1 vs 1 Tournament
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1215
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 1 vs 1 Tournament
Posted By: Lionz Heartz
Subject: 1 vs 1 Tournament
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 12:32
|
1 vs 1 Tournament
I decided it is time this game has an organized 1 vs 1 tournament by players of Illyriad. Perhaps if players really need help controlling this tournament, the GM's can create a feature default button which could simplify the event for the players involved. Now my ideas are pretty raw, so I would like a lot of input from players about this 1 vs 1 idea in regards of how it would work the best. Here are my ideas: -This tournament would be organized based on population. -A player would need to have siege technology to enter tournament. -The tournament will have different tournaments for different player populations. This would ensure most players can experience this event. -5000 pop and under would be one tourney. 5001 - 10000 pop would be another tourney. 10001 - 30000 would be another tourney. And 30001 and above would be the last of the tourney (heavy weight fight if you will). -To enter the tournament a player would need to have 100,000 gold for 5000 pop and under. 200,000 gold for 5001-10000 pop. 300,000 gold for 10001-30000 pop. And 500,000 gold for 30001 pop and above. -1st place gets 75% of the pot. 2nd place gets 20% of the pot. 3rd place gets 5% of the pot. -A player has to destroy the other players city (only one city can be destroyed) first to advance in the tournament. A player can attack any city of the other player's account. A player in this tournament can only use one account for the event. A player can not get help from friends, allies, and their own alliance. Basically it is 1 vs 1, so it will be on you. -All of the gold has to be sent to the player or GM in charge of the event. He or she will give out the gold to the winners after the event is over. If the player does not give back the gold. The community will destroy all of the cities on the persons account. -If a player is caught cheating, he or she will be banned from future events. He or she will penalized by losing one city. If a player wins and is caught cheating, he or she will lose more than one city depending on what the community thinks. -The tournament will start every 2 months, giving players time to replenish and be ready for next tournament, thus allowing the tournament in progress to finish. -A player has to lose a city to lose in the tournament, there is no white flag. -If you are paired against a fellow alliance, confederation, and nap player, one of you has to leave your alliance to make the battle work. Yes, once the battle is done, have your alliance invite you back. -If a player is in the tournament and gets attacked by a player or players other than the player he or she is supposed to fight, the community will take a city away from each of the players involved in the incident. -Once a player defeats his or her opponent by a siege and raze of his or her city; the other player that may have a siege going on in progress with the other player that won, has to call back his siege camp as soon as possible with a messenger. A messenger or messengers should already be made before your battle with your opponent started to call back all of your armies. A player that lost the battle (lost a city) has 12 hours after defeat to call back his army with a messenger. Once a player city falls and his or her siege camp or army is still at your opponents city; he or she will lose another city by the community for failing to follow the tourney rules. -Every player will be named for the tournament by random. I need some ideas on how to make this fair. -The winner of the tournament will be named and should get a thread stating how awesome they are. These players should also get the title of KING or something. Maybe the GMs can implement something like this for the winner. -Once these rules are approved by the community, there will be no questions involved in what to do if a horrible thing happens in the event. You entered the tournament knowing the rules, you cheated, now you will get punished so to speak for not following the rules. I want the community to come up with more ideas of how this event would work best. Lets brainstorm and make this idea work! Post here for any suggestions or support you have in this thread. Keep in mind, that this tourney is to prove who the best 1 vs 1 player is. Thanks |
Replies:
Posted By: kitmub
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 13:08
|
maybe make this regional and or make the faction hub as the registration npc and also add an tourney history in player profile (win /lose , player and date/tournament season) give newbie protection to the one who loose all cities for choosing who face who it would be nice to have a random number generator to the list of registered player and pair them up |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 13:51
|
Conquering should be allowed over destroying, hI think. Also, hI vould totally be up for dis if not for da fact dat my cities are scattered around da vorld. Also, how vill hyu treat trade and da like for dis purposes? ha lot of people already hef large harmies from tradink, or hef received regular material support from dere alliance... Also, get harmless? to run dis if hyu can, or at least sponsor it. Dats a goot reason for heffink such overwhelming force! Hyu can actually handle the rule breaking consequences of dis vitout triggerink a hyuge var. And people generally trust dem. Unless hyu is member of dem already. hI'm not goink to check, doh. :P |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 14:53
|
Allow competitors to decide to conquer instead of raze cities if they already meet the population requirements. Their decision, their problem to inherit. Let them decide. |
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 14:54
The point of the tourney is the slaughter of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians
You monsters actually support this? I... I'm disgusted. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: Lionz Heartz
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 14:55
| Karl, this is a war game, not sim city. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 15:08
|
War is a battle for profit, honor and/or glory. Why restrict profit to only the 1st place winner? Allow the conquest of cities. Players then can still come out ahead or at least break even-ish... for better or worse. |
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 15:33
this is a however you want to play game its up to the individual player how they run their account albeit some ways are boring compared to others
|
Lionz Heartz wrote:Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:09
|
A tournament where you can win about 500k gold and lose a city worth maybe a thousand times more and then not even speaking about the military units you can lose... hmm.. This tournament needs alot more balancing I guess.. I'm not entering a tournament where the only thing I can win is useless gold wich I have enough allraidy. But I do have some Ideas: 1) maybe a tournament mode where you will win when you have distroyed the entire city wall (with max 5 battle rams.) This way, more people are willing to play in such a tournament. A tournament where you can lose a city will not get alot of players. 2) The tournament randomly choose a city where you will need to distroy the city wall. This way a challenger will not automaticly go for the smallest town wich is alot of easier to delevel the wall. 3) After tournament is accepted, both player will have 1day to prepare their armies, upgrade citywall a bit further and maybe send some diplomatic units ahead to gain information about the armies and citywall level at that moment. 4) 2 tournament modes. 1 for prestige players and 1 for normal players. A prestige player will have a big advantage over normal player because they can instantly rebuild their citywall. Also saboteurs would not work against prestige players. 5) While you are in the tournament you can not recive trades wich support your towns with resources. They will return home. 6) Also other players can't attack the siege camp and can't reinforce the players. They will also return home with the message ''cannot attack/reinforce player X because this player is fighting in a 1vs1 tournament. 7) Tournament has a deadline. They have to distroy the other players citywall within a specific time (maybe 14days?) The player who lost the most citywall upgrades will lose when this date is over. 8) The gold as a buy-in for the tournament. Then maybe put in advanged resources as reward that the other player needs to accept (or find another tournament wich is more tempting to accept) Winner takes all (gold buy-in + the accepted resources) 9) A new building where you can view, accept challenges. At every upgrade you can put in a bigger reward. --> building lvl 1: max 100 advanged resources, lvl 2: max 250 advanged resources.. etc etc.. But a 1vs1 tournament would need alot more thinking and work than this. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:43
|
I think Lionz is going for the 'This is not a carebear' tournament approach. But, yea, I can definitely see your idea getting a lot more traction CranK. May have to separate it into its own thread since its already fundamentally different from each other... I can also see 2v2 or 3v3 variants that work. Knocking a city wall down to zero 'knocks the player out of the match' or whichever side knocked the most wall levels down from the start of the match till the end wins. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:46
|
If you just want sport, why not try something a little more skill-based? Make every entry specify how many troops he's willing to commit, and a mediator pairs him up with the person whose entry matches in score (or specify a total attack+defense score and disallow the use of greater troop quantities during the match--players still get to choose the balance of attack+defense). 24 hours before the match starts, specify a tile roughly half-way between the two contestants and let them know that is their target. No troops may arrive until match start. At exactly 24 hours after match start, the mediator's scout will arrive on the square. Whichever side holds the square at that point wins. Empty square is a draw. Contestants are forced to be evenly matched in strength, but have a variety of strategies on how they apply the strength (get there first and hold, clear in strength at last minute, periodic arrival of balanced occupations, etc.) Like in real battle, one must commit to a plan before seeing which path the enemy will choose. Contestants could be required to publish the composition of their commitments though, giving each other a chance to guess at what they'll be encountering with regard to timing. Such a mechanism means winning contestants might actually still have troops to participate in the next tier, too. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:48
| I should note that contestants should always be within 12 hours of each other, else the timing should be expanded...in particular, players should always have decision making time during which the target tile is known--roughly double the travel time. Match start and end should always be 00:00 server time. |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 16:55
| HM's proposal is far more sport like if you ask me. Killing troops is nbd, sieges are just a pain. |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 17:03
| Yes, thats also a nice idea HM. Having both players accept the number of troops that they are able to use. But I can also see this option work in my idea of leveling down a city wall. You can choose to defend your own or attack the other players wall. It needs alot more strategy and planning and it doesn't mean ''the biggest player wins''. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 17:12
|
Range also needs to be considered. Fighting in the middle between cities will double the effective range of potential contestants within reasonable travel times. Also, to prevent random element or mediator bias, each contestant could be allowed to pick one tile within a mathematically-calculated center region, and then either coin toss for the choice or require the winner to hold both (or more than the loser). I also neglected to mention that the mediator (and as many people as wish to police the event) should land scouts on the target tile(s) at match end and start. Troops arriving before match start disqualify the contestant, as do total armies exceeding the point limit. |
Posted By: Lionz Heartz
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 17:36
The whole sending 2k troops to one square idea seems to have no strategy whatsoever. It will be based more on luck than actual skill. Some armies may be archery based while the other would be cavalry based, while another would be balanced all the way through. Which means a mountain or forest tile would pretty much be the reason why a player wins. Also there commander or the lvls of each commander they sent, would play a huge difference in the result. A player could not send troops and send their assassins instead to the square... I also do not like the concept a player can only fight against a player within 12 hours from you idea. Perhaps this can work in a tournament that starts in a region and the finalist of each region will then fight against each other at a certain square. In terms of publishing commitments? Do you mean that the opponent would know exactly the troops they will be facing before they go to war with them? I feel it would require much more skill to take down walls like Crank suggested or destroy a city like I suggested. If the community as a whole will not be in favor of taking a city at all. I would be more in favor of taking down walls for a player to win. Which would mean no catapults and only rams. HM, if you feel each player can only use a certain amount of troops and commanders, before a battle starts, the players would have to give their troops totals in detail to the mediator. Or perhaps each opponent can also know the troops totals in detail so they would know if there was cheating involved. I think your idea of the tournament HM, would cater more for the care bear player. However, at least the rams being used would require more strategy involved. Lionz |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 17:43
| Logistics has a lot to do with sieging too. For reference. |
Posted By: Iduna
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 17:49
A good way of solving this problem will be to allow players setting up a blockade at eachothers cities to prevent them from receiving resources. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 17:51
|
Only problem is what if the players want to send stuff from city to city? Well, nevermind, blockade from opponent is fine. I was speaking as if the mediator's did the blockade. |
Posted By: Iduna
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 18:15
|
sending stuff from city to city will then not be allowed during the length of the tournament, if one does send stuff (and ultimately cheats) the res will be intercepted by the opposing player. Which, in my opinion, will lvl out the attempt of cheating. |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 18:22
|
Or just a small code that prevent the player from reciving resources after he accepted a tournament. I have no clue about codes actually so I don't know how hard it is for the GM's to make those and how much time it would take. Thats why I sommed all my points from 1 to 9 as a new gameplay concept in this game. Then everything can be fitted together. Something like quests in tavern and trade offers in marketplace. A new building specially for this 1vs1 tournament.
|
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 19:03
|
Great idea, hope it happens ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: Iduna
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 20:24
|
The initial idea is great, also the additional ideas are good. As I recall there have been requests/offers for staged wars before, be it between alliances, but adding this "tournament" idea to the game will certainly add a new lvl to the game. I think most players think that after putting in so much time in developing a city to the point where it is so advanced they will do everyting necessary to keep it. Losing a city to a "one go tournament" is not something many players will want to have a go at. Losing a city wall and some units in a staged set up is quite an other thing. One more thing......if this idea will be seriously looked at.......this should also be added as a new rank summary, such as quests. |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 22:38
|
Vot are dese civilians hyu speak of, KarL? Also, hI am opposed to da vall tournament. Mostly because despite heffink survived several vars, hI've never built vone. And hyu can't get cities out of it. Beink able to capture da cities of da losers is MORE dan enough of a reason to participate in da tournament in da OP |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2010 at 23:08
I agree
|
Posted By: some random guy
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 00:59
|
perhaps a capture the flag thing, where each player must defend a certain square? Whoever occupies their opponent's square is the winner. The squares would be exactly 500 squares away from the defender's capital, and at least 750 squares away from the attacker's capital. Each player would have a square, and each player would have to occupy their opponent's square to win. This could also be played as a "bounty hunter" type thing, with more than two players. Also the winner should get the pot AND all the squares that they occupied to win as free sovereignty squares. ------------- Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo.... |
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 04:07
Then have the tournaments be for people who just wish to fight and others can still siege the towns. Have like a Gladiator type of thing as well where your commanders could battle to get more experience ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 05:14
|
Eventually the gm's are going to allow us to move cities, what if they also allowed us to make an extra war camps and Trade camps? These would basically be like a city however the only things that can be built are barracks, marketplace, wall, and storage etc. Ie no resource production, research, etc. A tournament could be held with these mini cities, which start with a particular value of resources which are selected by each player, and are used to build their city and wage war, Why do these Tournaments have to be over quickly? Perhaps also allow shortcuts with research, Ie warmachines can be built with level 5 barracks or even level 1 as this is essentially an extension of your capital. This would obviously need game mechanics modoration
|
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 05:45
|
As an expansion of HM's suggestion... Rather than one square, have several. NOW you're getting into stuff thats a little bit more interesting. Have each place choose two squares within a previously selected region. Each day, players get points equal to "Number of squares held * Number of units holding squares". This lasts for, say, four days. NOW you have to start making some tough decisions, relying on feints and strategic recalls of troops to try and draw you're enemy out... It would be a bit more difficult to organize, but it would be pretty fun, I think. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 06:35
|
If points = special squares held * number of troops occupying, then the winner will be the one with the most troops. Simply place them all on one square and enjoy the benefit of amassed defense + the highest point total possible. Make it purely the number of squares occupied and players will have to balance effective quantity (best defense and fewest troop losses) against actually scoring by splitting up to hold more target squares. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 06:50
|
Feints are useless in this situation as players do not see incoming on an occupied square. For reference. |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 14:14
|
Zangi, I meant feints more as a tactic rather than the ability. Reniforcing a square only long enough for them to send their attack army, then recalling and replacing. And HM, you've got it wrong. If you have 2000 troops on one square, and I have 800 on the others... I win! 2400 points is more than 2000. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 15:30
|
Hi all, This is all very interesting. We're very keen for this to be - as far as possible - a player-run enterprise, although we might extend some of the concepts out to encompass (eg) Factions and Faction-run tournaments, potentially with special prizes. If you guys can collectively come up with a simple, fun and rewarding Tournament system that people want to participate in, with a full rule set etc, then we're happy to find some space in the dev schedule to code in any specific things that might be required to make it function. One of the key requirements from our perspective is that people cannot use the Tournament feature exploitatively. For example, if you say "During a tournament, players are invulnerable to attack from anyone except their Tournament adversary" then we're unlikely to enforce this through the code, as it will be exploited unfairly by players. I suggest that compliance with the rules (no assistance from third parties etc) should not be enforced by the code, but enforced through reportage - ie the Combat API Key system, although I accept we will probably need Diplomatic & Trade Report API key system in place as well for completeness of information, so everyone can see if a player was within the spirit of the rules or not. If we can genuinely make this a player run system relying on API Key reportage for enforcement of whether players abide by the rules - then different players / alliances can run multiple tournaments of different types with different prizes and rules (eg a One City Siege Tournament, a Capture the Flag tournament, a Kill the most Arakvar tournament, whatever...) that the player/alliance running the tournament can enforce. Keep thinking about it, keep the ideas coming - and when you've got to a point where there's a workable system, let us know if there are any specific dev/code changes that need to be in place to make it happen, and we'll try and slip them in. Regards, SC |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 15:41
|
A ''capture the flag'' might even work without alot of coding. Put a -few- flags randomly on the map (like NPC's) and people have to occupy that spot with a army for 24 hours. Other players can try to take the flag also. Therefor they need to kill the occupying army and also defend the flag for 24 hours. A small price in resources/gold be rewarded to the player who succesfully defends the flag for 24 hours. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 16:15
|
Destroy as many of Faction X's cities as possible before Y date. Each side is allowed to foil the sieges of the other side, but not directly with military attacks. Diplo/magic is fine. |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 18:22
|
A simple challenge system, you post a set of rules example 2000 troops mixed reward 10000 gold if you can defeat them, it cost you 10000 gold to take the challenge, the person setting the test can limit the number to a max of 100 below and above the number of troops they use. 500 horse reward 5000 gold and so on, that way its up to a player to make the reward and test worthwhile for someone to take it but it also allows lower level players to join in unlike a hold the flag for 24hrs which would need a larger army.
|
Posted By: Lionz Heartz
Date Posted: 28 Oct 2010 at 21:38
I feel for the tournament to work the best, it has to start simple. All of this gambling talk, would make things more complicated and too much of a hassle. There should only be a fixed buy-in to enter the tournament. After each tournament we can improvise and add more things to it to make it better. I always believe in starting with the foundation first (figure out if the tournament will be about destroying a city or take down walls fastest in a week or occupy two squares the longest to advance in the tournament). There will be two different types of players involved, a care bear and a non care bear we have to cater to. I feel the walls idea (non care bear) and the two squares idea (care bear) would satisfy both parties. I have finally come to an understanding that losing a city is too much for 99% of the population. I want to start a poll after we get enough ideas. There should be consequences for cheating in any of these tournaments. I feel losing a city or being forced to pay back double of what you stole or being banned from future tournaments should be some options the community should consider for such cheaters. Let me know what other or if you support these consequences of cheating in tournament. The consequence I feel has to be so bad, that a member would be terrified to cheat. At this point, as a community I feel we should look at two ideas, the wall idea Crank suggested and Grunks expansion of HM's idea for two squares. Destroying or conquering a city can still be discussed. However, we need a poll that would last for one week or so to figure out which foundation of an idea the community would support the most. I say take the top 2 ideas and work from there. Once we figure out two concrete ideas, we can work on details from there. Lionz |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2010 at 03:36
|
hI think capture da flag or territories is probably da best for a free for all or multiplayer tournament. First to hold da flag for 24 hours vins sounds goot to. hI propose ve do dis vone immediately. It vould even be goot as a an alliance thing, hyah? Da only code dat it vould be needink is sometink to keep track of how long somevones has held da square. Until den, ve can vork on da honor system of posting timestamps. |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2010 at 07:52
|
Nortasha, hold the flag would be no good to new players who would not have an army large enough to withstand the attacks. Unless something is worked out thats fair for all levels of player then it wont work and people will go back to moaning about how this only works for either 1... large alliances 2...players who have been playing for ages with loads of towns and large armies Yes you can go on and say if you dont like it dont enter but they wont, they just wont play....
|
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2010 at 16:17
|
or, you know, hef lightweight/middleweight/heavyweight divisions? Like has already been suggested?
Otherwise nothing will be fair to anyone, ever. |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2010 at 18:50
|
Indeed.. For example: Black flag: players with pop 50k+ Blue flag: Players with pop 30K--50K Purple flag: Players 10k-30k Grey flag: Players with population between 5k 10k Brown flag: Players with pop between 2k -- 5k White flag: Players with pop between 0 -- 2k Then maybe a random flag event with a herald anouncement on what coordinates the flags are dropped. Yes, for the lucky people the flag might be dropped right next to their city. The hard thing is to keep the spot occupied for 24hrs before others arrive. Maybe even let the occupying army to be reinforced by a maximum of 5 alliance members (in the same flag class). Every flag class have a bigger and bigger price ofcourse. Else it wouldn't even be slightly worth it to send your percious army. |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2010 at 21:06
|
I suggest a small modification to your flag idea; alloy unlimited size army to occupy black flags, large army for blue flag, .... small army for white flag. we might need also to limit commander level... if an army is too large , it simply bounces off. that way large player could play against small players since units number is what maters, not city size. the down side could be that a large player could directly attack a small player in his home town to prevent them from sending troops to the flag. but then that would happen with any type of rules. a cool feature would be to have a colored flag in the hand of the caracter's image in your profil if you occupy a flag, or if you won the contest you'd keep the flag on your profil until next tournament...
------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2010 at 21:50
| There really is no way to reconcile level and ability of commanders until after you've been in a battle or two... |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2010 at 13:50
You forget that big players have high level commanders. So if a flag limits the military units to 500 units. The bigger player will still have the best chance to win agianst a small player who wants to compete for that same flag.
|
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2010 at 17:26
you apparently didn't read my post very intensely. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2010 at 21:41
| hokay, enough bickerink. hI'm goink to run a tournament. hI'm goink to make thread in general. |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2010 at 23:25
Apologies sir.. |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2010 at 07:38
|
no worries. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:09
Brought it upwards the forum again, as it was mentioned recently 
The (very,very great  ) tournament already covered parts of that ideas... I myself wouldn't go in for a sieging battle just out of fun, but hey!, there are people around who might like it (some like it hot ...)And in the meantime, players also can arrange such things without firm framework, it's a sandbox after all. We can hit those other baby-buggers in the box with our pink building forms until they cry, while our parents don't watch  ... |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:20
|
Hora, you fail to get my point...anyone that wants a war now (ie, dislikes the generally peaceful environment) can find a war easy enough by putting up a "Enemy Wanted" ad. That cures the ugly problem of peace that BtB complained about.
We will see exactly how many alliances are upset with peace by watching all the eager alliances rush to post their ads. My bet is that few, if any, are interested in being in a war.
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:25
Oh, sorry, my brain started interpreting stuff again without my thinking...  But wouldn't such ads lead to such battles, although there might be very few, like you said? Perhaps the little update on my post hits it better? |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:55
|
Hora, your edited comments fall in line with my thinking...it's a sandbox and it it should be easy enough to find like minded folks to play the way you want. All you gotta do is ask around.
But those that complain about peace are NEVER asking for enemies, instead they are complaining about the enemies they already have and seeking peace. Which is whacko to me!
|
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 23:09
| As aside I believe The old tournament points still ignore NAPs as per the tournament so players outside of alliances can do battle there. (They are marked as Epic Battle sites on UI2, and are on the 500 coordinates) |