| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Darkwords 
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
 Topic: Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications
Posted: 02 Feb 2012 at 10:06 |
|
Thanks Rill and Luna
|
 |
Mara Zira
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Location: Arkansas, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: 01 Feb 2012 at 21:42 |
I've read all the suggestions as they were posted, but I don't think the following ideas have been brought up--sorry if I repeat an idea.
Idea 1:
Most larger players won't mind a delay of a few weeks to join an alliance, but often smaller players do feel an urgency to join alliances and are the main source of new players for a number of alliances. The GMs could always set the leagues and then set the restriction so that any player under 1,000 total population (or some other number) can still join the participating alliances but larger players can only leave alliances for the duration of the tournament.
Generally, players less than 1,000 population aren't going to change the outcome of a tournament that much except in the smallest leagues (like alliances of only 1 or 2 players). Perhaps the smallest leagues would have an even lower restriction, like only 400 population or less players can join during the tournament.
If this idea is used, though, the players should be given a day or two to switch or join alliances and then the leagues will be re-set and remain unchanging throughout the tournament even if players leave.
Idea 2:
Allow players to freely join and leave alliances throughout most of the tournament, and allow the alliances to move up or down in league category as players join and leave alliances and increase or decrease their population. Then, 5 to 7 days before the end, freeze the alliances' league and only allow players to leave an alliance (or combine with my first idea). This will prevent alliances from deciding they have no chance in their current league, so they drop all of their members at the last moment so they can win in a lower league (and then take their members back after the tournament ends).
I think Idea #1 is less exploitable, but I may be overlooking something.
|
|
GM Luna
New Poster
Community Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Location: Illyriad
Status: Offline
Points: 2042
|
Posted: 31 Jan 2012 at 20:16 |
I've been following this thread pretty closely and appreciate everyone's feedback and ideas. As we get closer to announcing the next tournament I'll let you know. :)
Luna
|
GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk 
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 31 Jan 2012 at 20:14 |
|
No updates from GMs on global chat when I've been online.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 31 Jan 2012 at 11:30 |
|
So does anyone have any further info on the possibilities of this.
I have to say that from my point of view, it seems unlikely that there will be a mid february tourney.
The previous tourney has not been 'summed up' yet in the herald. However, perhaps this is on purpose, maybe these tourneys will be linked through some story line, i.e. when declarations of the last tourneys completion are released the reason for the next will also be set out.
I do not go on global anymore, so if anyone has heard from the GMs on there, please let us know...
|
|
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 18:50 |
 Anjire wrote:
None of my posts called for a tournament split up into leagues so I don't know if you are directing your response to me or the thread title. |
Oh no sorry, was trying to add onto ya'lls post.
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 18:24 |
Quackers wrote:
Anjire wrote:
The point of having too many possible battle sites is that it will force even the largest alliances to make hard decisions on how to stretch their resources. |
That is called balance, and letting the smartest alliance win. We shouldn't have leagues cause it would ruin the whole point of a tournament. There are winners and losers and with each winner/loser there will be someone that cries that it was unfair.
Point of a tournament is to fight to be the best, to see who is the best, and to have fun. You can say that leagues would be fair, but think of it this way. What if someone split off from a high pop alliance and made his own. A 30k pop alliance with just himself. That would mean he would have an advantage, big advantage, over the lesser alliances that total only 30k pop. There are to many faults with something like this.
You need to think about the bigger picture and stop trying to make everyone a winner. Just think if H? had a spot, and all alliances had to get that spot. That would put H? at a disadvantage. Though if you split things up into leagues, that would for sure give H? and all the other leaders of that league an advantage over the other alliances. Since they would not have to compete against everyone else. Only the other people in their league. It will be far less fun and little competition.
Stop trying to ruin the real reason of a tournament.
|
None of my posts called for a tournament split up into leagues so I don't know if you are directing your response to me or the thread title.
|
|
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 18:20 |
Anjire wrote:
Mandarins31 wrote:
Your last sentence sumed up what i was about to say; a bit too complicated to make that for mid-February. Though, interesting thoughts. Aside from trouney itself, some of your suggestions can enter in a subject about future actions with faction or in a jubject about quests.
About using the 3x3 squares of each faction hub to have different terrain types and allow differnt lvl of alliances to fight on a same faction hub... well, average 150 hubs X 9 squares per hub, now that makes too many battles sites. We could have it with less factions hubs put as battle sites. But i would still prefer to see 1 faction hub as 1 big square of a certain terrain type for that tourney.
|
The point of having too many possible battle sites is that it will force even the largest alliances to make hard decisions on how to stretch their resources. |
That is called balance, and letting the smartest alliance win. We shouldn't have leagues cause it would ruin the whole point of a tournament. There are winners and losers and with each winner/loser there will be someone that cries that it was unfair. Point of a tournament is to fight to be the best, to see who is the best, and to have fun. You can say that leagues would be fair, but think of it this way. What if someone split off from a high pop alliance and made his own. A 30k pop alliance with just himself. That would mean he would have an advantage, big advantage, over the lesser alliances that total only 30k pop. There are to many faults with something like this. You need to think about the bigger picture and stop trying to make everyone a winner. Just think if H? had a spot, and all alliances had to get that spot. That would put H? at a disadvantage. Though if you split things up into leagues, that would for sure give H? and all the other leaders of that league an advantage over the other alliances. Since they would not have to compete against everyone else. Only the other people in their league. It will be far less fun and little competition. Stop trying to ruin the real reason of a tournament.
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 16:12 |
Mandarins31 wrote:
Your last sentence sumed up what i was about to say; a bit too complicated to make that for mid-February. Though, interesting thoughts. Aside from trouney itself, some of your suggestions can enter in a subject about future actions with faction or in a jubject about quests.
About using the 3x3 squares of each faction hub to have different terrain types and allow differnt lvl of alliances to fight on a same faction hub... well, average 150 hubs X 9 squares per hub, now that makes too many battles sites. We could have it with less factions hubs put as battle sites. But i would still prefer to see 1 faction hub as 1 big square of a certain terrain type for that tourney.
|
The point of having too many possible battle sites is that it will force even the largest alliances to make hard decisions on how to stretch their resources.
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 15:20 |
|
Your last sentence sumed up what i was about to say; a bit too complicated to make that for mid-February. Though, interesting thoughts. Aside from trouney itself, some of your suggestions can enter in a subject about future actions with faction or in a jubject about quests.
About using the 3x3 squares of each faction hub to have different terrain types and allow differnt lvl of alliances to fight on a same faction hub... well, average 150 hubs X 9 squares per hub, now that makes too many battles sites. We could have it with less factions hubs put as battle sites. But i would still prefer to see 1 faction hub as 1 big square of a certain terrain type for that tourney.
|
|
Tweet
Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications