Planet Rights

[Baalzamon]

jester,you got it ack, stop whining

[Jester-]

I got it back after that message, and I'm not whining. Take your pompous attitude out of my thread and give it to someone who wants to hear it. My point is simple. This happens every game, and people just because they "claim" the planet doesn't make it theres. This should be fixed, because people stealing a planet that took hundreds of millions to build, and billions to defend and mine, shouldn't' be taken away by someone who decides to leave and not give it back.

[Izzanods]

I don't agree with BOB that the player owns the planet. That's such a reach from reality BOB, you were kidding right? Individuals are needed to claim the planets and the planets are stocked, built and defended by the alliance, not just the individual. While I understand the simple fact that leaders allow players to join the alliance, it's absurd to allow players to be able to do certain things--with taking a planet and leaving as being one of them. Sure, some alliances have a core of "friends" who have control of the planets but that's not the case across the board for most alliances. I think the leader should have a lot more ability to minimize planet stealing then what we currently have.

[Tyr]

The planet could be released on dropping alliance to no ownership but 'choatic' meaning attackable for three days. That way, if the owner leaves, the former alliance does not get screwed, and anybody can claim by busting it or wait until the choatic timer is up and anybody can take it. I'm a fan of less control and creative opportunity.

It would be cool to start with a couple chaotic planets at the start of a game as another early challenge, quick base.


Tyr

[yamo]

i disagree w/ Jester. Looser is better. The ability for groups of players to get along with each other is the paramount skill in the game. For the same reason i oppose coded NAPs...if I pull the trigger on an ally then that is a coordination failure not a design flaw. The more the players must depend on each other the better. The degree to which they are willing to trust each other(and be right) is the measure of the alliance. If i'm fool enough to put all the alliance cash in the alliance acct-that's my fault. If someone runs off with a planet...take it back.

[Jester-]

i disagree w/ Jester. Looser is better. The ability for groups of players to get along with each other is the paramount skill in the game. For the same reason i oppose coded NAPs...if I pull the trigger on an ally then that is a coordination failure not a design flaw. The more the players must depend on each other the better. The degree to which they are willing to trust each other(and be right) is the measure of the alliance. If i'm fool enough to put all the alliance cash in the alliance acct-that's my fault. If someone runs off with a planet...take it back.

When is the last time you've seen a real non-coded NAP even in place? This game is dieing due to lack of community and people working together. We're to busy being segregated and complaining about everything that happens that we miss out on the fun stuff, like 30v30 man fleet fights.

[Newbie]

i disagree w/ Jester. Looser is better. The ability for groups of players to get along with each other is the paramount skill in the game. For the same reason i oppose coded NAPs...if I pull the trigger on an ally then that is a coordination failure not a design flaw. The more the players must depend on each other the better. The degree to which they are willing to trust each other(and be right) is the measure of the alliance. If i'm fool enough to put all the alliance cash in the alliance acct-that's my fault. If someone runs off with a planet...take it back.

When is the last time you've seen a real non-coded NAP even in place? This game is dieing due to lack of community and people working together. We're to busy being segregated and complaining about everything that happens that we miss out on the fun stuff, like 30v30 man fleet fights.

I've seen one this round.

[DWill]

i disagree w/ Jester. Looser is better. The ability for groups of players to get along with each other is the paramount skill in the game. For the same reason i oppose coded NAPs...if I pull the trigger on an ally then that is a coordination failure not a design flaw. The more the players must depend on each other the better. The degree to which they are willing to trust each other(and be right) is the measure of the alliance. If i'm fool enough to put all the alliance cash in the alliance acct-that's my fault. If someone runs off with a planet...take it back.

When is the last time you've seen a real non-coded NAP even in place? This game is dieing due to lack of community and people working together. We're to busy being segregated and complaining about everything that happens that we miss out on the fun stuff, like 30v30 man fleet fights.

I've seen one this round.

We sure did, and I don't think planets had anything to do with it.

[JettJackson]

rejected