my next Tournament plans

I am wondering why do people want to penalized large alliance just because they are large?

Diva wrote: I'm not up to unending battle. I'm not online 24/7 and somedays recently not at all.. I am a planner much like Angrim and I do like to sleep A LOT when I'm exhausted from that thing called real life (I caregive 3 different age sets, children to a disabled family member to elders over 80)

I am not sure where you got “unending battle” from but if you were talking about the unknown end date the max the Tournament could be would be 2 months. And I am not going this route

Jim wrote: One suggestion would be to level the playing field further by weighting the scoring according to number of alliance cities held rather than number of alliance members. I appreciate that this would require additional coding, but perhaps not that much and  if you could pull it off you would have made such a massive improvement to the whole tourney concept. It would be very worthwhile.    And if that actually works slightly against the large alliances who have a number of useless members then good. every tourney does not have to be geared to suit them and it may encourage some alliance trimming, which would be great.

Jim wrote: and most of the work would be done for you by players forming their own tourney alliances, just for the duration, so then maybe all you need to do is - no. of cities/occ time = score.

Jim wrote:   Every future tournament need not be scored in the same way, you could still have the vcrow 100% yawns as well. But other than the question of the effort involved to set it up, which i dont think would be huge, give me a strong reason not to do something like this.

Jim wrote: Of course they would still have some advantage. Ill say it one more time, if you have missed the point. An inevitable 100% guaranteed win for vcrow, is just as boring to them as it is to everyone else. This change would benefit them just as much as anyone else.

One of the big issue with weighting the scoring according to number of alliance cities is the same issue that doing it by alliance members is that alliance will be penalized for having newbie take part. And I am not a big fan of having a Tournament that limits newbie in taking part. (this is more likely to hurt training alliance as they can’t go and form new alliances because they need to train the newbies and what not. Unless they have a 3^rd party chat room). Here is likely what should be done to do something like this. The town datafiles must be added to the coding of the Tournament (IE create a database/table that will hold the town datafiles). Then it will need updated every day since it should take into count players that join after the start of the Tournament and if any leave. Then it will also need to either save the score in another table or it will need to make sure it keeps records of the towns and when it goes to output the score it will check the occ time and the town data that matches the time that the occ time happen. If this part isn’t done an alliance could be a large alliance for the whole Tournament and right before the end kick everyone out to improve their time. (highly doubt anyone would try this but you ever know what people are willing to do to win). It will require small edits the a few of the table/columns. How the Tournament page is currently set up will need a large overhaul. It isn’t 100% that vCrow will win, Slaves to Armok  [StA] was able to take 3^rd in my last Tournament and Slaves to Armok  [StA] is currently ranked 25^th in sov, 20^th in pop, 33 in towns and 45 in membership. Slaves to Armok  [StA] won because they had a great strategy so if StA is able to get 3^rd I am sure another alliance could be able to take 1^st.

Brandmeister wrote: Koda, it sounds fine, except for the split tournaments. Alliances like eCrow won squares in both Elgea and Broken Lands. Cutting the game in half would probably result in a much lower ranking for us. I don't understand why your tournament structure should heavily favor alliances who only focus on one continent?

Currently I am not going to split the Tournament because concerns of problems with the server and what not. One of the reason I wanted to do it this way because it would be something different from what the last two Tournaments have been and it doesn’t take any coding changes. Another reason is because I think it would be interesting to see how the ranking would turn out to be if it was split I do realize that it would favor alliance that are mostly in one continent. It may turn out that vCrow win 1st in both BL and elgea (in the dev Tournament vCrow won 9 sqs and about 4 of them were in BL) 

Brandmeister wrote: Tensmoor wrote: If you're not happy with the way tournaments are being run there is nothing to stop you running your own in whatever way you want. Kodabear has been kind enough to volunteer his time to organize tournaments and to ask for our opinions/thoughts about them.   If you're not happy with the way that people are providing feedback on this thread, there is nothing to stop you from making your own thread in whatever way you want. Kodabear has been kind enough to volunteer his time to organize tournaments and to ask for our opinions/thoughts about them. I provided my feedback in a polite manner, including the points where I disagreed his proposal. I believe that is within the spirit of his request.

Even if he started his own thread he can’t control the way people are providing feedback he would need to create his own forum to do that. I am fine with feedback as long it isn’t just complaining about something and not offering anything like a way to fix it or giving a reason they think that way. While feedback is welcomed but I am unlikely to change my mind on how the next Tournament will go. I am pretty sure the only thing I am currently debating on is will it be split or not.