Design Directions: Official Resistance System

[tomtree]

i personally think that the best idea is DA's one. (but with a few modifications)

it should be voted for by a number of the top 15/20 alliances (dunno figures, maybe somewhere between 5-10 leaders)

basically i think that is should have some of the aspects of an alliance, a resistance politics, the ability for the resistance leader to mass mail everyone in the resistance, and other aids for co-ordinating the resistance. there should be no, or very little bonus for the resistance in the form of bounty/insurrance/extra land. it should be purely an aid for organisation.

also, obviously you shouldnt be able to defend each other (other than the members of your own alliance ofcourse).

and while this is running i think that if you choose to join the resistance you shouldnt be able to attack other members of the resistance. this stops alliances joining the resistance just to get info about who's online, and other info in order to just attack each other.

So basically to sum it up:

If a "resistance system" is set up ingame i believe that it should be purely in order to help organise the resistance. the resistance should not be given bonus's in attack!

I believe this is a fairer solution as it makes one of the most difficult parts of a resistance (the co-ordination) easier, without actually punishing those on top.

critisisms welcome.

 

[Polo]

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? :?

Resistances shouldn't often be successful, imo. Usually there's a good reason an alliance is #1 - they're the best ally that round.

 

[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? :?

Resistances shouldn't often be successful, imo. Usually there's a good reason an alliance is #1 - they're the best ally that round.

I'm dubious as to whether rank 1 does always deserve the rank. Do Inimical deserve their rank 1 title? Would they be rank 1 if they weren't part of a powerblock? Interesting.

You've also to consider the entertainment value here. As a top 10 player, I'd love nothing more than to see some incoming from the resistance as there's quite literally nothing else to do. Resistance provides valuable and much needed action for alliance ranks 1/2.

 

[f0xx]

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

Just because you have been gone for a long time doesn't mean there haven't been successful resisntances.

Besides Inimical have TWO meatshields.

Your posts are getting more and more rediculous DA. How can you even use this round for an example when the "winning" alliances are more than the alliances that can form a resistance...

I'm dubious as to whether rank 1 does always deserve the rank. Do Inimical deserve their rank 1 title? Would they be rank 1 if they weren't part of a powerblock? Interesting.

Yet another example for a rediculous post... perhaps you in SG and Overlude should ask yourself that question? Hmm?

First you say your round is boring and you have nothing to do while you are in a powerblock at the same time.
Then you say that the alliance which is part of your powerblock and rank 1 at the same time doesn't really deserve that rank.

Your logic is just flawless.

 

[Dark_Angel]

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

Just because you have been gone for a long time doesn't mean there haven't been successful resisntances.

Besides Inimical have TWO meatshields.

Your posts are getting more and more rediculous DA. How can you even use this round for an example when the "winning" alliances are more than the alliances that can form a resistance...

I'm dubious as to whether rank 1 does always deserve the rank. Do Inimical deserve their rank 1 title? Would they be rank 1 if they weren't part of a powerblock? Interesting.

Yet another example for a rediculous post... perhaps you in SG and Overlude should ask yourself that question? Hmm?

First you say your round is boring and you have nothing to do while you are in a powerblock at the same time.
Then you say that the alliance which is part of your powerblock and rank 1 at the same time doesn't really deserve that rank.

Your logic is just flawless.

Aye, I've been away for some time, but I've also played this game a long time, and there have been a handful of rounds at best, wherin the resistance has tried and won.

As for your second remark you're assuming that just because I'm part of TBA that means I can't have an objective opinion.

I'm TBA, so I must feel like Inim have won deservedly. :roll:

N.b - I won't get into a debate about whether Inim/TBA deserve their ranks - This isn't what this thread is for. My questions were very much rhetorical

 

[f0xx]

Aye, I've been away for some time, but I've also played this game a long time, and there have been a handful of rounds at best, wherin the resistance has tried and failed.

As for your second remark you're assuming that just because I'm part of TBA that means I can't have an objective opinion.

I'm TBA, so I must feel like Inim have won deservedly. :roll:

N.b - I won't get into a debate about whether Inim/TBA deserve their ranks - This isn't what this thread is for. My questions were very much rhetorical

I can give you quite a few examples of successful resistances. I can give you reasons why there were/were not successful as well. While we are on the subject, last round there was a successful resistance. Ask twigley.

As for:

I'm TBA, so I must feel like Inim have won deservedly. :roll:

This has to be the quote of the round. Besides why would I argue with your point since you obviously agree with me, i.e. that Inimical do not deserve their current rank? My question is, why the hell don't you do something about it? Instead, you keep supporting their rank while saying they do not deserve it at the same it.

There is a contradiction between what you are saying and what you are doing.

hypocrite
nouna person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

 

[Dark_Angel]

f0xx you appear to be arguing with me just for the sake of it.

You agree that now and again there is a rank 1 alliance that does not, generally, deserve to be there (at least in some ways)

Thats what I'm saying, I said that like 4 posts ago, and I'm saying its the reason why formal in-game resistance mechanisms are, IMO, needed.

I'll contribute to this thread as a member of the bushtarion community, not a member of TBA. You'll most likely find my in-game persona differs quite a lot to my out-of-game persona.

Bringing TBA into *everything* is getting a bit old tbh, and is the #1 reason for people going off topic these days.

Forget I'm TBA, my membership there does not mean I can't have an objective opinion on these forums

 

[f0xx]

f0xx you appear to be arguing with me just for the sake of it.

No no, I am really really HIGHLY disgusted at your extremely high state of hipocricy. THAT is why I argue with you.

You agree that now and again there is a rank 1 alliance that does not, generally, deserve to be there (at least in some ways)

Unlike you though, I am actually fighting AGAINST that rank one, while you on the other hand are NOT in their alliance and are supporting them.

Thats what I'm saying, I said that like 4 posts ago, and I'm saying its the reason why formal in-game resistance mechanisms are, IMO, needed.

No they are not needed.

I'll contribute to this thread as a member of the bushtarion community, not a member of TBA. You'll most likely find my in-game persona differs quite a lot to my out-of-game persona.

That is like entering a classroom with a machine gun, killing 10 students and unjuring 15 and then saying, "I am not really a murderer".

Bringing TBA into *everything* is getting a bit old tbh, and is the #1 reason for people going off topic these days.

Oh, the same ol' excuse again. I do not bring TBA into everything, I bring that fact that YOU are in TBA. When your forum behaviour contradics your ingame behaviour, then we have a problem.

Forget I'm TBA, my membership there does not mean I can't have an objective opinion on these forums

There was Twigley some rounds ago, saying how much he likes when there is a lot of alliances competing for rank 1, how much he likes politics and how much he likes rounds in which the winners are not decided in the first couple of weeks. Then he went and made a powerblock. Contradictions... contradictions...

And finally the diamond...

I'll contribute to this thread as a member of the bushtarion community, not a member of TBA.

You seem to forget that it is THE GAME which all of us are here for. Not the forums. In-game is what matters, not what you say here. Nice try though. Nice edit as well.

 

[timthetyrant]

You've also to consider the entertainment value here. Resistance provides valuable and much needed action for alliance ranks 1/2.

we dont need any ingame help for a resistance, ive noticed that rank 1 isnt way out in front as every1 has said, rank 2 is close enough behind to cause a lot of damage, and that would make it more fun for Dark Angel.

 

[Alcibiades]

You've also to consider the entertainment value here. Resistance provides valuable and much needed action for alliance ranks 1/2.

we dont need any ingame help for a resistance, ive noticed that rank 1 isnt way out in front as every1 has said, rank 2 is close enough behind to cause a lot of damage, and that would make it more fun for Dark Angel.

That's why powerblocks are such a uniquely shitty structure. This round is not your 'average' resistance.

The only possible concession i could give to some sort of 'resistance system' would be the ability to facilitate communication between leaders and their designated officers/reps. Even that I don't think is really necessary. If a resistance has got enough dedication behind it, it will, eventually succeed, barring exceptional circumstances. The biggest problem with the resistance has to do with sheer laziness. It's not overly hard to take out 1 ally on top, 2 is harder but possible, 3 veers into the slightly more impossible etc. All it takes to knock out one ally is determination, time and effort. None of those you can really get from a resistance system.

The problem *this* round is the powerblock; in general it's laziness in getting a resistance off the ground; and this round it's a combination of the usual laziness and the powerblock. Most people launch one wave, and then vanish, regardless of the success or failure of the wave. Another thing is that it takes a long time (relatively speaking) to really kill off the rank 1 ally, and most players aren't willing to put that much time into the game. Another reason is that as the game playerbase shrinks, you need increasingly active participation from the remaining alliances/players, and that simply isn't going to happen. Especially this round when 10% of the active playerbase is at the top actively engaged in keeping the 'resistance' down. There just aren't enough dedicated players willing to put in the time and effort. A system would make taking down rank 1 easier, but it would be giving too much of a crutch to those people who are simply to lazy to put in the real time and effort.

A big thumbs down from me on a resistance system.

 

[Hobbezak]

You've also to consider the entertainment value here. As a top 10 player, I'd love nothing more than to see some incoming from the resistance as there's quite literally nothing else to do. Resistance provides valuable and much needed action for alliance ranks 1/2.

Is being bored the reason why you post such a statement here? To get another flamewar about your powerblock going?
But I'll post the obvious: If you're bored, you know what to do...

 

[f0xx]

@ Alci, stop bringing TBA into *every* conversation, it is getting lame. :roll:

 

[BlackWolf]

I think major flaw in some peoples opinion of resistance system is that they think it is about lazyness etc.

Fact is that not everyone uses IRC and not everyone should. Also if someone who is in lead of rank 15 alliance let he be how motivated or skilled to do the job ever, wouldnt be listened at all by biggest resistance alliances. Also not everyone lives on same timezone.


Thats why this game really needs some kind of system where people not depending of their rank and IRC usage can communicate, to provide as good resistance as possible. Current situation is more like "yeah we could do resistance, but cba cause it requires too much activity/work/time without real gain" than " I am too lazy to do anything"


I cant remember EVER seeing these people who here claims others are too lazy to do resistance stepping up and organizing resistance themselves. Doesnt that give some kind of idea how much you are willingly to do for this community?

I can understand very well why people like Polo,Martin etc. really cba to do this stuff, they have done it so many times, they kind of try to hand it all over to new blood, but people obviously are not ready for such "responsibility" They rather come here to complain how others are too lazy to do resistance, yet dont do smeg themselves. My respect for Cyrus from trying.

 

[Dark_Angel]

i think major flaw in some peoples opinion of resistance system is that they think it is about lazyness etc.

Fact is that not everyone uses irc and not everyone should. Also if someone who is in lead of rank 15 alliance let he be how motivated or skilled to do the job ever, wouldnt be listened at all by biggest resistance alliances. Also not everyone lives on same timezone.


Thats why this game really needs some kind of system where people not depending of their rank and irc usage can communicate, to provide as good resistance as possible. Current situation is more like "yeah we could do resistance, but cba cause it requires too much activity/work/time without real gain" than " i am too lazy to do anything"


i cant remember ever seeing these people who here claims others are too lazy to do resistance stepping up and organizing resistance themselves. Doesnt that give some kind of idea how much you are willingly to do for this community?

I can understand very well why people like polo,martin etc. Really cba to do this stuff, they have done it so many times, they kind of try to hand it all over to new blood, but people obviously are not ready for such "responsibility" they rather come here to complain how others are too lazy to do resistance, yet dont do smeg themselves. My respect for cyrus from trying.

qft

 

[Garrett]

qft

ok how does qft help this thread in any way, shape or form?

if you feel BW has a valid point why don't you suggest something to echo the sentiment like... 'since alliance communication is by permission, why don't we expand friends list to send out a group communication to everyone set to friend - much like ally mail... that way
whoever is organizing in game can send 1 mass mail to those not in irc'

now obviously no 1 person would have all the resistance names.. but this all or nothing atmosphere is getting silly.

also i still contend that HQ's need much more done with them and if people get excited about their HQ... they will fight for it. they will fight others for theirs and the need for resistance systems will be diminished at least for the time being.

 

[Dark_Angel]

ok how does qft help this thread in any way, shape or form?

if you feel BW has a valid point why don't you suggest something to echo the sentiment like... 'since alliance communication is by permission, why don't we expand friends list to send out a group communication to everyone set to friend - much like ally mail... that way
whoever is organizing in game can send 1 mass mail to those not in irc'

now obviously no 1 person would have all the resistance names.. but this all or nothing atmosphere is getting silly.

I agree with what BW said, its about as simple as that really

And in response to what you said.

Resistance System > Improving alliance HQ

 

[Garrett]

Resistance System > Improving alliance HQ

sure, from your point of view. what first round in how long?

the resistance system would largely be 1 dimensional. something to inspire the masses to hit the top.


an Alliance HQ has many more dimensions and could possibly have farther reaching opportunities and implications than any resistance system ever could.

let me ask you this: If the HQ was functional, especially in the way of sending troops to more than just to the enemy HQ and friendly defense... would that not help a 'resistance'?

My point is that, imo, we should look at developing the tools, however, small that are currently in the game and need to be used and coded to be USEFUL.

A resistance system is probably more to address a powerblock. Limited scenario so limited use for a system. After mid-round few people wish to sack their score for the interests of resisting.

So, I think we should look at benefitting ALL in multiple scenarios instead of benefitting some in some scenarios.

And resistance system vs overhauled alliance is exactly ---> some things for some (resistance) vs many thing(s) for every allianced person (HQ).

Not to mention HQ overhaul could introduce more options for gameplay. Resistance system 1 extra system for massing the top. It's funny where the continual emphasis gets put (1 thing for some people).

 

[Polo]

Resistance System > Improving alliance HQ

...Alliance HQ stuff...

Slightly off-topic, but on the topic of HQs. Along with any other changes to make them more useful, how about being able to attack an enemy with HQ troops if your alliance is at war with their alliance?

 

[lavadog]

hmm, I think HQ units should need some rebalancing then Polo. Or give them a larger eta than other units to compensate for their strength.

Unless there's some kind of limit to how many of them you can buy (which I think there is but I don't really remember what limit it is)

 

[Dark_Angel]

Resistance System > Improving alliance HQ

...Alliance HQ stuff...

Slightly off-topic, but on the topic of HQs. Along with any other changes to make them more useful, how about being able to attack an enemy with HQ troops if your alliance is at war with their alliance?

That sounds like a pretty good idea tbh. When HQs are revamped alliances, IMO, outside rank 1/2 should be able to use their HQ units to attack to bolster resistance efforts.

sure, from your point of view. what first round in how long?

I assure you me leaving has had no impact on my knowledge of the game I haven't played an official round in 18 months, and am top 5 in the player rankings, if I have missed things/forgot stuff clearly it wasn't very important

I agree developing HQ further is a good idea, no doubt brilliant things could be done here. However, that doesn't solve the problem of communication/interaction between these HQs. What are we suggesting here, that these new HQ developments would bolster an alliance's strength so much they can take down the winning, rank 1 alliance?

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you. I just think the biggest weakness of the resistance is continuous effort and involvement from all parties. Adding more functionality to a HQ will help this, but not solve it?