Design Directions: Official Resistance System

[Twigley]

I remember round 9.
CRA.
For some reason it was brought in near the end of the round.
7 ticks from the end i lost 100+ TRILL worth of staff...


Tis pointless admin/game interferance like that which has happened which makes me think no.

Also loving the "All TBA are noobs thing".
More than 50% of Overludes members have won 1/2/3/4+ rounds.
More than 70% of Overludes members have played longer than most of the players ingame that are commenting on how they are "noobs".



I think once the top alliance gets X% bigger than rank x,x and/or x then some system should come in where the smaller allies can get some kind of bonuses towards them.
And ofc the top alliance would agree.
Because all the top alliances should have "STYLE" right?
Tisnt about ranks

 

[ViVi]

I don't think if we returned to the old bounty hunter system that solos would be incredibly overpowered given how other aspects have changed. Besides, it seems that we need a manner of check/balance in this game once more.

 

[Dennis]

Meh, No system for Resistance.. that would just mess with the game IMO.. :S

 

[willymchilybily]

resistance system should be a communication based system nothing more

resistance system should be a communication based system nothing more

I'm in favour of making it easier and more profitable and fun/fair for alliances to come together and resist a super power as it forms. I like this idea, and facilitating it is imo good. but in reality there are many pit falls. (ill summ this up later)

Though to have it as something that can only be done once in the round and requires so many set in place rules seems a little unecessary, and cumbersome.

im sorry to say azzer your way with words is normally on the money and I can normally agree with 99% of what you say, but this time the original suggestion is poorly worded.

but i like the idea of facilitating the resistance like DA says

That means for any resistance to work, you need more than one alliance involved. Atm there is only one way of facilitating this: IRC. IMO this is wrong, Bushtarion should have its own in-game functionality for providing alliances with a means to come together and help each other.

completely agree.

I dont think it needs to be a system that is so proactive, but can bring together a resistance. The system though should be fall proof. it should not allow people to join spy out the resistance and spy for the super power, it should not allow people in the resistance to know when a fellow resistance member is online and out attacking and allow them to be attacked.
but as such i cant see any way around the problem of spys

some abuse preventative methods:

• Each resistance alliance is assigned a tag, eg. resistance allaince 1,2,3,4, resistance solo member 1,2,3,4 etc. (but hopefully something more fun and less painful to identify who said what) this ensures the identities of members arent immidiately apparent
  
• Allainces in the resistance can't hit other resistance allainces. (when they try to send the mob message explains they are hitting a fellow resistance member)
  
• only people in the resistance can access the resistance section.
  
• once you join the resistance you have a delay from when you leave before you can attack people who are part of the resistance

Not so useful suggestions:

• any one found helping the super power gain knowledge of the resistance could be subject to an ingame punishment, (in a fun lovable way) resistance treason. (quite simply every member of the resistance has a very high bounty on the backstabbers for the remainder of the round) problem being there is no way to monitor if some one is spy if they have some disgression

in short darksider is right it seems unfair that people that play hard and do well should not be subject to being destroyed, as vivi and otheres have specified those at the top normally try the hardest and dedicate the most time into the game. punishing them would probably not be a wise move. hence this system cant really give any bonuses. The system should be used to prevent wings/naps/power block play but not hardwork. I dont see how this will be possible. And the vote system to prevent a resistance wouldnt work. because everyone realistically wants to win, no matter how well thier oponent fought

but waiting 2 weeks into the round is a good idea, before this there is really no certainty. Still dont see it being achievable as a bonus system, (rewarding resistance members). as it will lead to abuse. and only allowing it to be ustilised once will just mean people at ranks 2/3 will sit wait for the resistance to attack not get to heavily involved and swoop in to pinch the round win. hence i feel the system at most can only help allainces join the resistance and help solo's also join so that they can be part of it and it is easier to communicate and organise.

this point i cannot express enough and is sooo key. normally a resistance is allainces (maybe with some solo friends help too). but it is never full of random solo's because first of all the alliances dont know/trust them and they arent talking directly to leaders. second of all its rare that solo's are as heavily into the social side. hence if they system can allow random solo's to join the resistance it will allow a much greater force to attack the top spots. This would allow an effective(in number) resistance to form.

Edit: ofc if you steepened the bounty fresholds as suggested this may help resistances (attacking low give little or nothing) attacking high at least possiblity to recoup losses and gain marginal profit. if there was an extra incentive to attack some one bigger than you, other than to stop them bashing you. there needs to be a balance where it is worth forming a resistance for the fun of it, but not so that it can easily crush the rank 1 alliance.

 

[Garrett]

again I ask, why would we need a resistance system if you make HQ's and Alliances, relevant?

 

[DarkSider]

I suggested in the past a very easy, graphical page to plan attacks. I think it's unfair that defence coordination has been improved with the mob notes and attacking page is still as before.
That plan could also be shared between more alliances and make the game more war orientated instead score imo. Make wars rewarding, the bigger the war the better.

 

[Azzer]

again I ask, why would we need a resistance system if you make HQ's and Alliances, relevant?

I guess it'd depend on what ideas we (myself and you guys!) can come up with for the HQ's! It could be that some routes are designed for the HQ's that are cool and different and have a purpose, but that still can't address the "problem" of wings... so I suppose in one way this suggestions/concept would rely on the possiblities of other features that may (or may not) make a "resistance system" redundant Get brainstorming for the HQ's, I've been struggling to think of any "great" ideas myself on that system and while there've been a few good "early ideas", there's still not been anything major ideas wise - and I'm really drawing blanks myself atm (I'll try and sit down with an old school pen and paper and brainstorm again sometime but last time I did an epic fail at coming up with new HQ techs that seemed feasable ).

 

[willymchilybily]

again I ask, why would we need a resistance system if you make HQ's and Alliances, relevant?

I'm pretty slow today, any chance you could further explain how making the HQ/aliances "relevant" can have affects on a power block and wings etc? don't really follow. Though it would be nice to have a shiny new HQ option(s)

 

[Garrett]

first and foremost resisting comes from desire and a will to do something about it. Now instead of motivating people, lets make resisting completely mindless by making it follow some divined engine for the game.

Basically you are replacing the will to act, with a game system. If people cba to stand up for what they want, then they don't frankly deserve it.

How making HQ's and Alliances relevant to cure wings? Is there ever a cure for politics and someone working with another? No. Likewise a system for removing such again limits peoples options and forces people to play 1 certain way. Lame.


I've given lots of ideas for HQ's and Warring. I have plenty more. Going to keep the details for such as well as the fairness calculator ideas to myself as I no longer play, have no intention on playing and as soon as I ween myself from forums, no more posties.

However, if you make alliances more than just 20 solos without AR, there is going to be a mad rush (for those playing serious/competitive) to build infrastructure. If you have an acceptable way of declaring war (which the current is kinda close, but declaring war right now is useless), defining a win... being able to attack a HQ and have it mean something... then I think you will see people take pride in their HQ's and their Allies and this will do 2 things:

1) Help spread the word of mouth for more players (the probably biggest tried and true method to get people to this game) as people love to play on teams. (not all, that's why we have solos)

2) Have people building their HQ's and defenses to smash competition. Being able to launch meaningful rushes from the HQ also would help resisting to any # of wings... say if the limit to retal on a HQ kinda stays similar... so players could donate to the HQ (unless the HQ also has a way of generating it's own cash... limited, one of my ideas) keep their score low and buy let's to rush with, but also supplying their HQ with troops to rush with...

So many ways to attack wings and do meaningful things without having to build rules and systems to force play style (whether to encourage a resistance or to discourage wing building).

In short, remove yourselves from the box. Take a broader look at everything going on from start to finish. A resistance system may help this round, but an unrealistic approach for non-wing rounds. Hell any round there hasn't been a wing/powerblock... it's rare that those starting in front stay in front. usually they get massed by the anti-powerblock, 6 alliances plus solos, and the fight for first goes on.

I don't think you realize (meaning those pro-resistance system) the implications from start to finish in implementing such a system. Would it be pure numbers based? What if the lead alliance figured out how to use the system for their means? Implementing CRA would be so much easier and less messy. CRA was good intentions, poor implementation. Same thing with any would-be resistance system.

So again, think about your HQ and what you would like to see happen with alliances.

With alliance HQ's... I don't think there should be 'routes' per se, but a set of techs on a tree... some allow for one thing, turning off capabilities for another for power concerns and resources etc etc...

so if you wanted to be super intel and keep nosy people out of your alliances buildings then you would tech all your intel gathering/obfuscating devices and have limited access to HQ offensive capabilities and medium access to defensive capabilities... (ooh a rock paper scissor balance system... HMMMMM.... does that ring a bell for anyone?)

Ok enough waxing developmentally cuz you don't agree and you aren't going to listen.

 

[willymchilybily]

im impressed garrett, even in a post you manage to sound a little bit angry and frustrated, nice idea. shame you cba to create it as a seperate suggestion where it might actually get read and maybe even expanded on.

 

[Martin]

A resistance thing for people who struggle to get involved is already in place?

'Live Chat'

 

[Garrett]

i think effort would be better spent creating a viable resistance system. which also isn't needed. make being in an alliance worth it by having a better HQ and HQ/War system and maybe the top won't be so bored.
at least with a resistance system the top should always be challenged. this suggestion boarders on the inane, imo, because it would be pandering to a very small group of people and not really a benefit for the game as a whole.

I agree, empower the rest of the playerbase and give the rest of the playerbase a genuine facility to "entertain the top", while entertaining themselves. And by entertain I don't mean being constant victims to whoever the top is (whether the top is a powerblock or simply 1 solo-alliance who managed to pull away by themselves) the instant they get in to the 30% range.... by entertain I actually mean provide a challenge.

I have been thinking about several things/possibilities. Some of these I hate and would never do, some I particularly like and am seriously contemplating. I mention them all purely to help in the possbility of inspiring other ideas:

* Force rank 1 public after a set amount of ticks (I dislike this).
* Some form of limits or restrictions for whoever is rank 1 after set amount of ticks/after their score gets a certain % higher than rank 2 (not only do I dislike 'restrictions' enforced on the top, but this can be abused by 2 alliances working together keeping similar scores to avoid a % check too).
* Some form of increased incentives for people to attack the top with much less risk for themselves, eg very high injury/insurance rates, very high bounty rates (perhaps with guaranteed max bounty every time regardless of if you do a rush attack or a joint mass wave resistance 'technically bash' attack)... (I like this the most as it's simple and clear in concept and requires the rest of the playerbase to still do something themselves, using nothing but normal combats).
* Some sort of in-game "resistance system" that can be activated once per round by "vote" from a certain number of other alliance leaders, activates for a certain period/specific situation, and empowers every other player with some special bonus (I don't really like this, I think resistances should be free form by the players talking among themselves, not some "official" resistance that the game recognises).

I dislike first 2 ideas with the exception that i think all alliances should be public from tick 1 (or at least alliances over x members).

3rd is nice, increased bounty on members of top alliance sounds kinky tho i don't know how would that entertain them aswell ^^

And i also dislike from 4th the 1 time resistance call especially as it's not that unusual at least first alliance to make it to top to get killed by an overwhelming resistance, then second too, third maybe and in the end ppl get bored resisting.
I also generally dislike ideas meant JUST to improve ways to attack the top alliance.
First make organizing your own alliance attacks easyer, faster and clearer by an easy to read graphical page with senders and targets and then i'd say allow leaders or members with permission to enable viewing of one of their plan by other alliances (which can be just the idea behind the plan not all the details).

If i think a bit what means organising a resistance it's pretty much 2 scenarios :

1. The plan is all on one target - you don't need anything fancy just one guy posting in each of the alliances target, LT and eta.
2. Each alliance attacks separate targets - again there's no need for a fancy multi alliance attack plan, each alliance gets 1 or more id's and organizes themselfs so they need just a "own alliance attack plan".

I can't think of any practical system to make organising of mass alliances much better because a) it's not needed b) as i said ^ it's not much to improve other than eliminating intermediars so the head organizer just posts target,LT and eta and all alliances can see in an instant or if this system would "help" by revealing detailed attack plan for each of the alliances which are temporary on the same side it just won't be used for obvious reasons.
When alliances are given targets they pick their real and fakes and often don't share this information with other allies in resistance. I can't blame them and tbh i don't see what would any ingame system would change there.


I personally loved the h/f and if i'm not mistaking it would cover all or most of the problems
Powerblock at top = they are desperate for targets = always attack at 30-40% = negative l/f all over = happy resistance = bad idea to make powerblock.
Incentive to attack top as i see that's what you want to improve.
Less mindless bashing and repeat attacks.
Other things to aim for as this round at least it's most about getting acres and holding them and as you can see when it's just about strength, players seek for solutions to have more pure muscles and we have 3 known groups which consist of more than 1 alliance and also other less official groups which are just not hostile to eachother.
It's too much about quantity and quality has been neglected

to bring the discussion back to the proper place. probably could lock the other thread.

 

[timtadams]

I'm completely opposed to any in-game resistance system. If an alliance gets to the top through dirty tactics, usually they will be low skilled meaning the more skilled players should be able to resist successfully. If an alliance gets to the top through fair tactics, usually they will be highly skilled and should be able to fend off any resistance attempt. I don't condone any system that punishes players for being on top, it should be down to the playerbase to do so. (This is speaking as someone who has taken part in many resistances and been resisted against many times.)

Agreed - there, my opinion

Its not needed.

People should take this as a lesson that if you think an alliance(s) is pulling away in the ranks, organise a resistance sooner, rather than leaving it until they are too big. The sooner, the easier. You guys were too lazy/useless to organise a resistance sooner, so deal with it.

And everyone whines that the round is now dead and boring. You can still organise a resistance. And why wouldnt you? If its soooo boring, aaaand you cant get a high rank as they are all taken up, why dont you go with what you can get and attack them anyway? If you suicide at least you have some nice BRs, rather than sitting there doing nothing.

But on the points of a resistance system. Agree with Azzer and Darksider. Third point is best as far as im concerned. Provide incentives and make it less harmful to those resisting. I dont think there is anything to add to that.

But as i said, not needed. We are just spoon feeding the babies.

 

[BlackWolf]

I dont agree with that.

Having ingame resistance system of some kind is not nesessary a bad thing. As long as it is made so that the "tools" given are not making you to win but only helping you to win.

As such I am all for system where alliances but top could discuss ( politics boards of some sort). Arrange attacks... (tag targets with those small notes). As such the actual attacking would still be done by the players themsleves but they would be provided with some basic help tools.

For example having ability to tag top alliance players IDs with alliance,names,timezones etc. that resistance alliances could see wouldnt make them overpowered but could help to organize resistance a lot.

 

[DarkSider]

I think that idea with gpols was best. The code is still around i guess, just change it to make your own private threads and send permissions to other alliances or id's to read and write in those. That's the most a system to help resistance could do imo, if the alliances have dificulties using a large mirc room they can use a comun politics board.

 

[BlackWolf]

Fact is that not everyone uses irc...
btw. please realize that its IRC and mirc is one software to connect to it

Basicly having some kind of politics system would allow almost any alliance to organize resistance without 1 person needing to work their ass off for it all.

Same time knowing it would be seen only by certain alliances etc. would allow alliances to communicate on other layers than just huge activity demanding IRC.

 

[Dark_Angel]

To everyone who is saying "we don't need an in-game resistance support mechanism" - what exactly are you basing that on?

The massive number of resistance efforts that have been successful in the past? :?

 

[DarkSider]

To everyone who is saying "we don't need an in-game resistance support mechanism" - what exactly are you basing that on?

The massive number of resistance efforts that have been successful in the past? :?

First of all .. what you think that mechanism should do and how should it work ?

 

[f0xx]

To everyone who is saying "we don't need an in-game resistance support mechanism" - what exactly are you basing that on?

The massive number of resistance efforts that have been successful in the past? :?

Actually, there have been quite a few successful resisances especially if the right people are organising them.

 

[Dark_Angel]

To everyone who is saying "we don't need an in-game resistance support mechanism" - what exactly are you basing that on?

The massive number of resistance efforts that have been successful in the past? :?

Actually, there have been quite a few successful resisances especially if the right people are organising them.

I can't think of very many f0xx, this round is an excellent example. Nothing will be done against Inimical.

-

DS - I didn't say I had the answer I'm simply saying the possibility of such a system shouldn't be discarded because "there isn't a need for one" - because IMO we do and there are various in-game indications we do too.