30DEC10 - The King's First Tournament

GM Stormcrow wrote: Participation in the Alliance Tournament is defined as a) being a member of the alliance during the tournament, and b) sending an army to Occupy the winning designated square during the tournament.  To prevent "padding", under no circumstances will more than 100 players from a Winning Alliance be rewarded; said members to be chosen from the eligible Alliance participants by their join date. SC

Wait, what? I thought that no single alliance could exceed 100 players anyway?

sweet, i'm in

col0005 wrote: GM Stormcrow wrote: Participation in the Alliance Tournament is defined as a) being a member of the alliance during the tournament, and b) sending an army to Occupy the winning designated square during the tournament.  To prevent "padding", under no circumstances will more than 100 players from a Winning Alliance be rewarded; said members to be chosen from the eligible Alliance participants by their join date. SC Wait, what? I thought that no single alliance could exceed 100 players anyway?

col0005 wrote: GM Stormcrow wrote: Participation in the Alliance Tournament is defined as a) being a member of the alliance during the tournament, and b) sending an army to Occupy the winning designated square during the tournament.  To prevent "padding", under no circumstances will more than 100 players from a Winning Alliance be rewarded; said members to be chosen from the eligible Alliance participants by their join date. SC Wait, what? I thought that no single alliance could exceed 100 players anyway?

That is kind of what I'm getting at, with the word "Padding".

What that bit of small print is trying to avoid is the possibility that an alliance might invite dozens of people to join them, get them out to the designated square for 10 minutes, then kick them out of the alliance. Rinse, repeat with different people.  So, by the end of January more than 100 different members of the same alliance had actually participated in the tournament.

Regards,

SC

HonoredMule wrote: Indeed, this and many other exploits would be possible if more than 100 members could participate.  Say, 50 members participate until their troops are all gone, then the other 50 participate while a fresh 50 are recruited (perhaps from a sister alliance) for the 3rd stretch, then another 50 replace the 2nd 50 for the 4th stretch...

heh HM, I was trying not to give people that idea :)

But yes, for the avoidance of doubt, only a maximum of 100 people in any of the Winning alliances, and I will take a very dim, possibly disqualificatory view of alliances that have more than 100 members actually engaged in combat events on these squares in aggregate when I tot things up at the end of the month.

Oh, and Happy New Year everyone!

With best wishes for a magnificent 2011 to one and all.

SC