New Rule

[wakey]

Originally Posted by lokken

You call it a 'loophole' - it is not a 'loophole': planets can defend other planets, are sold on the basis that you can defend other planets and I fundamentally oppose any idea that a planet cannot defend another out of choice (subject to the limits I described above). Quite frankly what's being sold is not a fully functioning planet. In terms of an unfair contract term against a consumer, changing the rules at your discretion to stop a vital function of what's being sold is in my view, unreasonable. I do not see it as a valid term in this context. This is not exploiting code, or a glitch in the game: this is simply creating a legitimate setup out of what is made available.

It is a loophole really, anything that allows an alliance to circumnavigate ingame limits is a loophole. However its a loophole that imho was left open for a reason, this reason being that PATeam thought that alliances in this game would have the decenacy to play within the limits, and it seems they did for a number of rounds. Now we seem to have one alliance whos decided abuse the situation and PATeams hand has been forced. Its sad it had to happen and I hope exil are happy with themselves having now made the game tougher and less enjoyable for some people just because they put winning over everything even if it means going against the moral code of this community.

So yes we may not like this situation, I certainly dont and I'm sure most of the people whom have posted on this thread (even those supporting the actions) dont either BUT like Phil said we cant lay the blame soley at PATeam but also at the aspects of this community that allowed it to happen

[robban1]

remove fleetmovements all together and its leveled and cosy
no cheating no nothing no fun prolly there its gonna end

peace out

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by robban1

remove fleetmovements all together and its leveled and cosy
no cheating no nothing no fun prolly there its gonna end

peace out

troll, shoo.

[The_Fish]

I agree with every word Wakey said.

[Paisley]

I second wakeys comments

[Brimstone]

Phil^ ftw!

Stopped reading at page 3, so I dont know if anyone has mentioned this be4. But I think the PA team made a wise decision.
Allthough I dont think deciding this midround is the best choice, they better could have left it for next round rules.
But I have seen so many ppl complaining about not having the choice anymore to defend someone, i think they are overreacting.
But from my point of view PA team will monitor it according to the following(if not perhaps consider this ):
If you are defending a different coord that belongs to the same alliance on a regular base you are breaking the new rule.
If you are attacking the same galaxy within a number x eta as the same alliance on a regular base you are breaking the rule.

If you defend an old buddy alliance member every now and then, you arent breaking the rule. If you do this on a regular base you might reconsider this becoz it would look like multiing to me. Which is considered cheating, which means closure, nofi. But let's keep this fun 4 every1.

[lokken]

Having legitimate players sign up planets to defend you (signing up to play planetarion, what a crime!) is not an unfair advantage. It's organisation. Yes, they've made life tougher for the opposition. Yes they've made it hard on the opposition. But trying to wear down your opposition is what planetarion is sometimes about. They are not circumventing any ingame limits - people defend whoever they like, at what ETA bonus they have available to them. No one said defending from out of tag was illegal at the start of the round, and this is a practice that has been happening before this round.

If you want to limit how many times you can defend a tag in game within a certain period and hard code it, go right ahead from the start of the round.

If they're login sharing, multting, then delete them i say.

In my view this goes square against the unfair contract terms act, and I do not support it.

[raist]

If you exceed the limit of people in your alliance, even though they may not be tagged, you are breaking the rules. That means you are cheating .

I would suggest you can choose type of race and play mode eg Cath - Scanner, Terran - Player??/ If you are a scanner you can't build ships for attack or defending out of gal?

What ever I am sure of is some sort of response.....at least I hope - lol

Can I just say that you must be one sad pri*k to spend all your time trying to work around the rules to win a game that means nothing when you cheat to do it. Get a life, get a partner (or at least spend some time with the one you have got - lol (that includes me)), or a dog.

[noah02]

Lokken its not to ban everyone who defends outside of an alliance ffs its blatant obvious cheating when all you do is build a planet made specially for defence only.
What u see as cheating loop hole or not you can not have a planet made just for defence who is not even in the alliance it constantly defends while gaining no specific amount of roids is just plain cheating.

[The_Fish]

The thing is, they've just levelled out the playing field from this point onwards. It's not like they've suddenly disadvantaged an alliance, they've levelled it out.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by raist

Can I just say that you must be one sad pri*k to spend all your time trying to work around the rules to win a game that means nothing when you cheat to do it. Get a life, get a partner (or at least spend some time with the one you have got - lol (that includes me)), or a dog.

Whats worse is we pay for an upgraded account to win..... an upgraded account .

[Duncan]

A contract which allows one party to change what's in the contract after signing just seems wrong on every level...

The people who get closed for breaking this new rule, which they never agreed to, should get their money back at least.

[Kaisto]

Originally Posted by noah02

Lokken its not to ban everyone who defends outside of an alliance ffs its blatant obvious cheating when all you do is build a planet made specially for defence only.
What u see as cheating loop hole or not you can not have a planet made just for defence who is not even in the alliance it constantly defends while gaining no specific amount of roids is just plain cheating.

It is not cheating, if a player who has no other accounts chooses to play this way and accept that he will do poorly in terms of score, then that is a CHOICE that he should be fully allowed to make. To illustrate: say I (for the sake of argument) feel I do not have the time to play this round properly (24/7 checking of account and 0 sleep), but that I still want to play and to help my alliance, who I consider to be my friends. I know that my score will be dragging their average down and so I say I will help defend, but that I do not want to join ingame. Should PA team be able to say that I cannot play "poorly" if I wish to do so? and are they right in denying me to defend my friends, or whoever I want for that matter?
If their answer to this is yes, then I think it is time for me to find another game.

There might be a problem that needs to be adressed, but this is not the way of doing it. Rather suffer the problem for the time being, and solve it for next round, than implementing a haphazard solution that in essence is an insult to the players' free will. (pls do not start a discussion about free will and determinism based on this )

[noah02]

3. We may amend this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion.
Amendments shall be communicated to you at the time you log into your
Account. Such amendments shall be effective whenever we make the
notification available for your review.

[Duncan]

Seems like an unfair contract term to me :|

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Kaisto

Load of gash

Point proven.

The 80 man alliance limit is there for a reason and bringing down the avg if there is under 80 doesnt make a blind bit of difference to any alliance lead in the game.

I will get my 300 army mates to make an account free accounts for that matter make loads of defence ships and defend an alliance of my choice coz i have my "freinds" there and we cant all join we will bring down the avg.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Seems like an unfair contract term to me :|

Thats why you get the choice to agree or disagree with it.

[Kaisto]

Originally Posted by noah02

3. We may amend this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion.
Amendments shall be communicated to you at the time you log into your
Account. Such amendments shall be effective whenever we make the
notification available for your review.

hey, here is an idea... why not just solve the entire problem and save the multihunters alot of work:
disable the possibility of defending outside your gal (and your alliance if you have one). cluster def is in the greyzone; but hey, some friends of yours might be in that cluster and happen to be in an alliance..would not want you to be able to defend those now would we.

noah: that is what the eula says, yes; but it needs to be used with reason. if people start loosing rights such as being able to defend/play with who they want, then the predictions of doom for this game might very well come through.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by TheBerk

Not quite Storebo, you see, the alliances outside of the top 5 get a chance to add more members, this could include the scanners and defenders that weren't considered as important earlier in the round.

Well.. if your outside top5 you'll find a hard time competing with the top alliances. So is just a handicap..

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Kaisto

noah: that is what the eula says, yes; but it needs to be used with reason. if people start loosing rights such as being able to defend/play with who they want, then the predictions of doom for this game might very well come through.

Ppl can still defend each other outside there alliance outside the cluster and galaxy there allowed to thats there choice from what i can read.
But when you get an account solely built for defending ppl of an alliance you wont join then that is cheating.
I would go as far to say that the planet is probably a multi account because who pays for an account just for defending where is the fun in that?

Ppl are jumping to the conclusion that they will not be allowed to defend anyone but as long you are playing the game and not cheating then you will be able to defend as normal.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by noah02

Thats why you get the choice to agree or disagree with it.

I can see how that clause is actually illegeal. It would allow them to do something like this: They decide to increase the game fee mid-round to whatever amount in Their discrection. They can then close your account without refund if you don't follow the new requirement.

There are are rules that contracts must abide by for them to be considered legal and I believe something like 3. isn't kosher. They get away with it cause a) They don't use that power to do anything too outrageous and b) who the **** is going to press charges for 5 bucks? I may be completely wrong here, I'm just using common sense.

edit- i also agree with lokken's other points.

[Neferti]

I agree with everything Lokken has said...

To those saying that the rule is only against 'def farm' planets, and people who defend outside of tag on occasion will be fine - in my understanding, this is *not* what the new rule says, the new rule says that ANY defending out of tag is a cheating offence punishable by closure. At least that's how I understand it from the opening post in this thread.

[Kaisto]

Originally Posted by noah02

Ppl can still defend each other outside there alliance outside the cluster and galaxy there allowed to thats there choice from what i can read.
But when you get an account solely built for defending ppl of an alliance you wont join then that is cheating.
I would go as far to say that the planet is probably a multi account because who pays for an account just for defending where is the fun in that?

Ppl are jumping to the conclusion that they will not be allowed to defend anyone but as long you are playing the game and not cheating then you will be able to defend as normal.

If a player registers an account and wants to spend the entire round defending his alliance (yes, ppl can be" members" of an alliance even if they havent joined ingame) then that is his/her choice of playing style. it might not be very fair on smaller alliances, but punishing people for defending players that they consider friends, is NOT RIGHT, and this is essentially what this rule says, even if that is not what is intended.

If the planet is a multi, then there is no problem. close it. if it is a legitimate account, then playing as described above, does imho not constiture cheating.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Storebo

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

Alliance size is limited as a check to the creation of uber power blocks, it has nothing to do with this issue.

If a player decides he wants to play as an independant, but then choses to defend an old buddy then frankly that is his choice.

Or is my defending old friends in 1up not allowed? (or LCH or xVx / Vision)

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Judge

Alliance size is limited as a check to the creation of uber power blocks, it has nothing to do with this issue.

If a player decides he wants to play as an independant, but then choses to defend an old buddy then frankly that is his choice.

Or is my defending old friends in 1up not allowed? (or LCH or xVx / Vision)

Yes, it would appear so. Defend someone and get banned from the game.

This game is about attack only, have you forgotten that?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Duncan

I can see how that clause is actually illegeal. It would allow them to do something like this: They decide to increase the game fee mid-round to whatever amount in Their discrection. They can then close your account without refund if you don't follow the new requirement.

There are are rules that contracts must abide by for them to be considered legal and I believe something like 3. isn't kosher. They get away with it cause a) They don't use that power to do anything too outrageous and b) who the **** is going to press charges for 5 bucks? I may be completely wrong here, I'm just using common sense.

edit- i also agree with lokken's other points.

It's actually a common practice to include such a paragraph, and the paragraph itself is not illegal (at least not in Germany). What is illegal, however, is altering a contract in the middle of its runtime to include "unmoralic" (?) terms and conditions.
The paragraph with the right to alter the contract is actually needed in case new ruling by the government changes certain laws your contract followed.

But then again, I can only speak for Germany.

[Spymine]

Originally Posted by noah02

I will get my 300 army mates to make an account free accounts for that matter make loads of defence ships and defend an alliance of my choice coz i have my "freinds" there and we cant all join we will bring down the avg.

Interesting - how would those free account make up their speed disadvantage for defence purposes?
If you have a paid account you should be allowed to do whatever you want - and is not against the rules you accepted when signing up the account.
"Def farms" are legal unless you can prove they are mutli accounts - but this is a total different topic and you shouldn't mix them up.

[SteInMetz]

I dont get where PA team pulls their stupid ideas from..

Frankly im glad im not playing this round, cause if i was, i would have been to inactive to play in NewDawn tag, and therefor i would be outside the tag, but denying me defending my mates tehre is insane..

"Ah, i got a great idea!"
"What?"
"Lets deny players doing things, even tho they paid for doing those things!"
"WOOT! GREAT IDEA!!!!"

Convo in PA-team channel perhaps :S

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

pa is not a game any more, it's a concentration camp

i'm so not playing the next round as this is insane, come on, nowadays noone hardly cheats and if they do they do it properly so they don't get caught. get a grip multihunters, this isn't nazi germany in 1943 and we aren't jews.

and afaik exi just has some scanners who have def fleets, like pls who doesn't??? this isn't def farming but ok, whatever you decide mh team, but thanks to your actions less and less people enjoy pa and i'm sure the next round will see a lot less players than this one.

a lot more ppl will enjoy it when people like you who make rediculous idiotic comparisons are gone

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Spymine

Interesting - how would those free account make up their speed disadvantage for defence purposes?
If you have a paid account you should be allowed to do whatever you want - and is not against the rules you accepted when signing up the account.
"Def farms" are legal unless you can prove they are mutli accounts - but this is a total different topic and you shouldn't mix them up.

In cluster in gal build harpys and same ships and other ships fake defence easy.

[Zo0f]

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

You clearly have too much faith in PATeam. MHs do talk about cases they shouldnt, and I have personal experience with one abusing their access ingame (not in a major way mind, so it stays private). In the end it has always been like this, and always will while the staff are not paid or recruited to work in the same office situation.

PATeam do a good job for unpaid online gamers, but they are far from professional.

On topic: This is a real problem ingame, and did need to be dealt with. On the other hand I feel it should of been left to between rounds and made to include scanners, which a lot of alliances hold outside their alliance now and do defend. The line between those abusing and not abusing will become too fine otherwise.

Not perfect, but it is a lot better than not acting at all. Therefore you get a !

[Neferti]

Originally Posted by noah02

In cluster in gal build harpys and same ships and other ships fake defence easy.

I think he means that freebies can't finish the ETA branch, which means that when someone has eta 8 Fr inc, vipers out of tag won't be able to make it for that ETA, as I think ETA research is limited to 2? So Vipers would be ETA 10 to universe? Or is ETA research not limited for freebies?

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Neferti

I think he means that freebies can't finish the ETA branch, which means that when someone has eta 8 Fr inc, vipers out of tag won't be able to make it for that ETA, as I think ETA research is limited to 2? So Vipers would be ETA 10 to universe? Or is ETA research not limited for freebies?

I am sure I will find out soon enough with my new free account hehe just outa protection and i got incoming already \o/

[Spectator1]

We'll appearently people have a different view on the allaince and its limit. Some say scanners should be in, some say they should be out. Some think the sole reason of a ally is the -1 ETA. Others think it defines a group of people in Planetarion working together.

But I think that in the end what most important is not peoples views on these rules. But the way these rules are intended to work in the game. The way the Planetarion crew sees how Planetarion should be played and should be played fairly.

And I think that the way the rules are intended is that the allaince defines a group in planetarion that works together and therefore has a couple of benefits. Suchs as communication (forums), organisation (planned attacks) and improved coorperation (eta-1). Therefor a alliance should include all the players that work together and not just the people of the group that need the benifit of the -1 eta. And in that view the limit of 80 people is intended as a measure to prevent 1 allaince becoming too powerfull by sheer power of numbers.

Now somewhere allong the line the scanners started not wearing the allaince tag and the PA crew didn't object to that cos it usually involved a small number of players and most allainces were implementing it at the same time. The PA crew probably decided the fair gameplay was not in jeopardy and that no actions were neccesery.

Now however a step further is taken and allaince have started to allow players to join their group and helping out with def without wearing the allaince tag. The PA crew is worried that this threatens the intended effect of the limit (preventing 1 or 2 allainces becoming too powerfull by sheer numbers). They feel things are running out of control and are taking actions accordingly.

They could have done 2 things:
A) Enforce the ally limit back to its original intent (iow: Scanners need to wear tags).
B) Allow scanners to not wear tags but discern between scanner and defwhores and take measures against the latter.

I think it deserves some respect that they didn't chose the simpler of the two solutions and are looking for a way to reduce the problem without changing any currently accepted behaviour (namely: scanner without ally tag).





Instead of directing all the criticism at the new rule itself, try to think about the reasoning behind the rule:

1) Do you agree with the allaince member limit or not?

2) If you agree with the limit, do you think alliances should be allowed to have more actual members then the limit?

3) If so, which type of actual members do u think shouldn't have to wear a tag?

4) How do u see the PA crew enforcing/managing that?


If you answer question 1 with Yes, question 2 with yes and question 3 with 'scanners' how can u asnwer question 4 with anything other then the new rule?

If you answer 1 with Yes and 2 with No you probably support the A) solution above.

If you answer anything differently did u think about keeping planetarion fair for all players while forming your opinion and could you please let us hear your reasoning?

[cypher]

still wondering why none of these exi players who moan so much now don't complain at their HC for allowing wishmaster to take over accounts (according to what your own people are saying)....

oh...wait.... you don't mind cheating :/ my bad.

[Shyne]

Surely these support planets should be reassessing their lives.

They play planetarion just to be a 'def whore' ?

Kudos to Phil^, Heartless, lokken, and the smart people in pages 2-5 that I didnt have time to read about who realise PA team have made the right decision here.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by Jumo

I find this especially funny coming from a Ministry player, we both know that not all the Ministry are in the same tag.

I am not Ministry. I have not been Ministry. I am OuZo to the bone. Enough said.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by lizardking

Ehm...

Imo this new rule is horsepiss. I joined this round for 1 reason and 1 reason only, which is to play for my alliance.

Your alliance is limited to 80 players. If you want to have more than that, sign up two alliances and make a block.

[cypher]

amen shyne, cept for the fact lokken thinks it's bad... as he says he as a couple of those people playing for him

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by Kentaminated

so this rule means that we can no longer choose who we want to defend. Can you hard code this so we dont accidentally defend the wrong planet. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to a problem. If they aren't multi's let them play.

No, it means you can't constantly defend the same alliance/people outside of a tag. There's no need exagerate the situation, this has been covered in many posts.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by noah02

Usually an answer froom someone who is worrying about there account.

My account is static, i havent defended anyone except gal mates all round, in fact I was kicked form my alliance a week ago due to lack of activity.

so to be fair i couldnt give a tinkers cuss for my planet or anyone elses

I havnt the time to play this round due to moving house, taking a new job, and a whole host of other RL stuff far more important than PA (or any other game)

I object however on two levels,

One: Changing the rules mid round always causes grief for the players

Two: Who I defend or dont defend is my choice not PA Admins or anyone else.

[Incredible]

Originally Posted by cypher

still wondering why none of these exi players who moan so much now don't complain at their HC for allowing wishmaster to take over accounts (according to what your own people are saying)....

oh...wait.... you don't mind cheating :/ my bad.

Felling sorry for loosing huh? Now, do ya, punk?

[qebab]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

pa is not a game any more, it's a concentration camp

i'm so not playing the next round as this is insane, come on, nowadays noone hardly cheats and if they do they do it properly so they don't get caught. get a grip multihunters, this isn't nazi germany in 1943 and we aren't jews.

and afaik exi just has some scanners who have def fleets, like pls who doesn't??? this isn't def farming but ok, whatever you decide mh team, but thanks to your actions less and less people enjoy pa and i'm sure the next round will see a lot less players than this one.

Congratulations, you just compared the PA team to the german nazi regime of WW II.

What people fail to see, is that when they throw a "I will quit" threat, others might continue playing. I'm quitting after this round unless this rule, or some variation of it, that stops these defwhores from playing.

I am in a group that is outnumbering those who quit if this rule stays, of that I am quite sure.

[Kaisto]

Originally Posted by Jorinn

No, it means you can't constantly defend the same alliance/people outside of a tag. There's no need exagerate the situation, this has been covered in many posts.

exagerate...sort of difficult on this one.. PA team suddenly telling you who you can and cannot defend ingame. I think that is pretty outrageous and quite unacceptable. Will not sign up for r16 if that "rule" is still there

[cypher]

nah doing fine thx for caring tho.... i'm quite sure my rank is higher then yours and i aint got a need for support accounts so no worries dude it's all good.

point remains tho... will your hc do anything about it or not?

[Jackal2112]

Originally Posted by cypher

lol... another dumb post by dain my ships were removed, but don't let facts get in the way of you trying to act cool

Dear cypher, I am not trying to act cool, I will never ever reach your exhorted high levels of coolness even if I tried. But the facts are they did *not* delete your cathaar ships. Xontas, when confronted with these accusations of giving you an unfair advantage over all other paying players, even confirmed this. He then said that 'he forgot' to do it in your case but that it wouldn't happen again. When I asked about it in #private back then, Sid told me in PM that i should stfu about it, because if what happened was okay with the admins, it was okay with 1up. You got caught redhanded, theres various witnesses I had been talking to at that time. You cheated your way to a higher rank and a bigger planet that you, within the rules, had rights to. Therefor it makes you a hypocrite posting here that you agree with the PA administrations decision.

You are one of those old veteran players scratching their heads arent you?

I bow to lokken. He hits the nail right on top of the head and without any mercy.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I got logs of them saying that people will be closed for what they did prior to the rule was in place.

And, it isnt exploiting it.

This is like saying it is exploiting the game if you ally another alliance and 160 attack 80.

THATS 2 vs 1!!omg.

That's depending how many friends that 1 alliance got
Might be the 160 who are outnumbered

[Jackal2112]

Originally Posted by cypher

don't think it would hurt if some players did tho not saying it would be good if hk left... but surely there are "players" we could live without

anyways HK if it was just about a few planets it didn't matter...

and as for jumo's remarks... what is Exi HC gonna do about wishmaster having a "new" planet which isn't new at all, meaning he went on with a multi planet or he took over an account, which is both plain cheating. Jumo wouldn't lie would he... and surely you know. have you taken action or are you condoning it kaifux/other people in exi command?

The pot calling the kettle black.. hypocrite

[Willzzz]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

I dont get where PA team pulls their stupid ideas from..

Frankly im glad im not playing this round, cause if i was, i would have been to inactive to play in NewDawn tag, and therefor i would be outside the tag, but denying me defending my mates tehre is insane..

"Ah, i got a great idea!"
"What?"
"Lets deny players doing things, even tho they paid for doing those things!"
"WOOT! GREAT IDEA!!!!"

Convo in PA-team channel perhaps :S

If you were playing this round then you would actually see why this rule has bin implemented. I sujest unless you have knowledge of whats going on you reframe from posting. Especially abusive ones toward PA team which frankly are not funny.