| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Albatross 
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
 Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 13:20 |
|
Heh... like Tic-Tac-Toe on a chalkboard? :o) Three in a line starts accumulating points.
|
 |
Prometheuz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 230
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 13:45 |
|
hmmm...judgement is reserved
|
|
jordigui
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 157
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 14:01 |
Hi, my main concern so far is how alliances can be considered and splitted? Considering the existence of many NAPs, confederations, etc. whixh implies that some alliances do not act independently. Thanks, TH
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 14:11 |
|
I would expect that NAPS and Confeds, will not take effect on the tourney squares themselves.
Therefore if a confed player sent troops to a square held by your alliance his troops would attack rather than rienforce. However, it could be interesting to see what would happen in such a tourney where confed rules do work....
As for splitting the alliances, I imagine they will be split into leagues based on alliance population. This will mean that alliances that hold onto innactive large accounts (simply for the added ranking on the alliance table) will be placed at a disadvantage.
If this is the case, there may well be alot of innactive players kicked from such alliances in early feb.
Therefore it may be worth investing in theives for when that happens ;)
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 14:24 |
I am in favour of splitting the map into regions rather than grouping alliances into leagues.
Most of the alliances could participate with a fair chance if there were a flag for each region instead of one in each quadrant. Big alliances will try to gain as much regions as possible while the smaller alliances will mostly concentrate on one region where they are strongest.
As all NAP/confeds are suspended, friendly alliances could discuss regional strategies and help each other to claim more regions. Territorial alliances will have a huge advantage in their home region while the spread out alliances will have more options for diplomacy and strategy.
Good inter-alliance strategies are possible only when the flags are within a few hours' reach of the players. Otherwise the same army you sent to kill an opponent could end up killing your own confederate's army. Many players would prefer not to participate when there is a chance of friendly fire.
Some people would want to move alliances specifically for the tournament - mostly players returning to their parent alliances to help out - why not let them do that?
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 17:31 |
 Ander wrote:
I am in favour of splitting the map into regions rather than grouping alliances into leagues.
Most of the alliances could participate with a fair chance if there were a flag for each region instead of one in each quadrant. Big alliances will try to gain as much regions as possible while the smaller alliances will mostly concentrate on one region where they are strongest. |
The regions already on the map (eg. Norweld, Middle Kingdom, Arran etc.)? No matter what smaller regions: Sounds like a very good idea! Would also promote the lore.
|
|
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 21:43 |
|
Ander: Great idea!
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 23:07 |
G0DsDestroyer wrote:
Tournament #1 was actually player run!
The Dev made tournment was better though I suppose, although I did better in the original player run tournament!
|
For those that care you can read all about it here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/behold-a-tourney-has-completed_topic1230_page1.html KP Edit: I like the region idea.
Edited by KillerPoodle - 23 Jan 2012 at 23:08
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
Kelis
New Poster
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: 24 Jan 2012 at 21:11 |
|
OK, here's my 3 cents...
I'd like to see a tourney that rewards tactical or strategical planning.
To make it fair, require all armies to be the same size.
To prevent the problem of everyone sending all knights, players could be held to a limit for the total values of any one defense attribute. So players could choose to maximize their total infantry or ranged, etc.
I don't know how the attribute level restriction would be enforced, or if it could be enforced.
In addition, the occupation squares should be randomly selected and the locations "activated" at prescribed times. The randomization of activated squares would also add and element to tactical play because there are terrain advantages with each different unit type.
This would make it more interesting and challenging. It's better than just sending off your biggest army only to watch it be creamed by some much bigger army in less than a instant.
Kelis
|
|
Kelis
|
|
Jane DarkMagic
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554
|
Posted: 24 Jan 2012 at 21:17 |
|
I like the idea of registering teams within alliances and decide the league by those teams.
|
|
Tweet
Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications