| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ander 
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
 Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 15:15 |
The open tourney gave everyone chance to understand the chemistry of the region and players around them. Alliance(s) from page 2 have won on more than one squares competing against the rest of Illy while some alliance(s) from page 1 couldn't win any - the results do not reflect the strengths of the alliances. Many factors - geography, history, neighbours, strategy and luck contributed to it. And most of all, we got to play with the finest players - from the pool of all awesome players around, both small and big.
I am in favour of people wanting to join or quit alliances temporarily for tournaments though. Some people might want to return to their parent alliances, some might want to shift for strategy. It's all good. But people shifting alliances to change "leagues" is totally undesirable and in a different spirit. When there are more rules, there will be more exploits and less fairplay.
|
 |
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 15:43 |
I think people contested H? to little. Off course easy for me to say because Dlords was not close to any H? held spots. But H? wanted to win the over all tournament so if people had contested them more early in the tournament on the squares they might have succeeded.
If you look at the defensive casualties H? got a lot of their spot "easily" so next time give them hell like Snugglers and TCol did at our spots.
|
|
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 16:04 |
Rank
| Alliance | Tax Rate
| Members
| Population |
| 7 |
Dwarven Lords [Dlord] |
2 % |
72 |
3,432,500 | | 31 |
SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] |
0 % |
77 |
914,301 |
| | 35 |
The Colony [TCol] |
1 % |
37 |
835,938 |
|
#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight. #7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious? Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....
|
|
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 16:35 |
|
Kidding?
Really?
Another thread skewed to talk about Harmless (?). Getting beyond a bore.
People. Get a life. Or as my dear ol Nan used to say 'Mind your own business and one day you'll have business of your own to mind.'
Random thought to encourage more competition to even said field: Allow confederations to hold squares. IE Bring diplomacy into the fray.
|
|
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 17:03 |
|
Confederations tourney sounds fun :)
edit: though, that would need to update diplomacy first... or there could be lots of confusion. alliance 1 conf with B, both holding the square is correct... but alliance C comming while confed with B but not with A doesnt seem correct... or maybe it would let open some betrayals... but it would mostly bring mistakes and lots of cahos if confed arent seen as a same group (you cant be confed with an alliance if dont want to be confed with the other alliances this alliance is in confed with)
Edited by Mandarins31 - 30 Mar 2012 at 17:08
|
|
John Marston
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 75
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 17:46 |
|
I just hope the next tournament is on soon!
Edited by John Marston - 30 Mar 2012 at 17:47
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:03 |
|
I don't mind this thread being about H? this time. We did a phenomenal job in the tourney. The suggestions, coordination, patience and overall enthusiasm of all our members helped ensure we not only met our goals but did so in a big way.
I made mention on GC but I will also now post here a special kudos to StA, who was the only alliance to actually push us off a square while it was a primary target of ours.
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:04 |
|
I think a confederacy tournament would be a nightmare to code and track as Mandarins31 example is but the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:12 |
 Anjire wrote:
I think a confederacy tournament would be a nightmare to code and track . . .
|
Yes, a nightmare for sure! The way I see it, it would be neat if all the squares were open to all alliances, but each square has a limit (e.g. a cap on population for the attacker or something similar). So it would work as follows: If I have 50k population, I can only attack squares that are between 50-75k range. I could not send any armies to a 25-50K square, but someone else in my alliance could. So in overall, all alliances could fight on all squares - but depending on the players size, some squares are restricted/off limits... Again, undoubtedly a nightmare for coding.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:35 |
Createure wrote:
Rank
| Alliance | Tax Rate
| Members
| Population |
| 7 |
Dwarven Lords [Dlord] |
2 % |
72 |
3,432,500 | | 31 |
SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] |
0 % |
77 |
914,301 |
| | 35 |
The Colony [TCol] |
1 % |
37 |
835,938 |
|
#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.
#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?
Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....
|
My point was that small alliances DID have a chance if they would have taken it.
Look at the list of casualties inflicted in each region. The 3 regions Dlords won is all in top 12, meaning we did have a fight for all our spots.
What TCol did very well was to contest a spot close to them and others should have followed their example.
I advocated at some point for a tournament that would keep the "normal" alliances meaning you could not attack allied spots and could help defend them as normal battles. That could hopefully weed out some of the way to many NAPs out there and confederates also if an alliance think they can do all by them self 
But maybe "hell" was to strong a word.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
22Mar12 - Tournament Close