How to PvP

This sounds pretty cool. It also sounds fairly involved. It also precludes a player needing to be in an Alliance (is that MicroMe I hear complaining?). That being said, it's a great idea!

What's been kicking around my head lately, though, is a simpler, easier to setup and less involved activity. One that could be done between any two players any time they want. Real direct PvP, and more than just "I attack you, who wins?" Something like this:

Player A puts 100 troops on a square
Player B attacks (intention to occupy) with 75 troops
A counters with 75
... going back and forth a couple of rounds
A finishes with 50 troops, trying to take back the square

The odd numbers at beginning and end are meant to even out the general advantage troops have on offense. Other balancing factors might include rules about troop variety, such as: total troop deployment must consist of a minimum of 20% of each troop type. This would put a lot more skill and suspense into the endeavor. The whole question of Commanders is another matter, and would require some deliberation.
This sort of game would be eminently scalable; ie, small players could do troop amounts of 25 and 50, large players could do 5k and 10k (though I doubt anyone would risk that many troops at a single time just for a little sport). There are also a practically unlimited number of "stipulations" the players could agree to (no cav; cap on commander level; troops from one city only...) and multi-player teams could be set up as well.

Using Tourney squares would be great for this, as the normal NAP and Confed rules don't apply there. The only thing that might get in the way would be matches overlapping and voiding each other. Perhaps we could form a sign up sheet of sorts, or even get our wonderful Devs to set something up...

dunnoob wrote: Rill wrote: 7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players. The slowest units for dwarves are halbardier (6+50%=9.5) and yeoman (7+50%=10.5), the latter is already too fast.  Dwarves will need a halbardier in a participating army, if their commanders have forced march at 100%.   Now where in the wiki does it show me how this works for other races?

Edited by Rasak - 14 May 2012 at 06:28

Rill wrote: 7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

Rasak wrote: As far as rewards go each participant could be required to pay the author of the tournament a fee to enter and that fee could be used as a reward at the end. Whether that is a winner takes all or tiered payout or some other method would be up to the owner of the tournament. It would be nice if this fee were designed to cover all of the winners cost in troops lost by the end of the tourney. That way there would be a drive to win to recover your losses :D

Dew wrote: one thing we may want to talk about in this thread is for "small" players who cant maintain 10's of thousands of troops having a way to participate if for no other reason then to keep their commanders leveling.