Tourney VI: List Occupier of Square
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=4274
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 13:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tourney VI: List Occupier of Square
Posted By: Rill
Subject: Tourney VI: List Occupier of Square
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 15:37
|
Does it bother anyone else that there's no way to tell who is currently occupying a tournament square? The alliance listed on the "Squares" overview page is the alliance that has collected the most squares so far. The square detail page lists the battles, but of course not who won, and then also includes a list of people who have gotten souls on the square, information which makes the "Top Alliance" on the Squares overview page redundant. I personally would VASTLY prefer to have the alliance that is CURRENTLY OCCUPYING the square (at least as of the last hour mark) represented on the Squares overview page. The overall square leader might be set in the first two weeks of the tournament and then never change for some squares that could be hotly contested later on, and this page will never show relevant information. Again, some indication, preferably on the squares overview page, of either who occupies the square currently or who occupied it at the last hour mark would be MUCH appreciated.
|
Replies:
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 15:40
|
+1 ------------- |
Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 15:42
|
I am also finding it a bit frustrating that the current status of all the squares is neglected. For the players who were online when the tournament began, it is easier to keep things in check and see who was stationed where. For those who log on later, it is hard to follow the big picture. Rill's suggestion seems good to me. Or at least some information about current square holders. The battle's should still remain anon. |
Posted By: R88
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 15:43
|
i agree Rill ------------- 
|
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 16:07
Also missed that info. OTOH we do have scouts, and we might be supposed to use them.
Update after thinking about it: What we now see are attacker A and defender D in the last battle on a square. Either A or D was the winner W, but W might be not the current occupator O, e.g., W returned, was recalled, or only attacked, and a new O occupied the empty square later. The square can be still empty, but that's visible on the map. IOW, for an occupied square the info who won the last battle won't tell us if this player still holds the square. My best guess: Working as designed, use scouts. Some of my scouts visiting tournament V squares -- all I could do at that time -- are still in therapy, waking up screaming motos, more motos, many motos.
|
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 16:21
|
scouts. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 16:25
|
Scouting all 37 tournament squares every hour to get a sense of where people are would be a little bit onerous. Not to mention that people will of course be using defending scouts. Perhaps people will bring up the "realism" argument here. I would tend to counter that with the "fun" argument. Since there are prizes for the overall winners of the largest number of souls, it makes sense to give people some idea who currently holds squares (so they can take action vis a vis people with whom they are in competition). Sure, it would be possible for each alliance (or even group of alliances) to develop this sort of intelligence through diligent scouting, but that would take a lot of resources devoted to scouting, both in time and material. Personally, I think it fails the "fun" test. It also would tend to add even more weight to the advantages of large alliances and confeds, another "fail" for the fun of the 50% or so of the server that is not part of a mega-alliance.
|