Design Directions: Official Resistance System

[Azzer]

This thread is an official Design Directions thread.

Should there be some sort of built in "resistance system"? Perhaps it can only be activated once per round, and most be "voted on" by at least 10 leaders of the top 20 alliances once we are two weeks in to a round for it to be "activated". What would it achieve? How could abuse be prevented? What advantages would it give to the "Mid-ranked alliances" that would allow them to genuinely provide a challenge to the top rank alliances, without simply being an "instant kill system" making it impossible for the top rank alliance to ever win?

What about when an alliance actually plays fair (ie without wings or dirty tactics) - just a single alliance that didn't bash and everyone actually thinks deserves the win? Should there be a vote system also in place to prevent a resistance being possible?

Please provide ideas, brainstorms, or even vaguely related concepts on this idea in this thread.

 

[Polo]

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.)

 

[Mattheus]

Some things should be left alone. This is one of those things in my opinion.
It shouldn't be spoon fed to players, it takes a lot of work to come out on top, it should take just as much (if not more) work to take said people out. Part of the whole deal with resistance is that it's against the odds, often doomed to fail. But when it does succeed, it's awesome.

Edit - beaten by Polo :<

 

[Azzer]

What about when skilled players come together combined with dirty tactics (multiple alliances powerblocking)? The assumption that only unskilled players do things like powerblocks is an outright incorrect assumption, from many rounds of experience.

Usually it's "rank whores" that powerblock (care more about their rank than about say, fighting a good fight) - and rank whores can be anything from skilled old veterans of Bushtarion, to plain old newbs - but I've definitely seen my share of vets do it (and I've also seen newb alliances do it too, mind! But it's not always the newbs).

There used to be a CRA once - this will never come back. But perhaps something akin to "adrenaline rush", but on a larger scale and must be voted in, can only be done once per round, could be balanced, can only be done when a certain alliance is so far ahead of the averages etc. etc. - could be something that actually prevented the top getting bored and gave the rest of the game a genuine chance at making a possibly "dead" round interesting again (referring to top ranks... middle ranks are pretty much always interesting through a round! But many only care about the top ranks or they quit... ).

 

[pinpower]

I agree entirely with what Polo said, he hit the nail on the head so to speak.

Plus apart from not like the concept behind this idea actually working out and balancing a system like this would be nearly impossible.

Edit: Just to throw my ideas in from a "if this does happen" POV. I think a system like you suggested in your first post Azzer. Where by there must be say 50% of the top 20 alliance leaders voting to activate the resistance "function". Depending on what sort of bonus it would give the resistance i think a warning news should appear in the top alliance/alliances news log 6(?) ticks before the resistance launches so the fight is fair...(if 10 alliances are agreeing to take part in a resistance is not unfair to let the top alliance, that has worked the hardest, a bit of notice to defend itself).
x

 

[Polo]

What about when skilled players come together combined with dirty tactics (multiple alliances powerblocking)? The assumption that only unskilled players do things like powerblocks is an outright incorrect assumption, from many rounds of experience.

I can recall 3 rounds with powerblocks that I have played. R11 with UT/SS, they were mostly noobs. R14 with the Dutchies, again, mostly noobs. And this round, also mostly noobs.

 

[DarkSider]

I also entirely agree with Popolino.
If something has to be improved it shouldn't be designed specifically against top alliance or against a powerblock because it would hold the hands of the weak and upset those that through skill in playing/diplomacy/planning are on top. I don't think either is good.
If you want improvements that will also help in the particular cases you are reffering to, you have to look at alliance war system some more and make it really appealing and maybe with possibility to declare war between 2 sides instead just 2 allies. Any alliance can join the war and tag on one side ?
Also the bounty is imo way too small and nowhere close to "work for your valuation" as the original idea i thought it was when we discussed the removal of effectiveness in favour of a score system where sitting on acres won't mean everything or most of it. If bounty was considerably higher they could have the mother of all powerblocks, numbers wouldn't save them as attacking low they'd get reduced bounty while they'd be awesome targets.

 

[No-Dachi]

A simple way of solving this could be to let the top allies have more bounty after they've outgrown the avg ally by X or something along those lines. It would definitely be a better incentive for a resistance.

You could also look into reworking adr. rushes, and other ingame mechanics that already exists. As for creating a system, i don't think it'll work. I'm not against the idea, but I think it will be extremely hard to implement.

The problem lies in the game detecting a powerblock. As of now we have 1 ally running away, being shielded by two lesser allies. It is hard for a resistance to hit the biggest target first, but how can the game decide on putting more bounty on rank 3? Unless it's a thing that happens to the whole top 5 (and thus working against the basic idea), how can you tell wether or not rank 3 is being a p*ssy, or merely staying out of the fight? A system based on hostile mobs launched would be too easy to work around, and what would the limits be on losses taken?

At the moment I got no real answer, but I reckon the answer lies not in creating a new system for organizing, but rather in altering game mechanics in order to make it easier to attack them/more profitable.

 

[LAFiN]

I can recall 3 rounds with powerblocks that I have played. R11 with UT/SS, they were mostly noobs. R14 with the Dutchies, again, mostly noobs. And this round, also mostly noobs.

I don't see where you are coming off calling most the members in TBA noobs. Sure there are a few, but looking at the people I see coordinating attacks and the such, most of us have been playing in the top ranks for the past 10 rounds. Sure some haven't ever won, but I know a fair majority of us have at least one winning round under our belts.

Sorry, I just had to address that.

As for the so-called Resistance System, I think it could be implemented in such a way that it would work out. An idea I had would be a 24 hour period of time where the rest of the playerbase would get a small (5-10%) bonus on land grabs on the top alliance (or two or three) after the vote. I think it shouldn't be allowed to be voted on until say two weeks into a round, when, by that point the majority of the top alliances have finished the majority of their developments and could have a slight chance to fight back.

Another similar concept would be to have a 24 hour period where after the vote attacking players got slight (5-10%) armor/health bonuses on their troops when attacking members of the top XX alliances. Basically the same concept as above, but with regard to troops instead of land stealing.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I disagree with Polo and Mattheus, for a number of reasons.

Primarily the difficulty of planning a resistance is immense. I too have been involved in a fair few in my days here, and I can tell you that without IRC, it would be quite simply impossible to plan a resistance hit on a powerblock/winning alliance.

I have always been for some kind of in-game system that helps support the creation and maintenance of a resistance party.

I agree with some aspects of what those "against" this idea have said - Many rounds the "on-top" alliance puts a great deal of time and energy into gaining and keeping their rank 1 status. It would be entirely unfair to give a resistance effort any huge bonuses/advantages (such as huge reductions in ETAs, a massive bounty for hitting the top, or a big insurance rate).

If such a system were to be brought in, it'd have to be fair. It'd have to provide a good amount of support from alliances who wanted to be involved, without sticking a red hot iron up the arses of 20 people who may well have earned their place as rank 1.

-

To throw a few ideas in:

- An actual "Resistance" alliance in-game, which alliances can join. The structure of the "Reistance" alliance would not mirror that of a normal alliance, but would be similar.

Possible benefits

• The point of this would be to unify similarly minded alliance leaders and allow for better organised
• Mass mail for the Resistance Leader.
• Shared politics.
• Financial incentives to join the Resistance. "Pay" per tick involved.
• You're still able to attack those in the resistance, you can't defend them.
• Shared outgoings page.
• Unit automatically given to those who join the resistance, taken away when the leave. A moderately powered unit that would be of real use in any attack on "the top".

Other possibilities:

- Much better rewards for attacking the top ranks. Whilst not funding the attack entirely, insurance and bounty should be adjusted to make attacking the top a much more attractive option

- A much higher steal from members of the top 10. I'm sure much more people would be eager to attack the likes of rank 1, if they knew they could take 30-40% in one grab. (Bit out there, would require tweaking)

-

 

[ViVi]

Give them 100% bounty and I'll bring them down myself.

In seriousness, though, as I mentioned on another thread about "random alliances" being the way to prevent this sort of thing, I have to agree with Polo in that you should never penalize the people that are on top because it comes to a point where you are merely punishing the people that invest the most into your game. The purpose of this is what, exactly? To appease the whiners that don't contribute enough time nor effort to win the game, but feel like they should do so anyway?

I think an attitude change is what we need, more than anything. Those that are "hardcore" can't see past their next portal rank and seem willing to do what it takes to achieve said status, whilst the rest of the general playerbase are just constantly complaining and whining about it.

Personally, and this is strictly personally, I loved Bushtarion the best when you had the original bounty hunting system in. That's how I enjoyed myself and it gave me an avenue to strike at those that are outwardly seemingly untouchable.

 

[timthetyrant]

what if we give the police HQ a bit of an offensive power against the top alliances? lets say after 2weeks, if the top alliance gets XX score amount higher then second there is an X chance that the police HQ sends in the biomechanical warriors...

But no, i believe Polo is right, they have earned first spot so they dont deserve this ingame bias against them. look at historical figures who rose to power using "dirty tactics," Ceasar got stabbed in the back, Hitler was his own downfall, Saddam caught the eye of ppl bigger then him, the big bad wolf got too greedy, Darth Vader had forbidden intercourse, etc. So if they are so bad they will get thier come-uppence, and if not then they were obviously not bad enough for you to put in the effort.

 

[No-Dachi]

That's just a modification of the CRA which is probably the worst thing ever invented in this game. I wont go into details here, but if you're in for a history lesson PM and I'll write you the highlights.

 

[BlackWolf]

I disagree with Polo and Mattheus, for a number of reasons.

Primarily the difficulty of planning a resistance is immense. I too have been involved in a fair few in my days here, and I can tell you that without IRC, it would be quite simply impossible to plan a resistance hit on a powerblock/winning alliance.

I have always been for some kind of in-game system that helps support the creation and maintenance of a resistance party.

I agree with some aspects of what those "against" this idea have said - Many rounds the "on-top" alliance puts a great deal of time and energy into gaining and keeping their rank 1 status. It would be entirely unfair to give a resistance effort any huge bonuses/advantages (such as huge reductions in ETAs, a massive bounty for hitting the top, or a big insurance rate).

If such a system were to be brought in, it'd have to be fair. It'd have to provide a good amount of support from alliances who wanted to be involved, without sticking a red hot iron up the arses of 20 people who may well have earned their place as rank 1.

-

To throw a few ideas in:

- An actual "Resistance" alliance in-game, which alliances can join. The structure of the "Reistance" alliance would not mirror that of a normal alliance, but would be similar.

Possible benefits

• The point of this would be to unify similarly minded alliance leaders and allow for better organised
• Mass mail for the Resistance Leader.
• Shared politics.
• Financial incentives to join the Resistance. "Pay" per tick involved.
• You're still able to attack those in the resistance, you can't defend them.
• Shared outgoings page.
• Unit automatically given to those who join the resistance, taken away when the leave. A moderately powered unit that would be of real use in any attack on "the top".

Other possibilities:

- Much better rewards for attacking the top ranks. Whilst not funding the attack entirely, insurance and bounty should be adjusted to make attacking the top a much more attractive option

- A much higher steal from members of the top 10. I'm sure much more people would be eager to attack the likes of rank 1, if they knew they could take 30-40% in one grab. (Bit out there, would require tweaking)

-

Been suggested before and is best and only way of making working resistance system. That still requires those actual players to take top alliance(s) down, and not been felt like Azzers doings.

 

[Ahead]

I also entirely agree with Popolino.
If something has to be improved it shouldn't be designed specifically against top alliance or against a powerblock because it would hold the hands of the weak and upset those that through skill in playing/diplomacy/planning are on top. I don't think either is good.
If you want improvements that will also help in the particular cases you are reffering to, you have to look at alliance war system some more and make it really appealing and maybe with possibility to declare war between 2 sides instead just 2 allies. Any alliance can join the war and tag on one side ?
Also the bounty is imo way too small and nowhere close to "work for your valuation" as the original idea i thought it was when we discussed the removal of effectiveness in favour of a score system where sitting on acres won't mean everything or most of it. If bounty was considerably higher they could have the mother of all powerblocks, numbers wouldn't save them as attacking low they'd get reduced bounty while they'd be awesome targets.

Completely 100% agree with everything here. Especially the bounty bit. Perhaps implement a 'Bounty Rating' (similar to l/f), that only has positive values. Similar to the AR mod it drops every tick, but you gain 'Bounty Rating' if attacking under 50%, waving or bashing. Then it could be split up to add extra bounty on top of the base bounty so, for example, a bounty rating of 500-1000 would give you 5% extra bounty, 1500-2000 10% extra etc. I realise l/f was removed for a reason but I think this could be fairly effective. (If this isn't implemented there should be a sliding scale for base bounty imo - so attacking at 30-35% nets you 0-5% max, and attacking at 200%+ could get you up to 50% bounty.)

However I do like parts of DA's idea: the in-game organisation of resistances should be easier. Resistance politics I agree with - similar to current alliance politics with security levels etc is a good idea. Outgoings would only be a good idea if it could be disabled by alliance leaders, so it only works during resistance hits (we wouldn't want the resistance allies fully napped). I'm not too keen on the new unit, but maybe implementing this with DS's "side" wars suggestion could lead to full grabs, full bounty and increased eff gains on the top alliance(s), as well as possible eta reductions.

 

[ViVi]

Why was the old version of bounty hunting removed?

I certainly recall that the "top" were great targets thanks to how high their bounty was and it certainly encouraged me to attack upwards. I can recall sitting on about 300 land and having 90ml TLs at one point.

With a few people doing that, they'd find it took a little more effort to retain their current position.

 

[f0xx]

There shouldn't be such a system. What Polo and the rest said.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Further to my last post, I'd like to add that any such system (i.e a "Resistance Alliance", where multiple alliances can come together under one "Resistance banner") should require the alliances involved to actively attack the top.

Something like, a check is carried out every x number of ticks, that calculates the average number of attacks those involved have sent to "the top" - if this falls below X number the alliances involved are automatically disbanded.

-

I think what everyone can sensibly say is, it is not possible for a single alliance to do anything more than scratch a powerblock/rank 1 alliance.

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.

I think a "Resistance coalition alliance (RCA ") is the only way of doing this. This organisation would be a formal resistance with real benefits to those involved (see my earlier post).

-

Possible flaws of such a system:

• Alliances creating a coalition with no intention of hitting the top. Instead they initiate the temporary merger simply for the benefits.
• The coalition being too powerful and rank 1/"the powerblock" being taken down too easily. (There should still be a real effort required from the parties involved in the resistance).

 

[pinpower]

Yeah, if any system is put in place it should still remain SERIOUSLY hard to take down the rank 1 alliance...bonuses should just be an incentive rather than make it easy.

x

 

[Garrett]

Why was the old version of bounty hunting removed?

I believe this was the root cause for the explosion in the 'active solo' community and thus all the calls to remove psolo and it's benefits. The explosion in solos happened but no one really identified a root cause other than basic arguments of 'alliances suck' and 'psolos are overpowered'...

Psolos had AR and could hunt ravenously. Basically, I believe without other proof sadly, that BH had the reverse effect it had intended and brought us to this sad point in time for the game.


Oh and against a system for resisting. *FINALLY* focus on the damned HQ and I think you find this thread really freaking obsolete. We've only been clamoring for HQ changes for years at this point.

Make Alliances a focus, change the HQ, increase it's usefulness... actually implement a warring system as that has never materialzed. Do these, then ask yourself if you really need a design thread for resisting.