Page 1 of 2
Definition for Alliance Farming
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:07 am
by Hansbrough
I think it's time we set down some ground rules for excessive hitting for naq within one alliance. If you're good enough to track only hitting someone 2 times, but not a 3rd within 5 days, then this should be easy for you
People are getting pissed that alliances are ganging up on them because they "aren't farming" anyone within the alliance. However, you people sure ass hell are focusing your hits within a given alliance. I can only assume you're trying to make a war break out by doing this.
One definition I've seen, put forth by rek for his alliance is that there can be no more than 3 attacks by any one person on his collective alliance within a week's time. While this may be a bit slim pickings it is a definition of alliance farming within his alliance.
The reason for this post is that I'd like the community to sound off on what they feel alliance farming is by their own alliance definitions. Perhaps in the end, we can lay some ground-rules for this so that people aren't taken by total surprise when a whole alliance gangs up on any one person.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:12 am
by Rienna
the problem with setting out a definition for this is that the smaller the alliance is, the more noticable the hittings are.
I know when I lead the source, we were 8 people, and as soon as one person hit 2 of us, we all knew about it. Whereas, in an alliance with 20 or 40 members, hitting 2 would mostly go unnoticed.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:47 am
by Rienna
okay, sorry for the double post, but it has come to my attention that my previous post looks like I was unhappy with wanting an alliance farming definition.
This is not true - I'm merely saying that perhaps when setting down the definition, we should take alliance size into the definition.
AKA: instead of saying "once you've hit 3 of our members you're farming out alliance" say a percentage. That way it covers both the small alliances and big ones.
So, say "once you've hit 10% of our members" you're farming the alliance.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:01 am
by Merc1
hi everyone
i would like to add my definition of farming
i will hit anyone for 100 billion naq out
i will only hit 3 times in a two week period on any one player
(unless massed)
in which case you can expect it all comming back
it does not allow for ascended blessing if your ascended blessing kicks in
i will continue to hit until i have secured the naq
i declare war only as i am trying to get all your naq and reduce my losses
also let me say this is not directed at any single aliance it is across the board
on the same hand i do expect to get hit if i have loads out
i will not mass anyone for a good attack on me for naq
unless my rule of farming is broken by the said player
thank you all for your time
MERC1
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:36 am
by Hansbrough
hmm?
this is talking about alliance farming (multiple naq hits on members within one alliance in a given amount of time), not farming individuals.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:17 am
by Robe
Alliance Naq attack limits will lead to:
Members not learning to stand on their own two feet
(becoming over reliant on their team mates to bail them out).
Difficulty in monitoring hits (Alliances will only be aware hits to their members. They will not know what hits their own members have made on other Alliances).
Rapid escalation to war (especially when their own members breach the same criteria in other Alliances).
Should stick with individual hits - much easier to monitor.
Foundation of Evil (FoE) Reasonable Force Conflict Management.
If someone farms you (3 hits in one week) farm them back.
If someone takes your planets, take theirs.
If someone masses you (either server), mass them back (either server).
Keep all conflicts one vs one (between you and aggressor).
Do not farm active accounts (3 hits in one week).
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:18 am
by SVaRuN
Well said and ditto
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:19 am
by Hells__Angel
3 attacks a week max.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:32 am
by REK
LoL
doesnt sound like a very evil alliance but meh to each its own
once you go over the lmit you go on a list
once your name appears on that list an exsseive amount of times action will be taken
one
every hit we do we expect retaliation
you should too
plain and simple
we play our way which is highly downed from our previous no hit policy
and a member of FoE convinced me of that ..but not you robe ...sorry
Ive done my good will my members are told every person they decide to hit for naq can result in war
if you want to play like a solo player go lone wolf
if you want family join a true alliance
either way
to each his own
Re: Definition for Alliance Farming
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:54 am
by Bad Wolf
Taxonomist3 wrote:I think it's time we set down some ground rules for excessive hitting for naq within one alliance.
Shouldnt you talk about YOUR alliances rules on the Omega forums instead of talking about how everyone else has to play by your rules ?
Dont mean to flame you mate, but I does seem to me you are trying to 'Make the rules'.
BWG
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:07 am
by Hansbrough
ground rule here are just to set forth a guideline so people aren't surprised when a while alliance comes after them because the whole alliance is being targeted by farmers. It'll also cut down on the complaining that people do when they attempt to say they were massed without just cause.
You see, if Omega breaks the rules, and one of your alliances comes after an individual or the whole alliance, that's fair game b/c we'll be in the understanding that over-hitting of any one alliance is occurring.
i mean somehow, after all, you all have come up with some random definition of what farming is. Hell I remember the day when the definition was hitting someone more than 3 times within a day, and now it's morphed into 3 times within 5 days.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:23 am
by Lord Rylan
If alliances could actually agree to what defines farming, then setting up established rules of conduct/engagement would work. However I seriously doubt that enough alliances would be willing to agree to rules. I personally would like to see something set up, like a % of members, and would be willing to negotiate with my fellow alliance leaders.
Currently OSL operates thus towards farming:
If YOU leave a large sum of naq out, expect for it to be taken (or attempted)
If WE leave a large sum out, we expect it to be taken (or attempted)
Same rule applies to UU and planets.
If you mass a member of OSL, it is considered an automatic declaration of war, unless you can show that you were massed first.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:51 am
by Pele
I like the idea of a universal definition of what is worthy of being massed and what is simple hitting for naq. I like the idea of a %age of an alliance.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:54 am
by Envy
I agee with Taxo on this one ,
anyway I do think it's "lame" that hole an allaince has to target the "farmer"
Also theirs a big diffrence between NAQ hits and farming ... like if u leave every day 100 bill and the person steals every day the 100 bill does that make him a farmer cus u leave ur naq in the open ?
Also I agree with REK every allaince does whats best for their members but u can be reasonable aswell if u chose those way's not by sitting on a person with an entire allaince ... Those that are farmed can deal with it tho.
Anyway i don't see this as a rule , thougt I don't even care what for rules others make ... cus I simple am not in their rules .

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:17 am
by Dundee
I would say 2/3 times per day is more like excessive farming, 2/3 times per week is extremely limiting.
2/3 times per day is obvious that your being targeted as opposed to 2/3 times per week which could jus be random naq hits coz you left too much naq out.