with an incompetent PA crew who never listens when someone raises questions and issues but react while others do it. This favourism i've been seeing from the PA crew this last round clearly indicates that they are "bought" and corrupted.

If you don’t understand this by your self….then it’s useless to even begin to explain.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by hondaman

I'm going to take a guess and say that they didnt listen to you complaining about someone else exploiting the game, but you got caught, or a m8 did, and now they are closed. This is why you are angry.

I have NEVER cheated in this game, and I never will cheat in any game. The thing that makes me go off is that they just decide to listen to SOME complaints about something they clearly cant control, and when they **** up with f.ex the stats they just refuse to change it.

The level of consistensy is appalling.

[TheFlo]

Calling it a scanner planet or old m8 with sentimental feelings about leaving his old alliance.... It all doesn't matter, it is unfair, and there for the new rule is a good one. I am sure that PA team doesn't close someone down for defending out of your alliance once or twice. They created this rule because apperantly there are people who abuse it right now.

Good work PA-team

[Ron7684]

Its a good start, some things (good/bad) if it gets hardcoded though.

First off, if it IS coded in, id like to see no more interference than cluster defence. If you're gonna offer -1 eta, give us the chance to use it.

Ok, so some alliance problems that would arise are scanners. These guys would have to keep their value descently low to lower their bash limit for jpg scans. (Unless these get altered too). Imo id say its a positive that scan planets are being limited, i find it levels the playing field between alli and non-alli players.
Also, this would force the scan planets to join their alliances instead of staying untagged, another pro in my opinion.

So this little edit will bring much change to alliances in the game and it can be good or bad depending on how you look at it. Personally, i like it 100%, but im sure there are a lot of you out there that will oppose this for whatever reason. But it has to be done, whether we like it or not, theres just so much cheating in PA its disgusting.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Then close them for Multi'ing not defending.

Yeah, couse they will manage that. Specially when people are using VNC, its easy to prove.
Its not really a well kept secreat in the community that signing up "support planets" is a easy way to bolster the alliance/planet. And usually these support planets aint real people..

[Envious]

tbh, it's sad that such a rule is necessary, but there is no doubt it is necessary

i never thought i'd say this, but i can't help finding myself totally agreeing with Heartless.

[Lockhead]

Sounds interesting

But what about us scanners?

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

and when they **** up with f.ex the stats they just refuse to change it..

Stats isn't something you can change mid-game and you know it. Everyone knows Tzens is overpowered, but that doesn't give them the right to change it mid-game as that will **** up 821 players who has bought a huge amount of Tzen (at least they should have) and based their game-style upon that. Stats is something you change in between rounds. If you complain about xans being overpowered, why didn't you pick them to play with? You surely should have seen them being good pre-round, so you can't really ask them to change them mid-round based on that.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Judge

Snip



How is it cheating to defend of your own free will and volition an old buddy / alliance mate ?

If everyone is supposed to defend everyone, why do their limit alliance size's?

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Yeah, couse they will manage that. Specially when people are using VNC, its easy to prove.
Its not really a well kept secreat in the community that signing up "support planets" is a easy way to bolster the alliance/planet. And usually these support planets aint real people..

OMG your not bringing up the VNC again now are you? retard