Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications

Alliances are competing, naturally on an ongoing basis anyway. I get why it's going to be alliance based. Players like their alliances. They want to have their friends along while they are winning.

I'm assuming this new tournament will be for all players (in an alliance). If it's to be "biggest alliance wins", many won't even participate. I don't have a problem with that. If I wanted to be in that sort of environment I would. If the tourny is that, I won't begrudge anyone who does or any alliance that has the power to pull it off.

I figured team play would encompass both aspects (alliance camaraderie and individual strength). It would tend to highlight actual game play instead of who is bigger or more networked. It would also allow a fan base to develop based on the teams. Something new.

For clarification, I'm not suggesting teams made up of players from different alliances, although that's a possibility too.

Angrim wrote: Can someone describe (briefly) how tourney #1 was organized for the benefit of those of us who were not here for it (or post a link to same)?

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/30dec10-the-kings-first-tournament_topic1402.html

Stop with the dang team junk. LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

Have it like the first tourny, but limit new recruits to 5 days of not being able to use military force/diplo units. That should solve every problem. Basically just add the same rule of exodus to Alliances. Heck, that might just be a good rule of thumb to have in place.

No matter how you slice up the teams, someone will win over the others. There is no way to get around this. You should not cripple an alliance just because they are better then someone else. Harmless has worked hard to be number one, and if all alliances are going after them. Then I doubt they will still win like before.

I do not know how it played out before, but the only thing I suggest is breaking the map into fours. Based off where the capital of the alliance is depends on the region that alliance needs to fend for the "flags".

Stop trying to split this all up into teams, and leagues. It wont be fun that way. If there is any splitting it would be best to just split the map into four regions. Less travel, more fighting, easier to defend, easier to attack. Win/Win and it really shows who is the strongest for that region.


Edited by Quackers - 21 Jan 2012 at 19:42

Kumomoto wrote:   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...

Good points.

"One problem would be trying to remember who is on what team."
Teams can be posted on alliance summaries as well as by the devs.

"There would also be logistical problems with coordination, especially since two teams might come from the same alliance -- in which case they would be likely to collaborate against other teams, defeating the purpose of dividing people into leagues."
Limit each alliance to a single team(which could cause competition within alliances, SC's "friction").

I've only been through the last tourney so I'm limited in experience but it seems to me that there were only a few of the usuals dominating which is what happened before. Is that right?
TLR is small and has only a handful of members who were interested enough to try and that was limited by size. The idea of teams appeals to me for that reason. It would even the field more than just a simple population based league structure. I also understand that if I were a vet, in a vet type alliance that I wouldn't care at best and probably be against it for that very reason.
The only real problem I see with teams is that some, in the larger, more active alliances will be left out. The reserve list could help that and of course this isn't the last tournament.

I suppose teams isn't as popular an idea as I was hoping.