Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications

Mandarins31 wrote: It's as Kumomoto said. If players that give opinions against Alliances leagues are in the biggest/oldest alliances, that is maybe because they see the potential issues it could bring. I can personnally imagine some alliance being frustrated because leagues aren't fair, or an alliance of certain league being advantaged by it's location near from a certain battle spot, etc. And im not talking about to chose various battle spot, and make only that or that league being able to occupy there. The idea of having more battle spots all over the map is for me a good compromise to avoid leagues. Issue of that, though, is that big alliances could attack spots held by some small alliances because they are getting high scores... that's to avoid that that i also proposed leagues, not for alliances fight restrictions, but only for rewards. Biggest alliances wouldn't want to wipe out encampments of smaller ones that are getting a high score, if that score is not competing with their own score. So for me, if we dont have leagues restricting small alliances to fight against big ones, and if to compensate that, we put more battle spots, then we should however have rewards given by leagues. I like the idea of making faction hubs as tourney spots for that aim, as they are numerousous and spread all over the map... though, the issue i would see about that, is about the terrain type of these hubs. Important thing about battle spots, is that we must have the equal proportion of Plains, Hills, Forests and Mountains, not to disadvantage anyone, and have various strategies and playstyles comming up. Though, Hubs could receive a randomly afftected terrain type IMO.

Really the reasoning against leagues is the desires to not minf&@ck this thing to death and keep it simple & clean...

The people who don't like leagues seem to be mostly from larger alliances.  I'm not saying this means their point of view is invalid, just that it could be expected that  their priorities might be different than players from smaller alliances.

Im not really for leagues.

Though, if we have to work with leagues, epic battle sites could be divided in the number of leagues there are. All leagues would have theire personnal "box". And so no leagues would fight against an other one, while units of all leagues are sent on the same  spot (dont know if that would be possible in code talking). Scouts may or may not show all the units present by league on these spots.


But i wouldnt be to work with these leagues.
I like the idea of having more battle sites spread all over the world (mabe 1, or even 2 spots per region?). It would let a chance for everyone to be well ranked, as big alliance wouldnt want to spead their power in every direction... that would bring so much planification, strategy, etc...

While i am for everyone to compete against everyone, AWARDS could be given by leagues. meaning that there wouldnt be 3 winners but 3 per "league". For exemple, a small alliance could fight against a bigger one and win, and hold it for some days lets say... but their occupation time would be put to compete with the occupation time of the other alliances that are in the same league.

I dont know if GM's would be agree, but i am for a policy of more rewards during tourneys, not necessary in terms of weight, but in terms of number of rewards given.
For that there could be other rewards (for each leagues, if we work with that) than only having the longer cumulated occupation time. This one could still be the main one, but there could also be rewards for the longest occupation without interuption, the most different spots occupied, the most spots occupied at the same time, the most re-taken spots, ... there could also be some rewards for the most units killed during the attacks, the most enemy offensive units killed while defending, the most overal units lost... just some ideas to have other rewards that alliances could be fighting for.

Darkwords wrote: Sounds like a good number to me, the more there are, then the more open the competition and therefore, in theory; the more tactical we would need to be. It would mean that leading competing alliances, could distance their targets from one another and would perhaps promote more inventive tactics in holding your competitors back.  Rather than just throwing huge armies at where their armies are based.

Upon further reflection, I think that works. I kind of like the flexibility. Adds considerable tactical depth, as you mentioned, and vastly increases options for tourney game play...

The other element that I think really is clever about Ander's idea is that it introduces regional elements to the tourney. It's sort of fun playing in the sandbox with your neighbors...