It's Sunday and my brain is lazy. Can someone give me a good example of opposing goals that could be the foundation of a fun round of PvP?

Here is my basic idea/outline of a tournament. Feel free to add to it, or critique.

PVP Tournament Idea:

Some kind of sign-up sheet is required, no?

Which was why I said "All participating players will have to sign up at the tournament sign up thread." lol

I did miss that.

It really is great fun.

"You cant spend your whole life wrapped in cotton wool little rabbit"

I wuv you guys *snuggles*

kthxbye

Mag. 

The idea of the duration is so that there can be an established amount of time to participate, and then when it's over, new sign-ups can be done. I was thinking about how to award a prize at the end, but that became a stumbling block for me.

The format of the competition would be as follows:

1)  The tournament objective would be to "siege" and "capture" designated cities from the other alliance.  This would be done using the fact that it is possible to siege WITHOUT the use of siege engines so that no actual damage to the city takes place.  

My idea would be that certain players from each alliance would volunteer to have their cities be "targets."  Limitations could include only players with 4 or more cities as targets and only cities over 1k population targeted, or no limitations.  The reason to limit it to only the cities of certain players is that alliances might have players on leave or inactive or who don't want to put in the time commitment, and we don't want to make this less fun for those players.

2)  One point would be awarded for each hour of siege on any target city beyond the 12-hour set-up period.

3)  Sieges that were maintained beyond a 48-hour period would result in a city being declared "razed." 50 points would be awarded to the sieging side and troops and diplos from that city could no longer be used in the competition.

4)  Scouts and spies could be used against any player or encampment (or to protect any player or encampment) of alliances participating in the competition.

5)  Assassins could be used only against encamped forces (when this feature becomes available) or the cities of the players designated as "targets."

6)  Thieves and saboteurs would not be a part of the tournament

7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

8)  Alliances not involved in the competition cannot help with military or diplomatic attacks, but can contribute resources to underdogs and cheer or mock from the sidelines.

Anyway, that's the basic outlines of a challenge I think would be fun, and of course all the rules are just preliminary thoughts and subject to negotiation by participating alliances.  The goal would be to maximize fun for all.

If your alliance is interested in participating in such a tournament, please contact me by in-game mail or just post here.

In my experience player challenges are similar to server tournaments, in which the main prize is bragging rights.  Players will usually throw far more troops into this than could possibly be merited by actual prizes.  I definitely don't want to get into the business of "charging" anyone to enter a challenge I help set up.  But others can if they want.

This is one of the ways in which alliance-based tournaments can be a win for big players and small players alike.  In the Christmas Challenge and the most recent alliance tournament, even complete newbs could participate by scouting targets and keeping their eyes on the map.  Although commander stacking does not have the power it did before combat calculation changes, small players can certainly participate in reinforcing cities, siege camps and the like -- and the experience and particularly the "fun" is not necessarily proportional to the size of the army.  My 10 militia from my baby cities cry for blood with the same vigor as my largest cav army.

Since the size of the siege party is irrelevant to "raze" a city in this setup it would be just as easy for smaller members as it would be for larger members. They may not be able to remove sieges already in progress by the bigger guys, but they might wanna instead focus on sending as many "sieges" as possible and hope that 1 or 2 make it under the bigger guys radar. Also since they are smaller their commanders will be significantly cheaper to rebuild in both time and gold cost, again adding to the effect of lots of small sieges everywhere that have to be picked off.

The bigger guys would of course go for quality and not quantity and create large siege armies that are difficult to remove so that they have an advantage, the downside to this would be if they are destroyed the army would take a more significant amount of time to rebuild.

With this in mind, this leads me to edit my idea so that there are leagues within the tournament. One league can be the smaller player group, another for the higher level player. It would need some work to determine what levels would be in each league, but it's a start.

Interesting, however I do not plan to charge an entry fee on my idea of a tournament. I suppose someone else could do something like that though.

This looks like a great idea for a tournament, and I hope this can be tried out sometime!

The slowest units for dwarves are halbardier (6+50%=9.5) and yeoman (7+50%=10.5), the latter is already too fast.  Dwarves will need a halbardier in a participating army, if their commanders have forced march at 100%.  

Now where in the wiki does it show me how this works for other races?   

Pretty much all races will have to put in one or more units to "slow down" their siege armies, but if 10 squares were too much of a burden for dwarves it could be 12 squares or whatever; this limitation would only apply to armies doing actual "sieges" and not to reinforcing armies, raiding armies or whatever.

What if instead we made it so that you have to have at least 1 non cav unit in your army instead of limiting it to 10 sq per hour. We get roughly the same results but it allows everyone to use armies and commanders already on hand.

Listen to this guy he knows what he's talking about

For example, points awarded for each type of resource stolen over a fixed period of time. This is the only thing I can think of right now as my brain is a little fried but there must be better ideas.

All good, no worries. Sounds like a very long drive.

Rill's idea is AvA. And I had been trying to go with PvP. Two different approaches.

Now Rill's tournament suggestion is very nice.

And I do look forward to seeing it happen.

I was hoping for some more feedback for a more PvP style tournament. I'll be working up more details of my own on it, hopefully I can post it. 

Easy enough... modify that last tourney idea with a last man standing sort of objective. Everyone attempts to "raze" each other's towns while attempting to defend their own. Last man standing wins. However, we would really need some sort of pvp flag that we can turn on and off that makes us attackable by even our own alliance mates. This sort of thing will prob fail if it requires that we leave our alliances.

we lost, i'll admit that, but that wasn't the point, the point was the war was fun. People here are far to over protective when it comes to their accounts and alliances etc, whats the use in having a race car if you never drive it fast?

Just saying, its just a game kids.

I mean, we are all here to enjoy ourselves right?

Mag.

We all gained immense enjoyment from our game play for a good two months...

And all we lost was an alliance ticker and a few towns....

This isn't RL, illy war isnt that dangerous...live a little, you might enjoy it!!

Mag

Guess you've never seen a dwarf ride a horse.

  

  1. An option to  allow ourselves to be attacked by naped alliances. 

  2. An option to allow ourselves to be attacked by confeds

  3. An option to allow ourselves to be attacked by our own alliances. 

If we had just the one option it would open up alot of doors in terms of player driven events... if we had all these options it would allow much more refined creativity and selective objectives (ie. alliance events)

If this has been mention before, I'm sorry for stepping on your feet (feel free to mention yourself here).

You mean "pony" right? 

Are there warhorses in mountain reaches? See, there is a reason why nobody(except dwarves) has ever seen a dwarf ride a horse!

Apparently Kumomoto has been watching KP put HM through his paces again.

Edited:  Or perhaps it was Anjire, since he is after all a dwarf.