Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - my next Tournament plans
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

my next Tournament plans

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 10>
Author
BladeOfLife View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BladeOfLife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

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.

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
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
BladeOfLife View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BladeOfLife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:02
Originally posted by Benedetti Benedetti wrote:


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".


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

Back to Top
BladeOfLife View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BladeOfLife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 


Back to Top
Benedetti View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benedetti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 23:06
Originally posted by BladeOfLife BladeOfLife wrote:

a lot, incl:

A player may not move a city from “SAFE” or “OUT” to “ACTIVE" under any circumstance once the competition begins

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
Back to Top
GM Stormcrow View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
GM

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote GM Stormcrow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:45
Originally posted by BladeOfLife BladeOfLife wrote:

#7 "Illyria revitalization project"
(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,  Clap

Best,

SC
Back to Top
Diva View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Diva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:26
Originally posted by BladeOfLife BladeOfLife wrote:

 

#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."

 


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
Back to Top
zap View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2015
Location: none
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 20:07
Kodabear, Clap
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
Back to Top
BladeOfLife View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote BladeOfLife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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:

  1. Prior to the start of the tournament a player must designate all of their cities as either “ACTIVE”, “SAFE” or “OUT”. This is done by appending the appropriate term to their city name.
  2. Winner is determined by score. Each successfully sieged city or cities that go from a state of “ACTIVE” to “OUT” result in 1 point being awarded to the other team. Points may also be awarded to the other team for rules violations. 
  3. Siege is considered "successful" when the cities wall is sieged down to 0 OR the player (owner of the city) declares the city “OUT” - whichever comes first. No excessive sieging. There is some lee way here as we understand that it takes time to cancel a siege. Excessive is up to the judgement of the referree.
  4. Player can exclude/protect any of his/her cities that they want. There are two forms of protection for a city. A city can participate as a resource supplier to combatant cities. This is made so by appending “SAFE” to the city name. These cities can be subject to blockades and feints as well as certain diplo attacks (scout, spy, theft) and magical attacks in the form of blights.  Assassinations and Sabotage in SAFE cities is forbidden. Thievery and spy craft is allowed in SAFE cities. A SAFE city may launch any of the diplomatic attacks that may be used on it. A SAFE city may only attack a blockading force of that city.
  5. The second form of city protection is “OUT”. An out city can not supply troops to any other cities involved in the tournament including “SAFE” cities.  This prohibition includes cities successfully sieged or otherwise knocked “OUT” of the competition but also cities that a player designates as “OUT” at the onset. 
  6. Resources from cities designated “OUT” to “ACTIVE” or “SAFE” cities is forbidden. An alliance/team/player found guilty of this is penalized by the 1 point (equivalent to having one city knocked out) so cheat at your own risk. Remember that blockades may make this behavior obvious.
  7. Players may move a city to “OUT” status from either “SAFE” (not considered a point) or from “ACTIVE” (which would be considered a point). 
  8. A player may not move a city from “SAFE” or “OUT” to “ACTIVE" under any circumstance once the competition begins
  9. No outside troop help, including no hiring of mercenaries. Resource support from SAFE cities is allowed.
  10. Each tournament will have 2 designated referrees and their decisions on game play are final and binding.
  11. Players put up gold for an "entry fee" which is held by the referees and the winner(s) get the pot. Of course, the primary prize is bragging rights.
  12. Teams of players are set in advance of competition. Once tournament begins no additions to teams are allowed

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

  • Rules are intended to provide an opportunity for alliances with smaller number of players to compete AND to allow players in alliances to opt out
  • Each Alliance designates 100 cities that are ‘in play’ (see rules above) or “ACTIVE” cities.
  • There is no limit to the number of “SAFE” cities. (These cities can engage in supplying resources and be subject to blights and diplomatic attacks)
  • All alliance cities not designated in their city name as “ACTIVE” or “OUT” are considered “SAFE"
  • A point is awarded for each city sieged to walls zero OR having the owner of the city change the city from “ACTIVE” to “OUT”. All offensive attacks on the city should end as soon as possible after the change of a city from “ACTIVE” to “OUT”. Any attack initiated on a city AFTER the declaration of that city as “OUT” will result in the other alliance being awarded one point.
  • The winner is first alliance to score 15 points OR have the other alliance surrender.

Iteration #2 Player vs. Player

  • This is one on one fight. 
  • The players should agree on an equal number of “ACTIVE” cities to start and agree on criterion for winning
  • Players must not be in the same alliance or Confed/NAP alliances for obvious reasons
  • Options for winning are:
  • Scoring the number of points specified
  • Surrender
  • All other rules are the same as for other iterations

Iteration #3 Team vs. Team

  • Prior to start or the tournament the teams should agree to both the number of players per team and the number of “ACTIVE” cities
  • Teams should agree on the criterion for winning as first team to a number of points
  • All other rules are the same as for other iterations
Back to Top
Hucbold View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hucbold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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