Print Page | Close Window

22Mar12 - Tournament Close

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3326
Printed Date: 18 Aug 2019 at 12:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 22Mar12 - Tournament Close
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Subject: 22Mar12 - Tournament Close
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 00:26
The Tournament has now ended. Congratulations to the 96 alliances who participated! 

Due to an anomaly (largely in the final days on the square in Turalia), we need to reconsolidate some of the occupation times and the final results will be forthcoming shortly.

We will also be providing statistics on this very exciting event that we hope you all enjoyed!

GEOGRAPHY
'Rill Archipelago' and 'Stormstone Island' should now be shown on town menus, rather than unknown.

START-UP TIME
The Illyriad start-up time has been improved.

DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME
The effect of changes in time on people's local computers has been resolved. Also please note the server is always GMT/UTC and will not change timezone.

CHANGE EMAIL
You can now change the email address you have associated with your account. (On account preferences page) This is very important for password resets and for warnings about auto-abandonment. [Your email is never shared with 3-parties and we do not spam you]

MAP ZOOM ICONS
The map zoom icons at minimum and maximum zoom now correctly reflect which buttons you can press.



-------------



Replies:
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 00:31
nice changes, I especially appreciate the ability to change the e-mail account.  Even though I don't need it, others have.

Congrats to the devs on an awesome tourney.  We had a lot of fun!!!


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 01:08
Wow, huge load/startup time improvement.  Care to elaborate on how?  Better hosting of external dependencies perhaps?

EDIT: It must be much more than code loading, as the whole game is way, way more snappy, including Butler running on top of it.


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: Berde
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 01:16
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

Wow, huge load/startup time improvement. Care to elaborate on how?

Remember that post-tournament mass sacrifice to the Heart of Corruption? Yeah.


Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 01:46
Yes - don't forget the sacrifice to the heart!  (^_^)  MUA HA HA HA

-------------
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR



Posted By: Turtie
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 02:11
Awesome Tournament --
Had a blast runnin' with my pack
I hope the next 'king-of-the-hill' style tourney has some type of league system. . .
It was a great battle in Ursor for example between a few alliances. . .only to be bullied out in the last week by [H?] <-- punks. . .




Posted By: Tam
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 02:26
The bloodbaths of the North were enjoyable.  The fighting over Fremorn, the Wastes, and Wolgast - many of my best legions tasted both victory and defeat there...


Posted By: Learner
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 02:27
So...waiting for final numbers...some of us have a bet to settle Big smile


Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 02:37
Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

Awesome Tournament --
Had a blast runnin' with my pack
I hope the next 'king-of-the-hill' style tourney has some type of league system. . .
It was a great battle in Ursor for example between a few alliances. . .only to be bullied out in the last week by [H?] <-- punks. . .
Awesome first post!  (>.<)

But I also agree that league squares would be better. 


-------------
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR



Posted By: Permethean
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 07:13
This is the first tournament which I played in my last few months association with Illy. Loved the tourney and enjoyed the battles in Wastes, Kal Trikan and Norweld. Had great fun along with my alliance members in these squares. Expecially in Wastes and Norweld where I hold the square as single member with my army atleast for few minutes till my alliance members came or wiped out by other alliance but its just cooooollll Cool
Had faced both victory and defeat but all were sweet memories.
 
Thanks for thde devs for organizing the tourney Clap and thanks to my alliance members for fighting out together and for other alliance members who made it a tougher one.
 
Cherrs Thumbs Up


Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 07:50
fantastic tourney, thanks o devs.
Bow
NB, im loaded now, oh well, i suppose back to boring exodus :(


Posted By: Sister Nikki
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 08:05
The tournament was greater than the previous one. The idea of having so many squares has gave the oportunity for so many alliances to paricipate. It has some small bugs but the whole tourny have gone softly. Great work and congratulations to all dev's especially TC and SC :)

Just to answer H? participated and haven't bully anyone.
I also want to congratulate VIC for the greatest battles i have seen in Illyriad world for the peak of the mountain TC :)


Posted By: Captain Ganoes Paran
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 09:53
Great tourney congrats on the Devs :) for making it ,and congrats on all the players that took 
part in it 


Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 10:35
Agree with SN on lots of squares making it possible for most alliances to participate, well done devs.


Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 15:22
It was my first real tourney (in the previous I was unable to raise any real army), and it was fun.

I have to say a little thing could be better.

Reserving a few squares all around for the smaller alliances, doing something like it was did for the previous tourney, could be a nice idea.


Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 18:10
All members of WE that participated completely enjoyed the tournie..congratulations to H? on their decisive victory...good show to all alliances that WE fought against.
 
:)


Posted By: RatuJone
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 20:00
I am sure I speak for all of DE when I say we enjoyed it very much also. As for reserving squares for any particular group of players/alliances.... perhaps a better option is to limit the number of squares an alliance can hold to say 3 or 4, that way the playing field is evened up a little.
But congratz to the devs for yet another great tourney!


Posted By: Klandor
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 22:08
I'll second Ratu's comments about DE enjoying it.  Considering our size to some of the other victorious participants, DE did quite well (even if I'm partly patting myself on the back).  We placed 13th overall and it looks like we WON a square (Kul Tar).

Good challenges from Crow and some interesting tactics.

I look forward to the next one.

Klandor


Posted By: Rymal
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 22:44
The tourny was a wonderful "first" for me.  
I'll never forget it!  What a rush!
-- sigh --



-------------
The optimist sees the glass to be 1/2 full; the pessimist sees it to be 1/2 empty and the engineer sees that the size of the glass needs to be changed!


Posted By: vty
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 00:17
Clap Thanks Devs!  

The proud warriors of Absaroke enjoyed the tournament, and are very proud of our top ten placement!! Thanks for all the great battles!


Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 02:31
Fantastic tournament :) Very very messy but great fun...
I'd like to congratulate Victrix and Absaroke on their finishing positions. Truly impressive.
The Fremorn epic was amazing as well. Such a contest all the way to the last few hours.
Good fun was had in Tor Carrock even if we did hit a H? brick wall lol...
Thanks to the Devs for a great contest. Already looking forward to the next one :)  


Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 06:35
I'll put this out there for everyone to shoot down, what if we had a Tournament similar to this one but the prizes for 1st, 2nd and 3rd were reversed? Not only would you need to watch 4th place and below but you would need to keep an eye on 2nd and 1st and adjust your tactics to maintain 3rd position. It goes against every notion of coming first. I'll admit, I just thought of this so it probably has flaws but hey, I'm used to copping it in the Forums. Thoughts anyone!


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 15:26
Originally posted by Daefis Daefis wrote:

Fantastic tournament :) Very very messy but great fun...
Good fun was had in Tor Carrock even if we did hit a H? brick wall lol...
 


We prefer to think of ourselves as a soft, spongy, tempurpedic type wall... ;)


Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 16:02
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

soft, spongy, tempurpedic type wall... ;)


*thoughts that definition would fit well to define the Heart of Corruption(s)*


Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 17:09
Originally posted by Mr Damage Mr Damage wrote:

I'll put this out there for everyone to shoot down, what if we had a Tournament similar to this one but the prizes for 1st, 2nd and 3rd were reversed? Not only would you need to watch 4th place and below but you would need to keep an eye on 2nd and 1st and adjust your tactics to maintain 3rd position. It goes against every notion of coming first. I'll admit, I just thought of this so it probably has flaws but hey, I'm used to copping it in the Forums. Thoughts anyone!
Hummmm - This is an intriguing thought.  It would require a lot more strategy, but could not be controlled 100% by force...  ...would possibly need misinformation, false attacks, etc.

Perhaps (to delve into this further) another thread could be set up just to discuss the dynamics of this proposal.  I would be interested in such a tournament!  (^_^)


-------------
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR



Posted By: Turtie
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2012 at 23:47
Originally posted by Sister Nikki Sister Nikki wrote:


Just to answer H? participated and haven't bully anyone.


well, when an alliance such as H? has a virtually unbreakable lead, rolls over to a square that has a very close battle for 1st, 2nd, and third. . .one might construe that as 'bullying'
but hey -- we all have our opinions

sorry if you feel slighted, but you had all ready clearly won the overall. . .


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 14:57
Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

.well, when an alliance such as H? has a virtually unbreakable lead


Clearly you are not very familiar with how this game works. When a city maxes out its buildings, it cannot grow more. And there is a hard ceiling on how many cities you can have. There is also a hard ceiling on how many members you can have in an alliance. Therefore, less than 100 accounts are going to be very rapidly passed by other alliances (or conglomerates there of) that have more than 100 accounts.

How then can anyone in the game have a "virtually unbreakable lead"?

The whole "H? are bullies" thing is so unoriginal and tiring. We compete to win. We competed to win as many squares as possible in the tourney. As should everyone. And we are utterly unapologetic about it. Quite the opposite. We are proud of what our members accomplished. And for you to label it bullying is just frankly poor sportsmanship.




Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 15:57
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

The whole "H? are bullies" thing is so unoriginal and tiring. We compete to win. We competed to win as many squares as possible in the tourney. As should everyone. And we are utterly unapologetic about it. Quite the opposite. We are proud of what our members accomplished. And for you to label it bullying is just frankly poor sportsmanship.

H? is correct to maximize their victory.  My complaint is not against H? for competing fairly.  My complaint is that the tourney design pitted RES against H? (or VIC, etc) - which is not a competition at all. Ouch


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 16:43
Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

 
well, when an alliance such as H? has a virtually unbreakable lead, rolls over to a square that has a very close battle for 1st, 2nd, and third. . .one might construe that as 'bullying'
but hey -- we all have our opinions

sorry if you feel slighted, but you had all ready clearly won the overall. . .

That is a very skewed perspective. It was not as if all the alliances in Ursor were tiny ones, who didn't stand a chance before H. 

The regions around Ursor - Ragallon and Windlost were held by H and were lightly contested during the first half of the tourney (H lost less than 50K troops each I believe). Some squares were already won by the first half, the alliances holding those were shifting their focus onto the rest of the places where they still had a chance to win. 

From the casualties in Ursor, it was evident that the leading alliances there were much weakened (more than 570K till then). Ursor shouldn't have come as a surprise. If you guys had considered the possibility of the arrival of H and played accordingly, one of you could have won the square. I'd say, Ursor was gifted to H.

Again, if you look at the squares of Ragallon, Windlost and Qarroslan, you will see that all the remaining time after H, it was held by Crows. Crows had lead only on one square - just one - and they came third overall, leaving behind even those alliances who won on three squares. Kudos to them. There was more at play than numbers and bruteforce. 





Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 04:14
I had fun and sadness and excitement and dashed hopes. This was a great competition and even though TLR won no prizes we learned some things and did a whole lot better than I figured we would at the outset.

Ursor was well contested. First VIC came at us and then Champs and then Peace and PATH. I assumed H? would be along in time to win it and we planned our final push just right to get enough time to take first before they got there. Well, it would have been just right if we had managed to keep the square but we didn't.

I have no complaints. I have nothing bad to say about H? I would have been happy to finish second to them in Ursor. They ARE huge and very well organized and intelligently led. In a year or so TLR could be as powerful, if we dedicate ourselves to growing as such. Any alliance can. 100 members with 100k pop each would be larger than they are now. Of course they wont stop growing either. Strategy is required to defeat a larger enemy. Sour grapes wont do it.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 19:28
You Harmless-haters are really bad losers. They have the right to some fun too, you know!


Posted By: Turtie
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 01:27
Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

I hope the next 'king-of-the-hill' style tourney has some type of league system. . .



 
Clap

It seems everybody missed the real gripe -- 


Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 02:54
Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

I hope the next 'king-of-the-hill' style tourney has some type of league system. . .



 
Clap

It seems everybody missed the real gripe -- 
Originally posted by SunStorm SunStorm wrote:

Originally posted by Turtie Turtie wrote:

Awesome Tournament --
Had a blast runnin' with my pack
I hope the next 'king-of-the-hill' style tourney has some type of league system. . .
It was a great battle in Ursor for example between a few alliances. . .only to be bullied out in the last week by [H?] <-- punks. . .
Awesome first post!  (>.<)

But I also agree that league squares would be better. 


Your generalization is invalid. 


-------------
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR



Posted By: Merpdarsh
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 06:01
I think everyone is taking Turtie's remark way out of context. The whole "bully" comment is a playful jest merely to indicate that as a much larger alliance that already had a commanding lead, they could have just left a square for the "minnows" such as Champ and Path to fight over. Before we respond to this statement as a singularity, please let me elaborate. As a fairly young player in this game, it was mildly demoralizing spending weeks fighting over a square only to have the hordes of H come in at the last second to comically take it once and hold for the duration to win it out. 

Are we saying what they did was wrong? No. It's within the construct of the game, and I have a great admiration and respect for the size and ability of the players in H? but consider the small glimmer of hope that we poor folk had in our non-military oriented trade alliance and how close we were to taking that square only do have it dashed against the rocks in the final days. It was to some degree demoralizing and in some others inspiring. This tournament and that level of power, if you will, displayed by H? actually re-inspired me within the game.

I know that Turtie means no ill-will toward H? or any of their members. Fair play for sure. His use of the word "punk" and "bully" should not be misconstrued as carrying a caustic connotation and were off the cuff remarks merely pointing out that we felt like the little kids on the playground having our ball stolen from us by the big kids. Put in our place, perhaps? We understand it's the way of the world (Illyriad of course). 

Great tournament. As I said, it revitalized my interest in Illy, and I can now try to be more prepared for whatever the next challenge will be.

Cheers,
-Merp

PS. I don't speak for Turtie, but after a lot of other conversations with him in AC, I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it the way it's being taken.


Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 06:29
Originally posted by Merpdarsh Merpdarsh wrote:

I think everyone is taking Turtie's remark way out of context. The whole "bully" comment is a playful jest merely to indicate that as a much larger alliance that already had a commanding lead, they could have just left a square for the "minnows" such as Champ and Path to fight over. Before we respond to this statement as a singularity, please let me elaborate. As a fairly young player in this game, it was mildly demoralizing spending weeks fighting over a square only to have the hordes of H come in at the last second to comically take it once and hold for the duration to win it out. 

Are we saying what they did was wrong? No. It's within the construct of the game, and I have a great admiration and respect for the size and ability of the players in H? but consider the small glimmer of hope that we poor folk had in our non-military oriented trade alliance and how close we were to taking that square only do have it dashed against the rocks in the final days. It was to some degree demoralizing and in some others inspiring. This tournament and that level of power, if you will, displayed by H? actually re-inspired me within the game.

I know that Turtie means no ill-will toward H? or any of their members. Fair play for sure. His use of the word "punk" and "bully" should not be misconstrued as carrying a caustic connotation and were off the cuff remarks merely pointing out that we felt like the little kids on the playground having our ball stolen from us by the big kids. Put in our place, perhaps? We understand it's the way of the world (Illyriad of course). 

Great tournament. As I said, it revitalized my interest in Illy, and I can now try to be more prepared for whatever the next challenge will be.

Cheers,
-Merp

PS. I don't speak for Turtie, but after a lot of other conversations with him in AC, I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it the way it's being taken.
Merp,

I truly appreciate your thoroughly thought out and wonderfully articulated response.  <----(Sometimes flattery sounds sarcastic, but this is not.  I wish more people put as much thought into their forum posts.)

I wasn't trying to belittle Turtie's response and I know he meant no harm by the post.  As a matter of fact, I feel it is valid and I agree that league squares would have been 10x better.

My jest regarding the generalization was that he said everybody missed the point but I had already posted that I agreed with him.  So obviously not everyone missed it.  (^_^)  That was all.


-------------
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR



Posted By: SugarFree
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 07:05
sunstorm, YMMV but there is no definite truth.
truth is different for every person.
missing the point? well those people have a point actually, just as you have.


-------------
Nuisance


Posted By: Prometheuz
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 10:44
Reading through this thread I get the impression that Sunny and Noki are trying hard to be noticed or accepted by H? Perhaps they pray for an invitation to be sent in the mail?

As for me . All I can hope for is an envelope full of poodle poo through the letter box LOL


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 12:55
It is unlikely that SunStorm is sucking up to Harmless in hopes of an invite, as he is already a member. Tongue

I do hope that Merpdarsh realizes there is no need for himself nor Turtie to tread overly cautiously in our presence.  Even if Turtie had been expressing some bitterness over the tournament outcome, it would be wholly forgivable so briefly following that disappointment.  We know other players truly hold a grudge, even while expertly hiding behind admirable poker faces (diplomacy at its finest, really).

Originally posted by SunStorm SunStorm wrote:

My jest regarding the generalization was that he said everybody missed the point but I had already posted that I agreed with him.  So obviously not everyone missed it.  (^_^)  That was all.
Ah, but then it is a generalization, making one or two exceptions wholly inadequate as counterexample.  Exceptions are allowed.

This was the first tournament in about two years into which Harmless could properly sink our teeth, and I'd be hard-pressed to promote any change that would diminish the scope of our opposition or room for ambition.  But I must admit that at least a couple or three league divisions would have allowed broader near-full enjoyment.

I can think of one good reason why this did not occur, however.  Smaller leagues would have considerable room for growth by adding members, which would have resulted in ganking in the lower leagues as opportunists joined up with whomever appeared best situated for local or league wins.  As a result, competition would have been substantially decreased and for many it would have either still been hopeless or turned into a sitting, waiting game.  As it was, for us it was just that sometimes.  The ganking problem may have been fixable, but in ways that would upset and exclude people and/or simply involved a lot of extra database-housed logic or complicated rules (i.e. no joining of alliances during the tournament, or limits based on league designation, or league assignment changes based on changing total population).  Such rules would in turn allow a lot of exploitation or letdowns as well (splitting alliances into regions to gank local competitions at lower leagues, accidentally getting stuck in an upper league level if it can't be lowered, etc.).

League divisions would theoretically be better, but a lot harder to do right and possibly not doable at all.


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 13:34
I think that this increased number of tourney spots brought a very good result. we saw Smaller alliances offering good competition to bigger  ones on various spots, and for ranks

Im still personnally against leagues, and HM developped well the reasons which are also the ones i would evoke.

For me, the 1 spot per region is very good, but there should be more rewards distributed. For exemple a variety of decreasing rewards from rank 1 to rank 20 for overall occupation time. Or also rewards given not only to the winner on each spot, but also to rank 2 and 3 on each spot (but of course rewards decreasng from rank 1 to rank 3, per spot).

I some times ago evoked to eventually create leagues for rewards only, while still allowing all size of alliances to fight for the same spots. (e.g. rewards for Top 3 in top 10 allainces, rewards for Top 3 in top 11-20, etc...). Though im thinking it might still encourage the migration of opportunists HM evoked.

So, anyway, important thing in my opinion, in that there should be more rewards, an/or a larger variety of them, to permit smaller alliances to not hopelessly fight for them.
I agree Alliances which didnt get rewards will say the tourney was pretty funny, that it permited them to position themselves comparatively to other alliances, work on the organisation, make plans to get better, etc... but a physical and official reward for their efforts should leave a better feeling at the end of the tourney.



Posted By: Merpdarsh
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 14:19
Originally posted by SunStorm SunStorm wrote:

 
I wasn't trying to belittle Turtie's response and I know he meant no harm by the post.  As a matter of fact, I feel it is valid and I agree that league squares would have been 10x better.

Indeed. I appreciate the compliment as well. To be sure, you were not the only person to which I was directing my statement. Cheers.



Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 15:15
The open tourney gave everyone chance to understand the chemistry of the region and players around them. Alliance(s) from page 2 have won on more than one squares competing against the rest of Illy while some alliance(s) from page 1 couldn't win any - the results do not reflect the strengths of the alliances. Many factors - geography, history, neighbours, strategy and luck contributed to it. And most of all, we got to play with the finest players - from the pool of all awesome players around, both small and big. 

I am in favour of people wanting to join or quit alliances temporarily for tournaments though. Some people might want to return to their parent alliances, some might want to shift for strategy. It's all good. But people shifting alliances to change "leagues" is totally undesirable and in a different spirit. When there are more rules, there will be more exploits and less fairplay.



Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 15:43
I think people contested H? to little. Off course easy for me to say because Dlords was not close to any H? held spots.
But H? wanted to win the over all tournament so if people had contested them more early in the tournament on the squares they might have succeeded.

If you look at the defensive casualties H? got a lot of their spot "easily" so next time give them hell like Snugglers and  TCol did at our spots.


-------------


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 16:04
Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....


Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 16:35
Kidding?
Really?
Another thread skewed to talk about Harmless (?). Getting beyond a bore.
People. Get a life. Or as my dear ol Nan used to say 'Mind your own business and one day you'll have business of your own to mind.'

Random thought to encourage more competition to even said field: Allow confederations to hold squares. IE Bring diplomacy into the fray.


-------------
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule


Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 17:03
Confederations tourney sounds fun :)

edit: though, that would need to update diplomacy first... or there could be lots of confusion. alliance 1 conf with B, both holding the square is correct... but alliance C comming while confed with B but not with A doesnt seem correct... or maybe it would let open some betrayals... but it would mostly bring mistakes and lots of cahos if confed arent seen as a same group (you cant be confed with an alliance if dont want to be confed with the other alliances this alliance is in confed with)


Posted By: John Marston
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 17:46
I just hope the next tournament is on soon!


Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:03
I don't mind this thread being about H? this time.  We did a phenomenal job in the tourney. The suggestions, coordination, patience and overall enthusiasm of all our members helped ensure we not only met our goals but did so in a big way. 


I made mention on GC but I will also now post here a special kudos to StA, who was the only alliance to actually push us off a square while it was a primary target of ours. 





Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:04
I think a confederacy tournament would be a nightmare to code and track as Mandarins31 example is but the tip of the iceberg.  


Posted By: SunStorm
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:12
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

I think a confederacy tournament would be a nightmare to code and track . . .
Yes, a nightmare for sure!

The way I see it, it would be neat if all the squares were open to all alliances, but each square has a limit (e.g. a cap on population for the attacker or something similar).  So it would work as follows:

If I have 50k population, I can only attack squares that are between 50-75k range.  I could not send any armies to a 25-50K square, but someone else in my alliance could.  So in overall, all alliances could fight on all squares - but depending on the players size, some squares are restricted/off limits...

Again, undoubtedly a nightmare for coding. 


-------------
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR



Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:35
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....

My point was that small alliances DID have a chance if they would have taken it.

Look at the list of casualties inflicted in each region.
The 3 regions Dlords won is all in top 12, meaning we did have a fight for all our spots.

What TCol did very well was to contest a spot close to them and others should have followed their example.

I advocated at some point for a tournament that would keep the "normal" alliances meaning you could not attack allied spots and could help defend them as normal battles. That could hopefully weed out some of the way to many NAPs out there and confederates also if an alliance think they can do all by them self Wink

But maybe "hell" was to strong a word.


-------------


Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:42
Sun, i guess you are talknig about Leagues, and not confederations tourney. If yes, well, as you said, what you proposed seems to be a headhache factor for devs and for for the leaders who might want to organise there troops for each category of spots.


Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:57
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

I think a confederacy tournament would be a nightmare to code and track as Mandarins31 example is but the tip of the iceberg.  


Wuss. Do you think Edmund Hilary said "Mt WHAT? Kidding?! That'd be a Nightmare!"

Well okay thats prob EXACTLY what he said, but he did change his mind ;)


-------------
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:59
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....

DLords was number 5 and Snugglers and TCol were 36 and 37 at the beginning of the tourney, as I recall.  Neither had much more than 700k population.

Being bigger and having larger armies doesn't always mean you win.

One would think that a veteran of the White war would testify to this more than anyone.


Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 19:01
Well, Creature, i suppose that Faldrin is evoking the spots you fought for, and on which there were less then 100k casualties overall, or a bit more than 100k. Apparently, they represent bit more than the half of the spots H? won on.
So imo, that's legitimize to say that H? could have been more... harmed, by some other alliances.




Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 20:00
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....

Creature, I think the above missed (almost entirely) what Faldrin was saying. Honestly.



Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 20:55
Originally posted by Mandarins31 Mandarins31 wrote:

Well, Creature, i suppose that Faldrin is evoking the spots you fought for, and on which there were less then 100k casualties overall, or a bit more than 100k. Apparently, they represent bit more than the half of the spots H? won on.
So imo, that's legitimize to say that H? could have been more... harmed, by some other alliances.


That is without a shadow of a doubt Mandarins - indeed we could.

In my humble opinion this mostly boils-down-to a question of Geography... it was a long time ago now when H? took steps to remove its powerbase from Middle Kingdom to outlying regions in the South-West and North-East... as such it is no surprise at all that all our captured squares where in the extremes of those regions.

Now, it is true that small alliances could have contested us far harder at many of those squares but I think in the end - everyone is trying to maximise their own chances at capture time and square victories... if people focus all their efforts on long-range attacks to try and contest these spots when their opponent is much more locally situated to reinforce/contest/counter attacks then they run the real risk of handing their own local capture spots to their neighbours. As such it is hardly surprising that people did not bother to waste too much effort contesting squares that they had lower chances of holding and/or winning.

On the other hand- it is hardly like every square won by H? was the same story... there were several squares early in the tournament where we put out feelers and were quickly repelled by more local alliances - likewise there were some squares (like Tor Carrock and Ursor) that we had to fight hard to capture and hold.

In the end I guess I'm saying there were many great fights all over the continent... in the end it was inevitable that geography would play an important role.

edit: @rill: Altho I was there at the time I'm hardly a veteran of the White war... I spent most of it getting beat on by several White players before I even joined H?


Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 21:43
Indeed, Geographic placement played a very important role in this tourney for every alliance, and that's true that a good part of the explaination of why H? didnt face so much challenge in a good amount of spots was because they were far from potential contesters, and also often right in H?'s hubs. I must admit H? was very well suited for a regional alliance tourney.

Well, im waiting for next alliance tourney. And i hope you guys in H? will finally face the challenge you are waiting for almost 2 years now; after White's big one you hadnt have to push your fighting skills to their last cuttings off. (i admit i didnt really see that war either. Was in Black, but was a newbie at that moment, and never heard anything from White's leadership...)


Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 00:20
I'm more than happy our friends and confederates won so many squares!
But in Faldrin help i'll post some statistics:

Average xp on squares held by alliance:
EE         3,989,860
KV         3,262,707
Dlord 2,790,527
Peace 2,536,830
Curse 2,321,998
VIC         1,996,672
Absa         1,942,132
DE         1,472,346
T?         1,374,125
H?         1,208,949
Crow 756,046
mCrow 745,255
nCrow 641,777
VICX         298,675

Total xp on squares held by alliance divided total alliance population:
Dlord 2.44
Absa  2.22
EE 1.94
KV 1.92
VIC 1.67
H? 1.59
Curse 1.48
T? 1.38
DE 1.19
Peace 1.11
nCrow 0.91
mCrow 0.43
VICX 0.34
Crow 0.17

Those statistics should not be taken as global tournment indicator but as parameters to estimate how much resistence alliances found on their squares.


Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 01:12
Drejan,

The statistics, while interesting, are misleading especially dividing the xp on squares by alliance population.   Doing so, assumes that the winning alliance was involved in all the combat that took place on said squares which is hardly the case. 

For example taking the square EE won Wolgast, EE inflicted 504,725 total casualties (285, 181 while attacking and 219,544  while defending) out of the 1,492,159 casualties on the square.  So they in essence only inflicted about 33% of the total casualties that occurred on the Wolgast Square.  There is no real way to calculate the actual exp these amounted to with the posted information.

There were 32 different alliances that were involved in attacks and at least one unaffiliated player.
There were 24 different alliances that were involved in defense on Wolgast.

Each alliances exp contribution on a square would have to be calculated in order to base a stat per population of the alliance as a whole. 

Yes, Wolgast probably had the most alliances involved but since EE was listed on top that was the first square I evaluated.

~Anjire

*** I just want to add that I do agree that H? did not receive a significant amount of resistance except for on a few squares where we sort of had to force it. 

*** Also, the amount of harassment that both Tcol and HugCr applied vs. Dlords was impressive. 




Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 01:36
Most are saying it was a good/great tournament, so the Devs have succeeded in their objective. Lots of thoughts are being posted and it will be interesting to see when the next tournament begins, whether or not these thoughts will be acted upon. Lots of Illyrians are expressing that they have learnt a lot from this tournament, the proof will be in the results of the next one. Will the outcome be a little different, a lot different, or just the same? I can't wait to see, good gaming folks.


Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 02:17
Anjire, those are indicators of square activity, they reflect the ammount of attention on a square, it's a rough indicator on the difficulty of a square. 
Average is also a good indicator, if you do not have to move troops to defende a square you can use them in other places or just move them when you secured the square.
Comparing them with population was an answer for some replies i readed and is another rough indicator of the work the alliance did compared with the size.
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:


#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

(Perrigor miss too)

With this i do not want to say we were the best nor than others were bad.
We did mistakes, but securing 3 of the top squares was not a joke at all and required work not only on 3 squares ;)






Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 03:15
Just a disclaimer:  My position on your stats in no way reflects my opinion of any alliances contribution to the tournament.  I believe from the response here and on GC that everyone put forth a tremendous effort.

That said, I have to disagree with your stance that your stats are a good indicator of activity on the square.  At best, they are a weak hindsight indicator barely reflective of actual troop distribution/allocation needs to a square during the  tournament. 

The only real gauge at the time was the # of incoming yellow or green shields to a square either of which could be an attack of unknown value from 1 to 30K plus troops.  This, in my opinion,  would be a better indicator of an alliances mindset during the tournament for the allocation of troops/attention paid to a square. 

I will restate again that the way in order to get an apples to apples comparison of xp/square/population stat would be to sum the xp and population contribution per alliance involved on a square by square basis.  

~Anjire


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 04:35
I think that our Dwarven friends did an absolutely Stalwart job and my hats off to both them & my fellow Harmless ones on being somewhat less than... ;) in a truly fun tourney!


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 08:58
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

I'm more than happy our friends and confederates won so many squares!
But in Faldrin help i'll post some statistics:

Average xp on squares held by alliance:
EE         3,989,860
KV         3,262,707
Dlord 2,790,527
Peace 2,536,830
Curse 2,321,998
VIC         1,996,672
Absa         1,942,132
DE         1,472,346
T?         1,374,125
H?         1,208,949
Crow 756,046
mCrow 745,255
nCrow 641,777
VICX         298,675

Total xp on squares held by alliance divided total alliance population:
Dlord 2.44
Absa  2.22
EE 1.94
KV 1.92
VIC 1.67
H? 1.59
Curse 1.48
T? 1.38
DE 1.19
Peace 1.11
nCrow 0.91
mCrow 0.43
VICX 0.34
Crow 0.17

Those statistics should not be taken as global tournment indicator but as parameters to estimate how much resistence alliances found on their squares.


I agree with Drejan that the xp on squares is a good indicator of difficulty - It is true atleast on the squares held by DLord where the battles were mostly between the same two parties, one of them being DLord. One could say that some squares like wolgast doesnt reflect the amount of effort put in by a single alliance, that is true but that only highlights the battles where the race was between two alliances.

One of the reasons why H faced less resistance is that every alliance had more reasons to fight with the ones trailing right behind them in the ranking. If Invictus were focused to bring down H squares, they might have brought the H's 12 squares down to something, but probably at the cost of their almost certain second place. If crows had gone for direct confrontation on H tiles, they would have lost the third place to ~peace~. I think one of the major reasons why ~peace~ came behind crows is that, peace were fighting with Invictus on quite a few squares. It is very risky to go in direct confrontation with a stronger opponent, when others are just waiting to overtake you.




Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 10:51
Well put Ander.


Posted By: Gossip Boy
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 12:30
Peace fought with invictus in elijal at a large scale and in keppen on a smaller scale(for the last 5 days) and yeah invictus attacked and killed nearly 150k of peace cav in middle kindom and they din't even wanted to hold it.they were having fun i guess  Wink
For me peace fought brilliantly but were outdone by some smart strategy from crows (they went for as much as 15 squares during the last 5 days) and ofcourse some help from their confeds (its debatable how much it helps you have to still defend the square but in this specific case the squares were remote so they were lucky) 
Peace also made a mistake in going for turalia (i know there was a bug but still)absaroke had the geographical advantage as well as a good strategy going on that square + it was again a plain as was Mid. kingdom and peace suffered a lot of casualties in trying to hold that square



Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 17:30
I agree with you Kumo... I know that H? truly Harm(ed) - less than they could have :)
See how I did that .. turned Harmless into Harm(ed)-less.. Ok, I'll shut now.

Anyway well done to all. Stats can show various things and these stats give us general information (not necessarily specific information regarding alliances and what they did on any given square) to note interesting aspects.


Posted By: SugarFree
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 17:49
Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

I agree with you Kumo... I know that H? truly Harm(ed) - less than they could have :)
See how I did that .. turned Harmless into Harm(ed)-less.. Ok, I'll shut now.

Anyway well done to all. Stats can show various things and these stats give us general information (not necessarily specific information regarding alliances and what they did on any given square) to note interesting aspects.
that's about the worst pun i ever heard!


-------------
Nuisance


Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 18:07
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

I think that our Dwarven friends did an absolutely Stalwart job


*GROAN*


@ Bel: LOL




-------------
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net