Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Cities Next to Tounament Squares
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Cities Next to Tounament Squares

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Poll Question: Cities moved directly next to Tourney Squares, fair target or not?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
20 [38.46%]
3 [5.77%]
5 [9.62%]
1 [1.92%]
1 [1.92%]
1 [1.92%]
8 [15.38%]
0 [0.00%]
13 [25.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 21:45
if i thought this were an actual problem (which i don't), i would suggest that the game randomise the tournament square each time a tournament is declared (or maybe once each month, so that the devs could automate it and not be involved)--one square per region, randomly selected from all settleable, unoccupied squares that don't have incoming settlers or cities in exodus. it's not a bad idea anyway. keeps the tournaments fresh, stops penalising alliances with homelands located on the wrong side of their respective regions, and would vary the terrain in each region on which the tournament is fought. (...stupid bloody plains squares...)
Back to Top
Wintersmith View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jun 2016
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wintersmith Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 01:04
Moving cities next to tournament squares may be ungentlemanly, unsportsmanlike and a lot of other things but it certainly isn't cheating. It is however very naive of those involved with tournament square placement who didn't think this was going to happen. It's also obvious that alliances will select tournament squares and move several players cities adjacent to dominate the square for the duration for an easy win. The fix is beyond simple and can be done in no time:

A non tournament player handpicks the squares, keeping the terrain type balanced as well as the spacings as much as possible. The Devs just need to check for settlers etc., as Angrim pointed out above. Then only release the locations at the start of the tournament. (Of course, some tournaments may have more or fewer squares if that is desired)

This way everyone gets a chance to exo a city (If they really want to) and that location will be useless come the following tournament, with all new locations again.

To throw a spanner in the works, you could always make time into points and modify(multiply) by distance of the nearest occupier. It would be completely pointless being next to a tourney square then for any reason other than rapid clearing.
Back to Top
Mr Damage View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr Damage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 07:16
Having probably been the reason that this poll was created, I will make one post. Plenty of players have relocated either next to or in close proximity to tournament sqs both in the past as well as during the current event. Some do it during the tournament or in the lead up, others have done it in between and hardly been noticed. I am neither for it or against it but simply copied the tactic from others. STA were well within their rights to attack,siege or raze the city as there is no rules against it just as people have similarly stated here about locating cities next to sqs. In our instance we felt that razing the city was too extreme and advised them that we considered it an act of war. Combined with the fact that we are a 3 person alliance that would have no real influence on the tournament. Initial contact at the time with STA was not forthcoming but they eventually let us know their motives and razed our city. We have now retaliated and razed an STA city and consider the matter closed. STA or moreso Quentin see it differently and have vowed to hunt us down at some point. Such is their right. We were advised after the fact that it was only Quentin and his alt who acted and no one else from STA was involved. We accepted this on face value but are of the view that if you are in an alliance then your alliance is as much responsible for its members and their actions as in the reverse. We have learned from the whole thing that placing a city near a tourney sq is something that not everyone agrees with and probably is only something that a large alliance can support. Going forward we will avoid the practice next tournament if we are still around. I have not voted on the poll because there is more than one correct answer.

Edited by Mr Damage - 09 Jun 2016 at 12:59
Back to Top
Benedetti View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Benedetti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 12:01
Originally posted by Mr Damage Mr Damage wrote:

We have learned from the whole thing that placing a city near a tourney sq is something that not everyone agrees with and probably is only something that a large alliance can support.

And here's the whole problem. It's easy to say such cities should be targets, but will smaller alliances really take out cities from vCrow or Storm? It opens the door to a form of powerplay that will make tournaments much less interesting for smaller alliances. And if the community isnt succesfull in limiting the scope of which cities exactly *are* valid targets, pretty soon it can be "Hey, you, little guy. Stop attacking my troops on that tournamen square, or else..."

If you think that's OTT, remember that at least one StA member has sworn revenge for the way Grey responded to having their city razed.

Originally posted by TomBombadil TomBombadil wrote:

Killing a scouting party is easy, you need only a handful of troops to do it. Sieging multiple cities requires more troops than it would take to take and hold a tournament square in the first place, with sieging a city far away providing little to no benefit at great cost, unless that city has its own mammoth training grounds or something. I doubt the large scale destruction of cities would at all be an efficient tournament strategy for anyone.

Efficient? This is a game. I can see how people will let things escalate because "it's fun, and a couple of sieges will be good practice"



Edited by Benedetti - 09 Jun 2016 at 12:09
Back to Top
Agalloch View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Agalloch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 12:44
I doubt everyone would ever agree to any of this, players will continue pushing boundaries and existing norms as they see fit and if they think they can get away with it.
Back to Top
TomBombadil View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TomBombadil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2016 at 14:00
Originally posted by Benedetti Benedetti wrote:

Efficient? This is a game. I can see how people will let things escalate because "it's fun, and a couple of sieges will be good practice"
That is true. I often forget that many do not consider fun and maximum efficiency to be the same thing. **TomBombadil is totally not by any legal definition a robot.

Originally posted by Diva Diva wrote:

I'm not for the city placement next to a square if you wanted just an opinion. I couldn't find that one in the poll.
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Wiping out a tournament city's troops, while hostile, seems more on parity. The moved city is being used as a troop container to dominate the tournament square, and eliminating those tournament troops is an extension of competing for the square.
I'd very much like to add these two options to the poll! Unfortunately I can't add new options to the poll(?) and would not like mess around with the existing ones since votes have already been cast.

**Note to self: /me has a big crush on every word that Brandmeister has ever written. Don't ever get caught admitting that it public though...

Originally posted by Seadog Seadog wrote:

Personally I would like to see new tournament squares for each tournament. I understand that this would involve more work from the developers and is unlikely to happen. Random placement of the tournament squares would mean that any advantages of being close to certain squares would not be carried over to the next tournament. It would also give us different terrain types each time.
Wasn't there a tournament involving undead in the past where the target squares changed every week or something? That would certainly not only help with the problems mentioned but make for much greater variety, though it does come with its own set of problems. e.g. tournament squares being out of reach of most armies' marching time if they change too quickly and so on.

Originally posted by Mr Damage Mr Damage wrote:

Very big quote! read up above
I think it is fair to say that this poll would not exist without you, Mr Damage ;)
But I'm also hoping that anything mentioned and discusses here might help the devs design improved tournaments in the future, or at the very that they'd at least realise that many are keen on the idea of some more variety. Wink wink, nudge nudge, elbow elbow, I know you are reading this GM Rikoo!
(Not you, koda! You are doing excellent work, apologies for any IGM spam I might have caused you!) 



Edited by TomBombadil - 10 Jun 2016 at 14:01
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1015
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2016 at 14:38
The reason why this is an issue is that it is impossible for tournamanets in Illyriad to exist outside the scope of the metagame. These tournamanets are not fought solely on the battlefield; they are mostly negotiated through political horse trading alla the metagame. 

The same is true with the use of siege warfare to neutralize the appearance of an excodused city for the sake of dominating the square. Siege warfare is a speies of the metagame, and when alliances take such action, they transmute the tournamanet into a pretext for a larger war. 

Illy is a sandbox, and if we want to have tournaments, then yes, we will have tournaments. If we want to have an art contest where we build arial artwork out of sov squares (ajq's idea once), then yes, we can do that, too. But as for tournaments,  I don't see them as being nearly as divorced from actual war as others do, which is why this is all happening. And frankly, I think it's pretty intriguing. 

Back to Top
Arx View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 16:29
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

The reason why this is an issue is that it is impossible for tournamanets in Illyriad to exist outside the scope of the metagame. These tournamanets are not fought solely on the battlefield; they are mostly negotiated through political horse trading alla the metagame.


There seems to be a persistent rumour that tournament positions are primarily bought and sold, but I have yet to see any evidence of it. I'd like to see some from anyone who contends that.
Back to Top
kodabear View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Astronomer

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Location: Lucerna
Status: Offline
Points: 1237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote kodabear Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 21:36
in future tournament shouldnt it be up to the person who is running the tournament to side what is allow and not allowed?
Back to Top
Tensmoor View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2015
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 1579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tensmoor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 22:03
+1 Koda. Those who put the effort in of designing and running a tourney should also be able to decide acceptable behaviour.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.