| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
abstractdream 
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
 Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 18:42 |
|
Leaning towards teams?
Each alliance fields as many teams as they can/want to and the teams are assigned to leagues. This seems to solve every issue stated except outside assistance (which cannot be stopped).
The teams represent their alliance. They are fairly equal. We can pick our favorites to root for.
What more could we ask for?
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 17:55 |
 The_Dude wrote:
Without leagues, this proposed tourney will have very similar results as tourney #1. So we would see contests among VIC, Dlord, Peace, H?, Curse, etc. Alliances outside the top 10 would only be playing spoiler and earning XP for Cmdrs.
Lock down alliance membership for the duration of the tourney and assign alliances to leagues. Also, designate squares to each league. |
I have a bad feeling that if they split up the alliances into leagues, the top 10 will be fighting the top 23 lol. Anyway you slice it, its going to be unfair for someone.
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 16:43 |
Without leagues, this proposed tourney will have very similar results as tourney #1. So we would see contests among VIC, Dlord, Peace, H?, Curse, etc. Alliances outside the top 10 would only be playing spoiler and earning XP for Cmdrs.
Lock down alliance membership for the duration of the tourney and assign alliances to leagues. Also, designate squares to each league.
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 16:17 |
|
Hopefully you can use assassins on forts and also use defensive diplo-units :-)
|
|
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 15:40 |
Qaal wrote:
Edited to add: I'm not endorsing assassinating anyone's commander during a tourney, just speculating on possible mechanisms that people might want to employ.
Edited to add: though maybe I disagree about not assassinating commanders...might cause a delightful amount of mayhem...  |
IMO, the problem with any city attacks is that it is sort of a slippery slope... If someone doesn't have assassins, then is it ok to attack the city then to kill the commanders?, etc... [/QUOTE]
Edited by Kumomoto - 21 Jan 2012 at 15:41
|
|
Qaal
Wordsmith
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 115
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 14:50 |
Rill wrote:
Maybe if alliance members can leave freely but members who join during the tournament cannot participate in the tourney? (Except potentially with support by resources and/or diplos? And if with diplos, then are assassins acceptable? Presumably one could always contract for an assassination outside one's alliance anyway.)
Edited to add: I'm not endorsing assassinating anyone's commander during a tourney, just speculating on possible mechanisms that people might want to employ. |
I should have read the thread a little closer--Rill's post pretty well covers my thoughts on freezing alliance membership for tournament participation only.
Edited to add: though maybe I disagree about not assassinating commanders...might cause a delightful amount of mayhem...
Edited by Qaal - 21 Jan 2012 at 14:53
|
|
Qaal
Wordsmith
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 115
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 14:35 |
It will definitely be difficult to say alliance A is equal to alliance B based on population alone, but what that means will depend on the nature of the tournament. For example two alliances with 500k pop, but one with 75 members and one with 15 members will have greatly different capabilities. But will it be an advantage to send many small groups of units around or fewer large groups of units? Depends on the nature of the tournament.
With regard to alliance membership, I don't like the idea of freezing membership. Some alliances might want to keep recruiting, rather than focus solely on the tournament. Is there a way to freeze only the tournament roster? In other words, the alliance role on the day the tournament starts is the group eligible to participate. Anyone who joins after that date can be a full member of the alliance in all ways, except in terms of participating in the tournament. It could be argued that the new player could still support the alliance with materials, or whatever, but that's likely true of friendly players who aren't in the alliance, anyway.
Just thinking out loud here. Have a good one, all!
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 13:26 |
Maybe something like you can travel to the forts that is in an higher league but not to those that are below your alliances league. That will make it possible for lower alliances to get "even" with higher ranking alliances 
|
|
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 10:13 |
The point of the next tournament was to have an alliance one. No point in splitting the alliances into teams.
By locking the alliances I meant that no one above 500 pop cant join an alliance during the Tournament. You should off course be able to leave the alliance if you want but as stated you cant join a new one unless you have less than 500 pop.
|
|
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 08:33 |
|
Teams wouldn't address resource support, but nothing would imho. I think it's going to be difficult to say "alliance A is equal to alliance B". Teams can be better vetted and easier to police. I also think it would increase the level of sports-like appeal adding a spectator dimension not yet fully realized.
Edited by abstractdream - 21 Jan 2012 at 18:46
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
Tweet
Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications
