New Ally Member

Enrico

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
518
I agree with dax, if the player joining was listed as solo he/she should be defendable from the get go, if he/she came from another ally, keep the "no defense" period as it is.

That blocks any attempts to switch players between wing-alliances.
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
The rule only came in to stop alliances powerblocking and being able to switch members.

Powerblocking is now against EULA.

Whats the rule for?
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
If they did it it would be a powerblock, tbh.
Switching members between two allies which would most likely be at the top?
Powerblock.


Again, why is this rule in place?

Also lol @ "resistance".
 

Iamsmart

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
1,668
So you completely ignored what I said until the last line, and then used the powerful argument (and apparently I've noticed quite popular!) 'lol'

Clever.
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
[03:35] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> Wtf you on about
[03:35] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> There are two lines
[03:35] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> One says no
[03:35] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> The other says resistances could use it to powerblock
[03:35] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> Where did i not answer your point
 

Iamsmart

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
1,668
We discussed it. Twigley bowed down to my obvious advantage of intellect and wit.

Problem solved.
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
[03:45] <Iamsexysmart> Azzer prefers automatic solutions than admin intervention regardless
[03:45] <Iamsexysmart> So keeping the game mechanic makes more sense.
[03:45] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> I agree that they should be kept in so i dont know why are we discussing this
[03:46] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> On the basis of
[03:46] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> Azzer is too lazy
[03:46] <+Twigleyyyyyyyyy> I now understand the problem
 

john

Harvester
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
134
why not just punish the ship jumpers?
you change alliances 'X' amount of times, you must wait 'N' amount of ticks x 'X' amount of times alliance changed to join an ally or get gov defense?
 
Last edited:

Azzer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,215
The system is fine as it is - it works and does it's intended job all day long, whether I'm asleep or not, whether I'm coding on the RPG or not.

As for being "too lazy", a comment I've heard here now and a comment I've heard regarding the anti-rape triggering thing - often times over the many past rounds and years of running Bushtarion, when people bend the rules or abuse mechanisms, they do it in such a way that there is no chat logs, no IRC logs, no evidence at all that it was mutually agreed or planned or that anything is happening - the only evidence is merely an in-game news entry... ie there's more than enough "plausible deniability" to claim innocence of abuse there. So then if I tried to actually lock somebody - after spending far too much time researching every bit of politics, news, mail, and asking around for IRC logs from private rooms - without any ACTUAL evidence, they then come on the forums or spam my mail about how the admin is abusing his powers locking people for no reason and start posting threads like "Where's the evidence?", and then they start reporting EVERY SINGLE CASE of somebody that happens to swap alliances or EVERY SINGLE CASE of somebody that just happens to trigger anti-rape (or something) and start with the whole "You admin locked my friend without any other evidence except just "knowing" they cheated, so you better do it to this person too!". (I'm quite sure even you've been guilty of that yourself Twigley in the past, if not about yourself then defending one of your members that had something or other done to them :p)... basically, from past experience, I do not wish to be so stupid as to rely purely on manual investigation and admin intervention on shaky grounds and spend hours investigating a single case, when a simple mechanic can automatically prevent the majority of abuse while I continue coding and avoid the conspiracy theories of a biased and unfair admin! :p

Edit: Just to add, to those that say it shouldn't apply to people that were solo classed, yeah that would be fine I think, it's only a necessity for people jumping from one alliance to another. I guess the check could be skipped if they were classed as solo (ie allowed to receive gov defense) upon joining a new ally.
 

Dimitar

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
2,388
I like how twigley said exactly what I said before :(


also

If you're going to change the rule for the solos, just let ally members defend, instead of making an allied ID being classed as solo for a few hours
 

Dax

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
3,126
Location
Northants, UK
Just to add, to those that say it shouldn't apply to people that were solo classed, yeah that would be fine I think, it's only a necessity for people jumping from one alliance to another. I guess the check could be skipped if they were classed as solo (ie allowed to receive gov defense) upon joining a new ally.

People are agreeing with me!
\o/
 
Top