Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications
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=3094
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications
Posted By: Rill
Subject: Alliance Tournament League-Based Modifications
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 06:43
|
GM Stormcrow graced us with his presence in global chat recently and said that there will likely be another tournament as soon as mid-February. It will be similar in format to Tournament I and will be based on alliance competitions. The developers are open to the idea of dividing alliances into "leagues" similar to the way players were divided into leagues in the last tournament, but they see some potential problems with this, especially with players being able to switch alliances during the tournament. They're interested in our input about how this might work best.
Here are comments from global chat: [06:34]<GM Stormcrow> @Beriadanwen - the mid feb tournie is, by popular demand, likely to be a broad repeat of Tournament #1 (Alliance vs Alliance) [06:36]<GM Stormcrow> @Ryelle - it's possible that the next alliance tournie might be league-based, but there'd have to be restrictions on players moving alliance for the duration - which miight be unpopular... [06:37]<GM Stormcrow> We're thinking it through atm, though suggestions would be welcome. Start a thread called "Alliance Tournament League-based modifications" in the forum [06:40]<GM Stormcrow> @Ryelle - The key issues are players joining or leaving alliances once the parameters are set. We could have it so that an alliance "moves" up the leagues from their starting position depending on joiners, but never moves down. But there are lots of possibilities. So what do people think? How would it be best to make this work? Input from people who were around for the first tourney would be particularly great. |
Replies:
Posted By: Gossip Boy
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 06:59
|
I am completely in favor of tournaments which gives everyone an equal opportunity by dividing them into leagues but i am not sure how it will work for the alliances with small population suppose there are two alliances having 100k pop one having 40 members with pop around 2-5k for most of them and other one having a 40k member.......it will certainly be an advantageous position for the alliance having the big member also the league has to be divided with every bit of care so that there is equal competition around the leagues which will be more difficult to ensure in A v/s A tourney and as for player movement....i think a mail informing them about their disqualification from the tourney if they change their alliance during the tourney should do fine (not the mail alone!) |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 07:40
|
Also the fact that if it is like the first tournament there have to be "league" forts. Something like you will only get points if you defend the fort belonging to your league. If all fights for the same forts the big ones will be "winning". I'm in favor of alliances being locked for the tournament but then we have to get an advanced notice. It could also make some alliances kick their inactive members to get lower over all population and give Illy a more true picture of the "strength" of the alliances. My guess is that there should be 3-4 leagues. ------------- 
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 08:07
|
Tricky: Alliances can be derailed in the tourney by one disgruntled member quitting? That wouldn't do. Instead, no one may leave or join an alliance during the tourney? Hmmm. What about: Alliances field teams. The teams are put into pop based leagues. The teams rosters are set by a certain date with X number of reserves. If team members drop out they can be replaced by a reserve member. The team is in competition until all members drop or until the end of the tourney whichever comes first. ------------- |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 08:15
|
Maybe if alliance members can leave freely but members who join during the tournament cannot participate in the tourney? (Except potentially with support by resources and/or diplos? And if with diplos, then are assassins acceptable? Presumably one could always contract for an assassination outside one's alliance anyway.)
Edited to add: I'm not endorsing assassinating anyone's commander during a tourney, just speculating on possible mechanisms that people might want to employ.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 08:33
|
Teams wouldn't address resource support, but nothing would imho. I think it's going to be difficult to say "alliance A is equal to alliance B". Teams can be better vetted and easier to police. I also think it would increase the level of sports-like appeal adding a spectator dimension not yet fully realized. ------------- |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 10:13
|
The point of the next tournament was to have an alliance one. No point in splitting the alliances into teams. By locking the alliances I meant that no one above 500 pop cant join an alliance during the Tournament. You should off course be able to leave the alliance if you want but as stated you cant join a new one unless you have less than 500 pop. -------------
|
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 13:26
Maybe something like you can travel to the forts that is in an higher league but not to those that are below your alliances league. That will make it possible for lower alliances to get "even" with higher ranking alliances  -------------
|
Posted By: Qaal
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 14:35
|
It will definitely be difficult to say alliance A is equal to alliance B based on population alone, but what that means will depend on the nature of the tournament. For example two alliances with 500k pop, but one with 75 members and one with 15 members will have greatly different capabilities. But will it be an advantage to send many small groups of units around or fewer large groups of units? Depends on the nature of the tournament. With regard to alliance membership, I don't like the idea of freezing membership. Some alliances might want to keep recruiting, rather than focus solely on the tournament. Is there a way to freeze only the tournament roster? In other words, the alliance role on the day the tournament starts is the group eligible to participate. Anyone who joins after that date can be a full member of the alliance in all ways, except in terms of participating in the tournament. It could be argued that the new player could still support the alliance with materials, or whatever, but that's likely true of friendly players who aren't in the alliance, anyway. Just thinking out loud here. Have a good one, all!
|
Posted By: Qaal
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 14:50
I should have read the thread a little closer--Rill's post pretty well covers my thoughts on freezing alliance membership for tournament participation only. Edited to add: though maybe I disagree about not assassinating commanders...might cause a delightful amount of mayhem...
 |
Rill wrote:Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 15:40
IMO, the problem with any city attacks is that it is sort of a slippery slope... If someone doesn't have assassins, then is it ok to attack the city then to kill the commanders?, etc... [/QUOTE] |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 16:17
|
Hopefully you can use assassins on forts and also use defensive diplo-units :-) -------------
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 16:43
|
Without leagues, this proposed tourney will have very similar results as tourney #1. So we would see contests among VIC, Dlord, Peace, H?, Curse, etc. Alliances outside the top 10 would only be playing spoiler and earning XP for Cmdrs. Lock down alliance membership for the duration of the tourney and assign alliances to leagues. Also, designate squares to each league. |
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 17:55
I have a bad feeling that if they split up the alliances into leagues, the top 10 will be fighting the top 23 lol. Anyway you slice it, its going to be unfair for someone. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 18:42
|
Leaning towards teams? Each alliance fields as many teams as they can/want to and the teams are assigned to leagues. This seems to solve every issue stated except outside assistance (which cannot be stopped). The teams represent their alliance. They are fairly equal. We can pick our favorites to root for. What more could we ask for? ------------- |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 18:52
| I'm not a fan of teams outside of alliances. One problem would be trying to remember who is on what team. With alliances, you can just check the ticker. There would also be logistical problems with coordination, especially since two teams might come from the same alliance -- in which case they would be likely to collaborate against other teams, defeating the purpose of dividing people into leagues. Overall it just seems too complicated. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:27
|
Good points. "One problem would be trying to remember who is on what team." Teams can be posted on alliance summaries as well as by the devs. "There would also be logistical problems with coordination, especially since two teams might come from the same alliance -- in which case they would be likely to collaborate against other teams, defeating the purpose of dividing people into leagues." Limit each alliance to a single team(which could cause competition within alliances, SC's "friction"). I've only been through the last tourney so I'm limited in experience but it seems to me that there were only a few of the usuals dominating which is what happened before. Is that right? TLR is small and has only a handful of members who were interested enough to try and that was limited by size. The idea of teams appeals to me for that reason. It would even the field more than just a simple population based league structure. I also understand that if I were a vet, in a vet type alliance that I wouldn't care at best and probably be against it for that very reason. The only real problem I see with teams is that some, in the larger, more active alliances will be left out. The reserve list could help that and of course this isn't the last tournament. I suppose teams isn't as popular an idea as I was hoping. ------------- |
Posted By: Tam
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:30
| Just brainstorming here, but perhaps the leagues would be based on the average pop of the alliance? |
Posted By: Qaal
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:31
It'll all just depend on the structure of the tournament. I can see assassinations being well within the bounds of fair play if the tournament is set up to reward assassination. On the other hand, the tournament could be set up as a trading tournament, for example. In that case assassination would be irrelevant and probably considered by most grounds for heavy retaliation (if you can identify the attacker), just as it is in non-tournament times. The devs used the last tournament to introduce some aspects of factions and magic. I'm guessing they'll use the next tournament to introduce some new aspect of play, too. It might level things if, for example, they couple the tournament with the release of new trade items. None of us have any ability to anticipate (beyond logic and speculation) what the new items will be or how they could be used in a tournament. I'd also like to see pathfinding introduced with an alliance-based tournament. For example, a contest to see who could build the most kilometers of roadway would get new infrastructure off to a running start. We'd get a lot more roads a lot more quickly than if it just launched in a vacuum. Best!
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:38
|
Can someone describe (briefly) how tourney #1 was organized for the benefit of those of us who were not here for it (or post a link to same)? I have heard it described as "king of the hill"...?
I would think objections to "locking in" alliance memberships would rise in proportion to the length of the tourney. A short (1-2 week) tournament should be able to lock in membership without too much of a fuss. If alliances are assigned to leagues on the basis of existing membership, it seems only fair that membership be locked during the tournament. In principle, leagues seems like a good idea because it gives the smaller alliances a legitimate chance at a prize; in practice there seem to be many ways to play the league system that go beyond membership changes. Those sorts of problems are likely to be compounded by the creation of non-alliance teams. If there are groups that want to join with players in other alliances for the purpose of tournament competition, they can create a temporary alliance for that purpose. |
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:39
|
Stop with the dang team junk. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Have it like the first tourny, but limit new recruits to 5 days of not being able to use military force/diplo units. That should solve every problem. Basically just add the same rule of exodus to Alliances. Heck, that might just be a good rule of thumb to have in place. No matter how you slice up the teams, someone will win over the others. There is no way to get around this. You should not cripple an alliance just because they are better then someone else. Harmless has worked hard to be number one, and if all alliances are going after them. Then I doubt they will still win like before. I do not know how it played out before, but the only thing I suggest is breaking the map into fours. Based off where the capital of the alliance is depends on the region that alliance needs to fend for the "flags". Stop trying to split this all up into teams, and leagues. It wont be fun that way. If there is any splitting it would be best to just split the map into four regions. Less travel, more fighting, easier to defend, easier to attack. Win/Win and it really shows who is the strongest for that region. |
Posted By: demdigs
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:39
| If they introduced anything it might be unit magic like what the skeletons used against us. |
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:50
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/30dec10-the-kings-first-tournament_topic1402.html |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 19:51
| I think the sensible way to do it would be to make the rewards of the tournament scale with an alliance's participation, rather than rely on them doing better than everyone else. That way even if you can't get a 100% concerted effort, you can still help your alliance benefit. I'm not sure what kind of reward this might be though. Maybe just bounty money from a faction for whatever we are killing paid into the treasury? |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 20:24
|
Alliances are competing, naturally on an ongoing basis anyway. I get why it's going to be alliance based. Players like their alliances. They want to have their friends along while they are winning. I'm assuming this new tournament will be for all players (in an alliance). If it's to be "biggest alliance wins", many won't even participate. I don't have a problem with that. If I wanted to be in that sort of environment I would. If the tourny is that, I won't begrudge anyone who does or any alliance that has the power to pull it off. I figured team play would encompass both aspects (alliance camaraderie and individual strength). It would tend to highlight actual game play instead of who is bigger or more networked. It would also allow a fan base to develop based on the teams. Something new. For clarification, I'm not suggesting teams made up of players from different alliances, although that's a possibility too. ------------- |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 20:34
8 squares were designated as Flags. 0|500, 500|500, 500|0, etc around the compass points. These squares are now labeled Epic Battle Sites on the map and still have all Friend of Camp features deactivated on them. Each flag had a winner. Winner was the alliance that occupied the flag for the most accumulated time during the tournament which lasted 31 days. Results: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/kings-first-tournament-the-results_topic1509.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/kings-first-tournament-the-results_topic1509.html
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 20:42
|
Obliged, Quackers and The_Dude. In the interest of not having leagues but encouraging maximum participation (and, you know, because sometimes it's fun to overthink these things), I'll post these potential modifications of the first tournament for discussion: 1. The eight forts are placed randomly Sat/Sun at 00:00 each of four weeks. All special, passable squares are eligible. The locations are not announced; alliances must find them on the map. 2. Points are awarded for each second an alliance occupies a fort. Alliances are handicapped by dividing the raw points (based on accumulated seconds forts were occupied) by the total population of the alliance (or some other agreeable measure of "strength"). 3. Unaffiliated players are considered "alliances of one" for scoring purposes, but joining an alliance during the tournament leaves any points score behind in their "old alliance". 4. At the end of the week, existing forts are removed/replaced. Occupying forces at the eight forts removed are returned to their home settlements. The goal would be to allow nimble, smaller alliances to compete by quickly identifying and occupying forts as they appear, generating score on a per-second basis more quickly than large alliances, and then withdrawing to shepherd their strength once the larger alliances arrive in force for the following week's contest. Players can drop out of an alliance at any time; if desirable, players joining an alliance could be queued until the start of the following week. Rewards accrue only to those players in the alliance at the end of the tourney. |
Posted By: invictusa
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2012 at 21:48
I can see it now: Illyriad Herald: Tournament VI announced: Transcontinental roadway! King Sigurd issues decree to the realm for immediate construction of transit system. Faction Hubs have been ordered to supply stone at discounted prices for those wishing to participate. |
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2012 at 00:12
|
Tournament #1 was actually player run! The Dev made tournment was better though I suppose, although I did better in the original player run tournament! ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 13:17
|
This sounds like a good idea, however I hope it is not a copy of the first tourney with a couple of 'update tests' thrown in... It would be nice if there was a greater scattering of flags/squares to defend, therefore competing alliances would need to use more tactics; rather than just throwing everything into defence of one flag, you would also need to make attacks against other flags held by your closest competitors. It would also be interesting to have those squares on varying terrain types and also biome types, so that people can specialise their forces for the squares they wish to fight over. In relation to people emmigrating to different alliances, I beleive this is fair enough if the system from the 2nd tourney is used, ie they can move but the score that they have amassed so far does not go to that alliance. After all, is it not natural that when empires compete, less loyal lords will change their loyalties to stronger empires. What interests me is what the rewards would be for such a tourney, perhaps it will simply be an ammount of prestige for each member of the winning alliances, however if factions are to be released soon, allainces could be rewarded with increased relations to the fractions, whose ground the tourney was fought on. |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 13:20
| Heh... like Tic-Tac-Toe on a chalkboard? :o) Three in a line starts accumulating points. |
Posted By: Prometheuz
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 13:45
| hmmm...judgement is reserved |
Posted By: jordigui
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 14:01
|
Hi, my main concern so far is how alliances can be considered and splitted? Considering the existence of many NAPs, confederations, etc. whixh implies that some alliances do not act independently. Thanks, TH
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 14:11
|
I would expect that NAPS and Confeds, will not take effect on the tourney squares themselves. Therefore if a confed player sent troops to a square held by your alliance his troops would attack rather than rienforce. However, it could be interesting to see what would happen in such a tourney where confed rules do work.... As for splitting the alliances, I imagine they will be split into leagues based on alliance population. This will mean that alliances that hold onto innactive large accounts (simply for the added ranking on the alliance table) will be placed at a disadvantage. If this is the case, there may well be alot of innactive players kicked from such alliances in early feb. Therefore it may be worth investing in theives for when that happens ;) |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 14:24
|
I am in favour of splitting the map into regions rather than grouping alliances into leagues. Most of the alliances could participate with a fair chance if there were a flag for each region instead of one in each quadrant. Big alliances will try to gain as much regions as possible while the smaller alliances will mostly concentrate on one region where they are strongest. As all NAP/confeds are suspended, friendly alliances could discuss regional strategies and help each other to claim more regions. Territorial alliances will have a huge advantage in their home region while the spread out alliances will have more options for diplomacy and strategy. Good inter-alliance strategies are possible only when the flags are within a few hours' reach of the players. Otherwise the same army you sent to kill an opponent could end up killing your own confederate's army. Many players would prefer not to participate when there is a chance of friendly fire. Some people would want to move alliances specifically for the tournament - mostly players returning to their parent alliances to help out - why not let them do that? |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 17:31
The regions already on the map (eg. Norweld, Middle Kingdom, Arran etc.)? No matter what smaller regions: Sounds like a very good idea! Would also promote the lore. -------------
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 21:43
|
Ander: Great idea! ------------- |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2012 at 23:07
For those that care you can read all about it here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/behold-a-tourney-has-completed_topic1230_page1.html KP Edit: I like the region idea. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Kelis
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2012 at 21:11
|
OK, here's my 3 cents... I'd like to see a tourney that rewards tactical or strategical planning. To make it fair, require all armies to be the same size. To prevent the problem of everyone sending all knights, players could be held to a limit for the total values of any one defense attribute. So players could choose to maximize their total infantry or ranged, etc. I don't know how the attribute level restriction would be enforced, or if it could be enforced. In addition, the occupation squares should be randomly selected and the locations "activated" at prescribed times. The randomization of activated squares would also add and element to tactical play because there are terrain advantages with each different unit type. This would make it more interesting and challenging. It's better than just sending off your biggest army only to watch it be creamed by some much bigger army in less than a instant. Kelis ------------- Kelis |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2012 at 21:17
| I like the idea of registering teams within alliances and decide the league by those teams. |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 00:26
| I think, if there are leagues, they should be based on total strength. A team system would just be an unfair penalty to alliances who value activity over stats. It would also likely result in many players being left out, as their alliances put together smaller teams to maximize their chances of winning. |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 00:37
|
I don't expect there will be a satisfactory answer for everyone. The game has enough variables, such that allocating players or alliances to leagues based on any one statistic means that players have shortfalls or compensating factors in other variables that make the leagues 'unfair' to a significant proportion. I think some people might be looking for a system that is too far away from "you win by having the capability of being good at it". What might work better, is for a tournament to be partly announced before it begins, in such a way that players can prepare based on guesses about which strengths are needed to succeed. Personally, I'd like to see something in the tournament design that is not based purely on military strength, nor on the ability to be logged in every three hours around the clock. Tricky... answers on a postcard please!
|
Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 01:12
| Just make it so alliances can't score points in the leagues beneath them. If thier population decreases they can again score points in the lower league but only while they are beneath the requirements. All alliances would score points for any of the leagues that have a higher population limit.. but not the lower ones. This would make it so you wouldn't want to go down but could go up. And if the highest league is taken by a much smaller alliance more power to them... they deserve the win. This would just mean more potential compitition in the higher leagues. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 03:35
| I think you can do away with the whole league altogether by just having many more locations. Enough that the biggest guys can't hope to hold a fraction of them... |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 05:22
In still pretty sure that Ander's idea is the best that have been in this forum. So I do agree with Kumomoto. Having a flag in each region will make the tournament so broad hat most alliances should have a chance of keeping a flag if they want to. And if you cant hold a flag you are doing something wrong -------------
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 05:31
Until the top 5-10 alliances decide they each want to hold 5 flags and there's not much left for the smaller alliances. Keep in mind that most alliances out of the top 30 or so have less population total than 5 players in the top alliances. The idea of league play is to give smaller alliances a chance to compete against each other. Because small alliances who happen to be located near large alliances would not have a chance even if flags were allocated by region, because they'd still be competing against massively larger alliances. Or all the small alliances could try to fight for flags in the Wastes and other peripheries of Illy and their troops could spend vastly more time marching than fighting. Not so much fun for them. This arrangement would actually be advantageous for nCrow because we are relatively geographically concentrated in areas where there is little representation from big alliances. I still think that just adding more flags is not the best idea.
|
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 12:24
Set up squares, scattered across the map, that can only be claimed by any given league: 50 squares for lowest league, reducing to 8 for the highest league.
A variant on this would allow players to also compete for squares marked for the next (up) league.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 14:12
| Does anyone know how many faction hubs there are on the map? If there were one tourney locations per hub, I think we would have enough locations for even the smallest guys (sort of a variation of Ander's idea)? |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 14:36
This many: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Faction" rel="nofollow - http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Faction
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 14:38
|
Rill, if the top 5-10 alliances decide they each want to hold 5 flags, they each split their strength to one-fifth and make an even ground for alliances one-fifth their size. The smaller alliances are not craving for special treatment. They deserve a chance to compete against the biggies - atleast in their own colonies. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 14:41
Kumo, I was thinking the same. If minor help or resistance are offered by the local factions (based on their standings with the alliance) it will add more excitement and promote lore as Faldrin said before.
|
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 15:27
Whats the fun in the top 5-10 splitting the flags? And I really doubt the top 5-10 can agree on something like that. I have fast counted the regions and there is around 34. I'm pretty sure that should make room for top 30-40 of the alliances to participate and have a chance for winning a flag. Or do you want Nameless Knights [NKI] to have a chance also? -------------
|
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 15:50
Maybe this tournament enforce the normal NAPs and confederations to promote people to think abit more about how many of those they have  -------------
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 16:19
| I may have miscounted, but I think there are 135 Faction Hubs... That might be too many? |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 16:20
Ooh. Love the idea!!! I think Illy suffers greatly from NAP/Confed inflation as it is... |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 17:27
Sounds like a good number to me, the more there are, then the more open the competition and therefore, in theory; the more tactical we would need to be. It would mean that leading competing alliances, could distance their targets from one another and would perhaps promote more inventive tactics in holding your competitors back. Rather than just throwing huge armies at where their armies are based. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 19:26
Upon further reflection, I think that works. I kind of like the flexibility. Adds considerable tactical depth, as you mentioned, and vastly increases options for tourney game play... The other element that I think really is clever about Ander's idea is that it introduces regional elements to the tourney. It's sort of fun playing in the sandbox with your neighbors... |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 17:30
I think it is to many. I like the 34 regions more. -------------
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 18:46
|
Im not really for leagues. Though, if we have to work with leagues, epic battle sites could be divided in the number of leagues there are. All leagues would have theire personnal "box". And so no leagues would fight against an other one, while units of all leagues are sent on the same spot (dont know if that would be possible in code talking). Scouts may or may not show all the units present by league on these spots. But i wouldnt be to work with these leagues. I like the idea of having more battle sites spread all over the world (mabe 1, or even 2 spots per region?). It would let a chance for everyone to be well ranked, as big alliance wouldnt want to spead their power in every direction... that would bring so much planification, strategy, etc... While i am for everyone to compete against everyone, AWARDS could be given by leagues. meaning that there wouldnt be 3 winners but 3 per "league". For exemple, a small alliance could fight against a bigger one and win, and hold it for some days lets say... but their occupation time would be put to compete with the occupation time of the other alliances that are in the same league. I dont know if GM's would be agree, but i am for a policy of more rewards during tourneys, not necessary in terms of weight, but in terms of number of rewards given. For that there could be other rewards (for each leagues, if we work with that) than only having the longer cumulated occupation time. This one could still be the main one, but there could also be rewards for the longest occupation without interuption, the most different spots occupied, the most spots occupied at the same time, the most re-taken spots, ... there could also be some rewards for the most units killed during the attacks, the most enemy offensive units killed while defending, the most overal units lost... just some ideas to have other rewards that alliances could be fighting for. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 20:05
|
I quite like Mandarins idea about using the leagues purely for resutls purposes. However, I would still like to see a decent spread of 'battle sites'. The idea of using faction hubs also could make alot of sense, that is if my suspicions of this tourney being an opportunity to test the faction AI is right. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 22:10
| The people who don't like leagues seem to be mostly from larger alliances. I'm not saying this means their point of view is invalid, just that it could be expected that their priorities might be different than players from smaller alliances. |
Posted By: Calael
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2012 at 23:14
| Would it be possible to make a rule during the Tournament saying that switching alliances will void any participation both previous and following the switch? |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 04:25
|
Really the reasoning against leagues is the desires to not minf&@ck this thing to death and keep it simple & clean... |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 10:39
|
It's as Kumomoto said. If players that give opinions against Alliances leagues are in the biggest/oldest alliances, that is maybe because they see the potential issues it could bring. I can personnally imagine some alliance being frustrated because leagues aren't fair, or an alliance of certain league being advantaged by it's location near from a certain battle spot, etc. And im not talking about to chose various battle spot, and make only that or that league being able to occupy there. The idea of having more battle spots all over the map is for me a good compromise to avoid leagues. Issue of that, though, is that big alliances could attack spots held by some small alliances because they are getting high scores... that's to avoid that that i also proposed leagues, not for alliances fight restrictions, but only for rewards. Biggest alliances wouldn't want to wipe out encampments of smaller ones that are getting a high score, if that score is not competing with their own score. So for me, if we dont have leagues restricting small alliances to fight against big ones, and if to compensate that, we put more battle spots, then we should however have rewards given by leagues. I like the idea of making faction hubs as tourney spots for that aim, as they are numerousous and spread all over the map... though, the issue i would see about that, is about the terrain type of these hubs. Important thing about battle spots, is that we must have the equal proportion of Plains, Hills, Forests and Mountains, not to disadvantage anyone, and have various strategies and playstyles comming up. Though, Hubs could receive a randomly afftected terrain type IMO. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 14:06
With the faction hubs - for terrain types - the 3 x 3 square around each could be utilized vastly increasing # of spots and allow for different objectives to be brought into play. This will also mean that smaller alliances that have set up near larger alliances will also be able to possibly compete within the same faction hubs. Various objectives that could be brought into play: Diplomatic ventures: Need to Scout/Spy information about a faction hub, goings on at a faction hub, need to steal a certain object(trophy) from a faction hub, need to prevent a building/research from completing at a faction hub, need to assassinate someone at a faction hub. There would be a certain threshold Attack score needed to reach to accomplish a task (for example 25M) either as a single player or alliance wide. Tasks would either be a single mission and done or set up as a string of events to be completed (attack strength threshold reached) - Scout/Spy ----> Thief, Scout/Spy ---> Sabotage, Scout/Spy ---Assassinate. Or all three could be utilized to help defeat the creation of such a task. If per chance the threshold isn't reached in time it might call for military ventures such as blockade/siege attack etc... Reasons for such a need, prevent the use of the task/building/object in question where the use could be activation; delivery to the king or another faction hub with either a favorable or disfavorable result at the destination; creation of an elite military force that is sent to attack a rival faction/king sigurd that will require a large force to counter; etc... On the flip side, to help a faction out rather high resource thresholds could be set to help speed up the completion of each of the factions tasks requiring either basic or advanced resources that others may try to prevent reaching said faction hub. This would lead to again interactive military actions between those trying to prevent the completion of a objective needing to set up blockades/sieges vs. those trying to help the faction up complete their objective. So to summarize: Each faction has an objective that will take a variable set of tasks to complete Each task can be helped/hindered by the use of resources or diplomats, blockades perhaps sieges Once an objective is complete, there will be a period of time that players can further interact till its final "deliverable" reaches a destination Once the objective is complete, the faction can rinse and repeat Probably too complicated to implement for a February tournament but that is the level of complexity I'd like to see in a future tournament.
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 15:20
|
Your last sentence sumed up what i was about to say; a bit too complicated to make that for mid-February. Though, interesting thoughts. Aside from trouney itself, some of your suggestions can enter in a subject about future actions with faction or in a jubject about quests. About using the 3x3 squares of each faction hub to have different terrain types and allow differnt lvl of alliances to fight on a same faction hub... well, average 150 hubs X 9 squares per hub, now that makes too many battles sites. We could have it with less factions hubs put as battle sites. But i would still prefer to see 1 faction hub as 1 big square of a certain terrain type for that tourney. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 16:12
The point of having too many possible battle sites is that it will force even the largest alliances to make hard decisions on how to stretch their resources.
|
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 18:20
That is called balance, and letting the smartest alliance win. We shouldn't have leagues cause it would ruin the whole point of a tournament. There are winners and losers and with each winner/loser there will be someone that cries that it was unfair. Point of a tournament is to fight to be the best, to see who is the best, and to have fun. You can say that leagues would be fair, but think of it this way. What if someone split off from a high pop alliance and made his own. A 30k pop alliance with just himself. That would mean he would have an advantage, big advantage, over the lesser alliances that total only 30k pop. There are to many faults with something like this. You need to think about the bigger picture and stop trying to make everyone a winner. Just think if H? had a spot, and all alliances had to get that spot. That would put H? at a disadvantage. Though if you split things up into leagues, that would for sure give H? and all the other leaders of that league an advantage over the other alliances. Since they would not have to compete against everyone else. Only the other people in their league. It will be far less fun and little competition. Stop trying to ruin the real reason of a tournament. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 18:24
None of my posts called for a tournament split up into leagues so I don't know if you are directing your response to me or the thread title.
|
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2012 at 18:50
Oh no sorry, was trying to add onto ya'lls post. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2012 at 11:30
|
So does anyone have any further info on the possibilities of this. I have to say that from my point of view, it seems unlikely that there will be a mid february tourney. The previous tourney has not been 'summed up' yet in the herald. However, perhaps this is on purpose, maybe these tourneys will be linked through some story line, i.e. when declarations of the last tourneys completion are released the reason for the next will also be set out. I do not go on global anymore, so if anyone has heard from the GMs on there, please let us know... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2012 at 20:14
| No updates from GMs on global chat when I've been online. |
Posted By: GM Luna
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2012 at 20:16
|
I've been following this thread pretty closely and appreciate everyone's feedback and ideas. As we get closer to announcing the next tournament I'll let you know. :) Luna ------------- GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk 
|
Posted By: Mara Zira
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2012 at 21:42
|
I've read all the suggestions as they were posted, but I don't think the following ideas have been brought up--sorry if I repeat an idea. Idea 1: Most larger players won't mind a delay of a few weeks to join an alliance, but often smaller players do feel an urgency to join alliances and are the main source of new players for a number of alliances. The GMs could always set the leagues and then set the restriction so that any player under 1,000 total population (or some other number) can still join the participating alliances but larger players can only leave alliances for the duration of the tournament. Generally, players less than 1,000 population aren't going to change the outcome of a tournament that much except in the smallest leagues (like alliances of only 1 or 2 players). Perhaps the smallest leagues would have an even lower restriction, like only 400 population or less players can join during the tournament. If this idea is used, though, the players should be given a day or two to switch or join alliances and then the leagues will be re-set and remain unchanging throughout the tournament even if players leave. Idea 2: Allow players to freely join and leave alliances throughout most of the tournament, and allow the alliances to move up or down in league category as players join and leave alliances and increase or decrease their population. Then, 5 to 7 days before the end, freeze the alliances' league and only allow players to leave an alliance (or combine with my first idea). This will prevent alliances from deciding they have no chance in their current league, so they drop all of their members at the last moment so they can win in a lower league (and then take their members back after the tournament ends). I think Idea #1 is less exploitable, but I may be overlooking something.
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2012 at 10:06
| Thanks Rill and Luna |