Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How to PvP
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedHow to PvP

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Dew View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 21 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 55
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:18
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. 
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6819
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:51
I have been working on developing an inter-alliance competition for a while now.  I will contribute in-game prizes such as gold and saddles, and other players have also expressed a desire to contribute.  I envision this as a competition between relatively evenly matched alliances, although it could also be engaged in between "sides" made up of multiple alliances as long as the alliances were NAP'd/confed with other alliances on the same "side" and NOT NAP'd/confed with other alliances NOT on the same side.

The format of the competition would be as follows:

1)  The tournament objective would be to "siege" and "capture" designated cities from the other alliance.  This would be done using the fact that it is possible to siege WITHOUT the use of siege engines so that no actual damage to the city takes place.  

My idea would be that certain players from each alliance would volunteer to have their cities be "targets."  Limitations could include only players with 4 or more cities as targets and only cities over 1k population targeted, or no limitations.  The reason to limit it to only the cities of certain players is that alliances might have players on leave or inactive or who don't want to put in the time commitment, and we don't want to make this less fun for those players.

2)  One point would be awarded for each hour of siege on any target city beyond the 12-hour set-up period.

3)  Sieges that were maintained beyond a 48-hour period would result in a city being declared "razed." 50 points would be awarded to the sieging side and troops and diplos from that city could no longer be used in the competition.

4)  Scouts and spies could be used against any player or encampment (or to protect any player or encampment) of alliances participating in the competition.

5)  Assassins could be used only against encamped forces (when this feature becomes available) or the cities of the players designated as "targets."

6)  Thieves and saboteurs would not be a part of the tournament

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.

8)  Alliances not involved in the competition cannot help with military or diplomatic attacks, but can contribute resources to underdogs and cheer or mock from the sidelines.

Anyway, that's the basic outlines of a challenge I think would be fun, and of course all the rules are just preliminary thoughts and subject to negotiation by participating alliances.  The goal would be to maximize fun for all.

If your alliance is interested in participating in such a tournament, please contact me by in-game mail or just post here.
Back to Top
Rasak View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 140
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:58
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
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6819
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:02
Originally posted by Rasak 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

In my experience player challenges are similar to server tournaments, in which the main prize is bragging rights.  Players will usually throw far more troops into this than could possibly be merited by actual prizes.  I definitely don't want to get into the business of "charging" anyone to enter a challenge I help set up.  But others can if they want.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6819
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:05
Originally posted by Dew 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. 

This is one of the ways in which alliance-based tournaments can be a win for big players and small players alike.  In the Christmas Challenge and the most recent alliance tournament, even complete newbs could participate by scouting targets and keeping their eyes on the map.  Although commander stacking does not have the power it did before combat calculation changes, small players can certainly participate in reinforcing cities, siege camps and the like -- and the experience and particularly the "fun" is not necessarily proportional to the size of the army.  My 10 militia from my baby cities cry for blood with the same vigor as my largest cav army.
Back to Top
Rasak View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 140
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:12
Originally posted by Dew 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. 

Since the size of the siege party is irrelevant to "raze" a city in this setup it would be just as easy for smaller members as it would be for larger members. They may not be able to remove sieges already in progress by the bigger guys, but they might wanna instead focus on sending as many "sieges" as possible and hope that 1 or 2 make it under the bigger guys radar. Also since they are smaller their commanders will be significantly cheaper to rebuild in both time and gold cost, again adding to the effect of lots of small sieges everywhere that have to be picked off.

The bigger guys would of course go for quality and not quantity and create large siege armies that are difficult to remove so that they have an advantage, the downside to this would be if they are destroyed the army would take a more significant amount of time to rebuild.
Back to Top
Cerex Flikex View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2012
Location: BC
Status: Offline
Points: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:47
Originally posted by Dew 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. 

With this in mind, this leads me to edit my idea so that there are leagues within the tournament. One league can be the smaller player group, another for the higher level player. It would need some work to determine what levels would be in each league, but it's a start.
Back to Top
Cerex Flikex View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2012
Location: BC
Status: Offline
Points: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:49
Originally posted by Rasak 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

Interesting, however I do not plan to charge an entry fee on my idea of a tournament. I suppose someone else could do something like that though.
Back to Top
Cerex Flikex View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2012
Location: BC
Status: Offline
Points: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:52
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have been working on developing an inter-alliance competition for a while now.  I will contribute in-game prizes such as gold and saddles, and other players have also expressed a desire to contribute.  I envision this as a competition between relatively evenly matched alliances, although it could also be engaged in between "sides" made up of multiple alliances as long as the alliances were NAP'd/confed with other alliances on the same "side" and NOT NAP'd/confed with other alliances NOT on the same side.

The format of the competition would be as follows:

1)  The tournament objective would be to "siege" and "capture" designated cities from the other alliance.  This would be done using the fact that it is possible to siege WITHOUT the use of siege engines so that no actual damage to the city takes place.  

My idea would be that certain players from each alliance would volunteer to have their cities be "targets."  Limitations could include only players with 4 or more cities as targets and only cities over 1k population targeted, or no limitations.  The reason to limit it to only the cities of certain players is that alliances might have players on leave or inactive or who don't want to put in the time commitment, and we don't want to make this less fun for those players.

2)  One point would be awarded for each hour of siege on any target city beyond the 12-hour set-up period.

3)  Sieges that were maintained beyond a 48-hour period would result in a city being declared "razed." 50 points would be awarded to the sieging side and troops and diplos from that city could no longer be used in the competition.

4)  Scouts and spies could be used against any player or encampment (or to protect any player or encampment) of alliances participating in the competition.

5)  Assassins could be used only against encamped forces (when this feature becomes available) or the cities of the players designated as "targets."

6)  Thieves and saboteurs would not be a part of the tournament

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.

8)  Alliances not involved in the competition cannot help with military or diplomatic attacks, but can contribute resources to underdogs and cheer or mock from the sidelines.

Anyway, that's the basic outlines of a challenge I think would be fun, and of course all the rules are just preliminary thoughts and subject to negotiation by participating alliances.  The goal would be to maximize fun for all.

If your alliance is interested in participating in such a tournament, please contact me by in-game mail or just post here.

This looks like a great idea for a tournament, and I hope this can be tried out sometime!
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2012 at 06:07
Originally posted by Rill 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?  Ermm 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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