Challenge IV, Category C explained. RULES THREAD

[SkaForHire]

Added the naming convention suggested by Gideon, clarified the Guerrilla phase for everyone, hopefully. I will change the previous Guerrilla MOCs titles, once I know what location they picked.

[MKJoshA]

I know it would be a lot of pinned threads, but is there anyway to have all the Cat C threads and Warzone threads pinned to the top? It's confusing to wade through all of the posts right now

[SkaForHire]

I was kind of waiting for the Challenge Three threads to be unpinned... but I can pin the cat c thread at least for now.

[Disco86]

I have been asking myself if there is a city at A14 ? It is marked blue in the city overview map, but there is no "2" in it and the city count of the High Council is 10 even without A14 as a city. So does this mean, there is no city ?

[SkaForHire]

That is Everlast. It doesn't count as 2 points because it is not a normal city. Since Maxim declared for the High Council, the city went high council. I am sure he will come on this thread and explain more about that location.

[Maxim I]

I have been asking myself if there is a city at A14 ? It is marked blue in the city overview map, but there is no "2" in it and the city count of the High Council is 10 even without A14 as a city. So does this mean, there is no city ?

Everlast is a fortress in the Rakath Mountains. So it is indeed no city :) the moment I have access again to my pc, I will put a link here to a MOC i made

[soccerkid6]

Is there any sort of standard the seasoned builders use to determine their approval of an entry? Overall quality of the build? How well it compares to the builder's previous MOCs?

Also, does it need to be specified that the is signifying approval?

That I ask mainly because I like to use the thumbs up emote with pretty much every comment I make

Currently it seems all builds are being approved without any hesitation, which is fine, but it seems to defeat the purpose of the approval rule.

[MKJoshA]

I feel the approval rule is more of a fail-safe in case people start churning out figs-on-a-plate. So far, no one has done that that I've seen.

[Yzalirk]

About the approval system, exactly who can approve a build?

[SkaForHire]

About the approval system, exactly who can approve a build?

Those with a shield earned from GOH.

Is there any sort of standard the seasoned builders use to determine their approval of an entry? Overall quality of the build? How well it compares to the builder's previous MOCs?

Also, does it need to be specified that the is signifying approval?

That I ask mainly because I like to use the thumbs up emote with pretty much every comment I make

Currently it seems all builds are being approved without any hesitation, which is fine, but it seems to defeat the purpose of the approval rule.

I get what you are saying, I think the use of the can usually be told from the context of the post... I think. If we run into problems we will figure it out. As for qualifications, I would hope that people look at each MOC and can determine if sufficient time and effort have been put into creating the MOC. One way to tell this is to ask the question: "How does this rank against MOCs I have seen from this builder before -- is it up to their own standard, let alone the judges?" There could be cases where figs and baseplates is the previous body of work, in those cases we should really be encouraging people to take the next step towards better building.

[Gideon]

Good point Ska. There should absolutely be a very minimum level of effort put into a build imho, but a build from SK, you or me for example should be judged harder when it comes to the initial approval process. When it comes to the voting against other builds, I assume however that the voters will judge the builds and not base their decision on who the builder is.

So where I'm mostly concerned is for guerrilla builds where the rules seem to favor putting out a crappy build a week rather than a better build every other week when facing a faction with less participation...

[robuko]

I am concerned that the points for guerilla mocs are so much higher than the official war zones, basically regardless of quality.

Who amongst us has the ability to set up chatrooms? Is it only regulators and mods? Could I beg Z or Rogue to set up 3 chatrooms please?

[Garmadon]

@Ska, the Ulandians already have a PM group (thanks MKJ!), so it is not necessary to start another one for us.

[Kai NRG]

...One way to tell this is to ask the question: "How does this rank against MOCs I have seen from this builder before -- is it up to their own standard, let alone the judges?" ...

That's the perfect criterion I think when it comes to approval. I'd expect a far better build from certain builders than from others to still demonstrate the same effort.

[MKJoshA]

@Ska, the Ulandians already have a PM group (thanks MKJ!), so it is not necessary to start another one for us.

And I've also set one up for the DK.

[SarahJoy]

Looks like the High Council is the only one still in need of a PM group, then.

[Jacob Nion]

What if both enemy factions make guerilla attacks on a square at the same time?

And if two builder are willing to start a guerilla attack on a two points square, must there builds be also "mirrored" like the counter attacks are supposed to be? Or even have to have the same theme (e.g. "build a watch tower")?

[SkaForHire]

I am concerned that the points for guerilla mocs are so much higher than the official war zones, basically regardless of quality.

Who amongst us has the ability to set up chatrooms? Is it only regulators and mods? Could I beg Z or Rogue to set up 3 chatrooms please?

I thought about this last night after you comment on Flickr. The original intention here was to get people to create MOCs that would be able to stand up to the initial onslaught of many counters. Whereas the Guerrilla Attackers (the challengers) have many weeks to plan, they can create a great build. That build could be worth up to 9 points, to reward a really good builder. The counters were higher than normal war-zones because they were always made in a week's time.

Here are my proposed changes -- since Lord Dan, Kai, and Garmadon are all guinea pigs in the first week (I have the thread written up on my other screen and will be posting after this) They will benefit from the old point totals. This is my new proposition for points and approvals, and if there are no major complaints, I think it should go into effect starting today.

Guerrilla Attack Build: 3 points. Requires 3 approvals

Counter Attack Build: 4 points. Requires 5 approvals.

Uncontested win by a Guerrilla Attack: 2 points.

Contented Win by a Guerrilla Attack: 6 points.

Counter side wins, everyone on that side gets 1 point.

That makes it a big gamble for the Guerrilla attack, and should help stop the possibility that someone just puts up figbarf every week. The extra approvals on the Counter attack side help prevent this.

What if both enemy factions make guerilla attacks on a square at the same time?

And if two builder are willing to start a guerilla attack on a two points square, must there builds be also "mirrored" like the counter attacks are supposed to be? Or even have to have the same theme (e.g. "build a watch tower")?

That is why we are trial and error this time around!!! Great questions. Here is how I think we should deal with the situation, we let both challengers be countered by the defending team. If both challengers win, then the zone is split in half for the next week, while the public votes on which Guerrilla Attack was more effective. Both winners get the 6 points, but only the winner of the two gets the zone. If one challenger wins, and one countering side wins, then the the defender keeps the square, but the Challenger that won would get their 6 points. Alternatively this zone could open up as a normal warzone perhaps? I would like to solicit thoughts about this solution to the two attacks in one zone question. If two attacks come from the same side, it is fairly easy, we just mandate that both challengers need to be successfully countered to defend the square.

[Jacob Nion]

I guess declairing a square wich is guerilla attacked by two factions an official warzone could spoil the whole thing because it's maybe not in the interest of the factions to concentrate all their forces on a minor territory that was only picked by a few players.

I 'm not sure I made my second question clear: what I meant was if two players of one faction who decide to guerilla attack a square that is worth two points have to build a similar scene. E.g. they have to show how they rebuild the same fortification or something like that, just like the counter builders are supposed to show something similar to the guerilla build they try to encounter.

Or could those two guerilla players just say they do different stuff to invade the same territory, e.g. player 1 shows a scene where he builds a fort and player 2 makes a scene where he builds a siege weapon. So that at least one counter build would have to be destroying the fort and one the destroying of the siege weapon?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Jacob Nion

[SkaForHire]

I guess declairing a square wich is guerilla attacked by two factions an official warzone could spoil the whole thing because it's maybe not in the interest of the factions to concentrate all their forces on a minor territory that was only picked by a few players.

I 'm not sure I made my second question clear: what I meant was if two players of one faction who decide to guerilla attack a square that is worth two points have to build a similar scene. E.g. they have to show how they rebuild the same fortification or something like that, just like the counter builders are supposed to show something similar to the guerilla build they try to encounter.

Or could those two guerilla players just say they do different stuff to invade the same territory, e.g. player 1 shows a scene where he builds a fort and player 2 makes a scene where he builds a siege weapon. So that at least one counter build would have to be destroying the fort and one the destroying of the siege weapon?

Ok, I get what you are saying now. yes, I think the way you had it at the end there is how we should do it. If two guerrilla attacks from the same side happen, both must be countered. The two Guerrilla Attackers can build different types of scenes, as you said, maybe one sabotages a fort, and one sabotages a siege weapon. The guerrillas win if their MOCs are not both countered.

[Jacob Nion]

Ok, I get what you are saying now. yes, I think the way you had it at the end there is how we should do it. If two guerrilla attacks from the same side happen, both must be countered. The two Guerrilla Attackers can build different types of scenes, as you said, maybe one sabotages a fort, and one sabotages a siege weapon. The guerrillas win if their MOCs are not both countered.

Great thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Bregir]

Guerrilla Attack Build: 3 points. Requires 3 approvals

Counter Attack Build: 4 points. Requires 5 approvals.

Uncontested win by a Guerrilla Attack: 2 points.

Contented Win by a Guerrilla Attack: 6 points.

Counter side wins, everyone on that side gets 1 point.

That makes it a big gamble for the Guerrilla attack, and should help stop the possibility that someone just puts up figbarf every week. The extra approvals on the Counter attack side help prevent this.

A few questions for clarification:

1) The build that wins, guerilla or counter, gets 6 points? Or is the 6 points only for a succesful guerilla build, while the counter side is "only" awarded as below for winning?

2) If the counter wins, everyone on the counter-guerilla team will get 1 point, or just the ones that put up a counter? (I am a bit concerned that too many points for the opponents would deter people from doing guerilla builds.)

If two guerrilla attacks from the same side happen, both must be countered. The two Guerrilla Attackers can build different types of scenes, as you said, maybe one sabotages a fort, and one sabotages a siege weapon. The guerrillas win if their MOCs are not both countered.

Seconded.

[Kai NRG]

What?! We're changing the guerrilla rules? I liked them how they were!

Okay, first of all, why would everyone on the response team get one point if the response wins? I take it we're talking personal points here. I really don't see why everyone should get a point; they haven't put effort in to it! If you ask me just the winning build should get a point, and I'd make it two or three points.

Second, I think five approvals for responses is a bit high. It makes it hard to get them but I don't think it really will have any effect on the quality standard. Three approvals is plenty if you ask me.

I don't quite see why under this point system guerrilla suddenly became a bit gamble. If you ask me, it just became a few points more worthwhile 'cause now if you win, you get 6 instead of 4, was it? - though to be sure the default went from 5 to 3, so I guess it evens out.

Here's a concern I do have, although it probably won't happen, but just in case - I don't think a team or combination of teams should be allowed to guerrilla another team up to more than half the second team's members. That's not a problem when it comes to DK or HC, but just say those two put their heads together and decided to blow us out of the water, five of each team could create guerrillas which would be ten against us. If every single builder on our team were to respond that would still leave one automatic win! And there's almost no way every team member it going to be able to respond. I'd say the most guerrillas any combination of team can do against us in a week should be five (half the number of people on our team). Like I said, that's probably not going to happen, but while we're addressing various concerns...

1) The build that wins, guerilla or counter, gets 6 points? Or is the 6 points only for a succesful guerilla build, while the counter side is "only" awarded as below for winning?

2) If the counter wins, everyone on the counter-guerilla team will get 1 point, or just the ones that put up a counter? (I am a bit concerned that too many points for the opponents would deter people from doing guerilla builds.)

As currently stands, 1) only the guerrilla gets six points, 2) everyone on the counter team gets one (which doesn't make much sense to me from anyone's point of view except those who just sit on the sideline and get a free point every now and then! ).

Edit: While we're at it, I may as well say that a quickly hashed, poorly executed guerrilla will get it's own punishment in an easy win by the defenders - if it even makes it through the approval process! As for personal points, since they're only a factor in deciding the winner of Challenge C, surely the judges will make some allowance should a pathetic guerrilla get by!

Edited March 10, 2015 by Kai NRG

[Sir Gareth]

2) If the counter wins, everyone on the counter-guerilla team will get 1 point, or just the ones that put up a counter?

So, if a Guerrilla Attack is countered, everyone on the countering team gets 1 point? So, as a whole, that team would pick up 10-15 points?

If that's how it works, that's dumb. Why should an Attack get only 6 points, when a Counter can get more than twice that amount?

I think the rules should be left as they were. Gueilla Attacks are one of the draws of this challenge, so the rules shouldn't be made to discourage players and limit participation.

[Garmadon]

...That is why we are trial and error this time around!!! Great questions. Here is how I think we should deal with the situation, we let both challengers be countered by the defending team. If both challengers win, then the zone is split in half for the next week, while the public votes on which Guerrilla Attack was more effective. Both winners get the 6 points, but only the winner of the two gets the zone. If one challenger wins, and one countering side wins, then the the defender keeps the square, but the Challenger that won would get their 6 points. Alternatively this zone could open up as a normal warzone perhaps? I would like to solicit thoughts about this solution to the two attacks in one zone question. If two attacks come from the same side, it is fairly easy, we just mandate that both challengers need to be successfully countered to defend the square.

I think it would probably be far simpler if only one team was allowed to guerrilla against a particular square in a week - after all, there are plenty of squares to choose from! So once one team has guerrilla'd a square it is off limits for a guerrilla from the other team until the voting (guerrilla vs counter) is over. It seems like this would be a much easier method yet it wouldn't seriously affect the other team. They would have the options to either hold off or to guerrilla a different square instead