my next Tournament plans |
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 10> |
| Author | |
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
|
|
![]() |
|
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 01:02 |
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 |
|
![]() |
|
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 |
|
![]() |
|
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 |
|
![]() |
|
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 |
|
![]() |
|
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
|
|
![]() |
|
zap
New Poster
Joined: 03 Nov 2015 Location: none Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 20:07 |
|
Kodabear, ![]() Thank you for doing a new tourney. King of the hill is going to get boring after so many . Another idea for different tournament is maybe get a list of all abandoned accounts and have a siege tournament. Only those accounts that are on the list should be sieged which would require planning and strategy. Once the tourney starts no one should be allowed to leave their alliance to stop unfair advantages. This would also be good in helping to clear out the newbie ring of all the accounts that are abandoned. Just an idea . Again Thank You for all your efforts in making this a game that is fun to play. 1) 2-4 weeks 2)week 3)yes 4)beginning of tournament 5)no 6)does not matter to me 7) see above 8) good idea
|
|
![]() |
|
BladeOfLife
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 20:00 |
|
Koda,
First, thank you for all you do. I am going to focus my answer on #7 - what other kinds of tournaments would like to see. However, I'll also answer the others. #1 - Given travel times in Illy, peoples attention spans and such a distributed king of the hill tourney should last 2 to 4 weeks. #2 - 30 days notice. But other ideas such as no notice, general notice of the month that the tourney will start but not the exact time and others promoted on this board are all interesting #3 - I think prizes are wholly unnecessary. #4 - Alliance snapshot should be at the start of the tourney unless the notice of the tourney is very short. People need time to return to their home alliances from sieges and other wanderings #5 - I have no concern about the use of the combat api #6 - An unknown end date is SWEET! #8 - Elgea and BL tournaments would be a good variation #7 "Illyria revitalization project"
Fellow Illyrians. What I’m about to say, I do not take lightly. I am a player who played and loved illyria for 2 years and left. I am back because I was unable to find another game that had all of the wonderful qualities of Illy. This is truly a special game. It is special because of it’s design, but more so because of its community of players. However, many otherwise wonderful players leave our ranks every day. I believe they depart because at some point, Illy becomes boring to them. I believe that this need not be so. The game of illyriad has all the makings of a challenging, deep war game. The community, to it’s credit, has chosen a peaceful path. This is wonderful in the general sense and sets illyriad apart from other games. But it also contributes to our down fall. Close your eyes. Imagine the same Illy that you have always known. Welcoming to noobs. Respectful alliances. Peaceful. But…with one key difference. THE OPTION OF Full on (but friendly) competition using all of Illy’s tools - magic, diplomatic attacks, sieges, feints and blockades…. This is the part of illy that we rarely see and when it is used it is often in ugly disputes. This would be different. Competition.Player vs player, team vs. team or alliance vs. alliance variety. I’ve outlined how I think it could work. I would greatly appreciate input from those with far more experience than I. I’m sure others have done this type of competition before. I simply think that as a community, we can make it a more integral part of what occurs in Illy. Ongoing tournaments…perhaps culminating each year with an Illy wide invitational resulting in the crowning of that years “Champion." So without further ado, here is my vision of what we could create. Rules for Tourney’s:
Player vs. Player and Team on Team Tournaments. For Team on Team there will be maximum number of players and max number of cities involved. These terms will be agreed to prior to the start of competition.
Iteration #1 Alliance vs. Alliance
Iteration #2 Player vs. Player
Iteration #3 Team vs. Team
|
|
![]() |
|
Hucbold
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Nov 2015 Location: Meilla Status: Offline Points: 251 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 21:42 |
|
Hi Kodabear
I think there should be about 1 week notice and a tourney should last 2 to three weeks with a known end date. Otherwise strategies are just a random guess. Its a strategic game not a dice throw. Medals are nice but prizes are irrelevant. A tournament where you get one point for being in possession of the square on the stroke of the hour would be very interesting - timing rather than brute force! Regards Aesir
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 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 |