Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 1 vs 1 Tournament
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed1 vs 1 Tournament
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Larry View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:55
HM's proposal is far more sport like if you ask me. Killing troops is nbd, sieges are just a pain.
Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:48
I should note that contestants should always be within 12 hours of each other, else the timing should be expanded...in particular, players should always have decision making time during which the target tile is known--roughly double the travel time.  Match start and end should always be 00:00 server time.
Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:46
If you just want sport, why not try something a little more skill-based?  Make every entry specify how many troops he's willing to commit, and a mediator pairs him up with the person whose entry matches in score (or specify a total attack+defense score and disallow the use of greater troop quantities during the match--players still get to choose the balance of attack+defense).

24 hours before the match starts, specify a tile roughly half-way between the two contestants and let them know that is their target.  No troops may arrive until match start.  At exactly 24 hours after match start, the mediator's scout will arrive on the square.  Whichever side holds the square at that point wins.  Empty square is a draw.

Contestants are forced to be evenly matched in strength, but have a variety of strategies on how they apply the strength (get there first and hold, clear in strength at last minute, periodic arrival of balanced occupations, etc.)  Like in real battle, one must commit to a plan before seeing which path the enemy will choose.  Contestants could be required to publish the composition of their commitments though, giving each other a chance to guess at what they'll be encountering with regard to timing.

Such a mechanism means winning contestants might actually still have troops to participate in the next tier, too.
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:43
I think Lionz is going for the 'This is not a carebear' tournament approach.

But, yea, I can definitely see your idea getting a lot more traction CranK.  May have to separate it into its own thread since its already fundamentally different from each other...


I can also see 2v2 or 3v3 variants that work.  Knocking a city wall down to zero 'knocks the player out of the match' or whichever side knocked the most wall levels down from the start of the match till the end wins.


Edited by Zangi - 27 Oct 2010 at 16:45
Back to Top
CranK View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Location: Holland
Status: Offline
Points: 286 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:09
A tournament where you can win about 500k gold and lose a city worth maybe a thousand times more and then not even speaking about the military units you can lose... hmm.. This tournament needs alot more balancing I guess.. 
I'm not entering a tournament where the only thing I can win is useless gold wich I have enough allraidy.


But I do have some Ideas:

1) maybe a tournament mode where you will win when you have distroyed the entire city wall (with max 5 battle rams.) This way, more people are willing to play in such a tournament. A tournament where you can lose a city will not get alot of players.

2) The tournament randomly choose a city where you will need to distroy the city wall. This way a challenger will not automaticly go for the smallest town wich is alot of easier to delevel the wall.

3) After tournament is accepted, both player will have 1day to prepare their armies, upgrade citywall a bit further and maybe send some diplomatic units ahead to gain information about the armies and citywall level at that moment.

4) 2 tournament modes. 1 for prestige players and 1 for normal players. A prestige player will have a big advantage over normal player because they can instantly rebuild their citywall. Also saboteurs would not work against prestige players.

5) While you are in the tournament you can not recive trades wich support your towns with resources. They will return home.

6) Also other players can't attack the siege camp and can't reinforce the players. They will also return home with the message ''cannot attack/reinforce player X because this player is fighting in a 1vs1 tournament.

7) Tournament has a deadline. They have to distroy the other players citywall within a specific time (maybe 14days?) The player who lost the most citywall upgrades will lose when this date is over.

8) The gold as a buy-in for the tournament. Then maybe put in advanged resources as reward that the other player needs to accept (or find another tournament wich is more tempting to accept) Winner takes all (gold buy-in + the accepted resources)

9) A new building where you can view, accept challenges. At every upgrade you can put in a bigger reward.  --> building lvl 1: max 100 advanged resources, lvl 2: max 250 advanged resources.. etc etc..

But a 1vs1 tournament would need alot more thinking and work than this. 
Back to Top
Torn Sky View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 402 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 15:33
Originally posted by Lionz Heartz Lionz Heartz wrote:

Karl, this is a war game, not sim city.


this is a however you want to play game its up to the individual player how they run their account albeit some ways are boring compared to others
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 15:08
War is a battle for profit, honor and/or glory.

Why restrict profit to only the 1st place winner?

Allow the conquest of cities.  Players then can still come out ahead or at least break even-ish... for better or worse.
Back to Top
Lionz Heartz View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Location: Megan Fox
Status: Offline
Points: 292 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 14:55
Karl, this is a war game, not sim city.
Back to Top
KarL Aegis View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 287 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 14:54
The point of the tourney is the slaughter of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians
You monsters actually support this? I... I'm disgusted.Cry
I am not amused.
Back to Top
Zangi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 14:53
Allow competitors to decide to conquer instead of raze cities if they already meet the population requirements.

Their decision, their problem to inherit.  Let them decide.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.