Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications

Kumomoto wrote: Does anyone know how many faction hubs there are on the map? If there were one tourney locations per hub, I think we would have enough locations for even the smallest guys

Maybe this tournament enforce the normal NAPs and confederations to promote people to think abit more about how many of those they have 

Faldrin wrote: Maybe this tournament enforce the normal NAPs and confederations to promote people to think abit more about how many of those they have

Ooh. Love the idea!!! I think Illy suffers greatly from NAP/Confed inflation as it is...


Edited by Kumomoto - 25 Jan 2012 at 16:20

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...

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.