my next Tournament plans |
Post Reply
|
Page <1 56789 10> |
| Author | |
Diva
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:26 |
Wow, interesting insight to Illy game playing... its a BIG War of Walls with a point system.. and set rules. This could work ANYTIME of the year!! Thanks Blade!!
|
|
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
|
![]() |
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:45 |
(suggested entirely opt-in tournament rules snipped for length of quoted reply) +100 intertubes to you, good sir. An extra +100 webpipes for also coming up with a ruleset that works for a player-run tournament; the scoring system means that there is little need for us devs to enforce particular rules. I can see some possible clarifications needed for the given ruleset. For example, the penalty for breaching Rule 6 - is that one point total for doing it, or one point per breach, or one point per city pairing? Rule 7 breaches would similarly need a specified penalty. Rule 9 (re mercenaries) would be very difficult to police. But these can all be overcome. imo ofc, this is the first truly innovative, original and clearly well-thought-out suggestion for a truly different kind of tournament that I've seen. Kudos, Best, SC |
|
![]() |
|
Benedetti
Greenhorn
Joined: 08 Feb 2016 Status: Offline Points: 47 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 23:06 |
WOW! It looks like a very interesting setup. The only thing that worries me is enforcing the rules and restrictons. As in: there is no way to enforce it. It'll mostly be honor system or penalties if caught. Those penalties are ofc just an interesting addition once you start considering them as just a price to pay *if* you get caught :D. Better make sure the penalties really hurt. About the quoted rule: why not? Once the point has been recognized and counted, and the wall rebuilt, is there a reason not to bring that city back into play? The tournament is point based, not "last men standing". Also, to prevent 2 groups of helping each other (reducing walls themselves/not defending sieges, etc) should the loser lose a point as well as the winner gain a point? Btw, if group A is attacking a city of group B, I assume it is OK for group C to then attack that siege? Either to prevent A from getting a point or to siege B themselves? Hmmm, that will lead to people waiting until a wall is near 0 and then attacking the siege and finishing the city off themselves? I need more time to think about this Edited by Benedetti - 16 Oct 2016 at 23:07 |
|
![]() |
|
BladeOfLife
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 00:53 |
|
Thank you SC. I appreciate the comments.
I think you are correct that we would need to refine and specify penalties. My thinking is that if you incorporate penalties for rules violations into the game, then discovering violations become part of the game.... My specific thoughts were to award a point for each violation. In other words if a city marked as 'OUT' had a caravan 'caught' by a blockading force, that would be one point. If the same thing occurred at another city that would also be a point. These would be heavy penalties so hopefully people wouldn't cheat...or at least they would cheat very carefully :) I'll have to think about the mercennary rule. I was thinking that that one would be relatively obvious due to battle reports and the like...but it might be that we need heavier penalties for that particular rule, particularly if it becomes obvious that there are ways to employ mercenaries with little risk of being caught. Again, this is why we need people with varied experiences and more experience than I have to weigh in. Blade |
|
![]() |
|
BladeOfLife
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:02 |
Interesting idea...I hadn't considered "OUT" cities returning to the fray. Seems like that could be permitted, perhaps once walls were rebuilt to a certain level? Alternatively, if the point is collected (and siege called off) once city walls hit zero, the owner of the city could have the option of moving the city to "OUT" or keeping it in the game with the caveat that the other team might have an easy go of sieging the city again and getting an easy point by leveling a wall from a low level to zero. So, perhaps moving the city to "OUT" is optional once the walls are at zero.... Blade |
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:14 |
|
Cities declared "OUT" couldn't trade by city to city trade mechanisms then? Because that would result in their caravans potentially being caught, if someone who was "in" bought the goods.
|
|
![]() |
|
BladeOfLife
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:24 |
Hmmm...my intention was to permit cities involved in the tourney to use the faction markets and city to city trade. I can see a scenario where it might not be immediately obvious whether a shipment was the result of city to city trade or just a shipment of resources. This might be where the referee would have to ask for additional information (i.e. the trade report that you receive as an IGM). My thinking is the burden of proof should be on the parties making the trade. They would have to provide documentation of the sale to the referee and if it was a legitimate sale (i.e. not for clearly below market prices) it would be permissible. The over riding principle should be that rules violations only 'happen' if there is proof - IGM, screen shots, etc - that the ref can rule on. In this case, if there is proof of shipment, the trading parties would need to prove that it was a legitimate trade to avoid a penalty. Blade
|
|
![]() |
|
BladeOfLife
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:33 |
|
Maybe we can move further discussion here:
So we don't disrupt the original intent of this thread. Blade
|
|
![]() |
|
kodabear
Postmaster General
Player Council - Astronomer Joined: 18 Jun 2013 Location: Lucerna Status: Offline Points: 1237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:35 |
|
I havent read your whole post yet BladeOfLife but it seems like it will be server wide war of the walls. this kind of tournament has been brought up many times and it sounds like it would be very fun. but i have no idea how the tournament page would be set up for this type of tournament. and what kinds of stats we will have at the end if any. IF you have any idea how the page would be set up then i will really think about doing a tournament like this. Another problem would be NAP and confeds but that can be easily fixed.
|
|
![]() |
|
kodabear
Postmaster General
Player Council - Astronomer Joined: 18 Jun 2013 Location: Lucerna Status: Offline Points: 1237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:35 |
|
In this thread is fine by me BladeOfLife . in fact this was what i was hopping for
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 56789 10> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |