Cities Next to Tounament Squares
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6908
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 17:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Cities Next to Tounament Squares
Posted By: TomBombadil
Subject: Cities Next to Tounament Squares
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 00:52
|
Firstly, I'm not talking about cities that just happen to be settled in the vicinity of a tournament square or cities that have been founded to be permanently settled in the area. I'm talking about cities, packed with hundred of thousand of troops, exodused directly next to a tournament square when the tournament begins. This gives this city's alliance a major advantage by allowing said city to clear the tourney square within minutes with its built up troops, and then occupying the square with only a token force. Losing virtually no troops on defence and killing any occupying troops within minutes, rinse and repeat, disallowing anyone else to gather any meaningful time holding the tournament square. This strategy I am not against and would in fact advise everyone of using... However... due to the good old 10-square rule no other alliance will be able to use the same tactic unless it is in a CONFED. All other competing cities would have to be placed further out, due to a restriction of the game rules and not the tournament rules. As such I consider it unsportsmanlike and unfair to do since you are preventing others from using the same strategy/advantage by making use of the game rules. Should such a city be subject to destruction, by a single party that takes offence or even by all other competing alliances ganging up on it? Should the destruction of said city be considered fair? unfair? I-have-mixed-feelings-about-this-but-I'll-see-what-the-server's-status-quo-is-fair? Note, however, that cities placed a tiny bit further away do not give the same unfair advantage to a single competitor, i.e. cities placed 5 or more squares away from a tournament square. They still give a massive advantage, but since they do not prevent another competitor from moving another city to an equal distance from the same tourney square, it does not prevent another competitor from gaining the same advantage you have. Secondly, this poll is not meant to discuss any specific diplomatic incident caused by the sieging of cities next to tournament squares, but to discuss the issue in general and prevent further such incidents. PS: Before anyone says it, yes, I have killed some scouting armies next to tournament squares. Why should your scouts sent directly at the tournament square be allowed to die but the ones next to it not? Surely they are both participants in the tournament and there for the same purpose? I understand that you don't like seeing your troops dying, but right next to them you are sending thousand of their brothers and sisters straight to their deaths.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 02:13
|
5 squares out is ok, but 4 squares is not? A couple of cities combined can block the area out just as effectively, so 1 city is ok (per player? Per alliance?) but more then 1 is not? So the first 4 alliances moving on a square are in luck, the rest are SoL? Moving a city during the tournament is not ok, but having it there before the tournament is? 1 week? 2 weeks? How long before the tournament should it be there? I do think that this tactic of having/moving a city close to a tournament square is showing a eh... vulnerability in the current tournament set up. King of the hill simply is not the same when people have a city on that hill. However, i do not think attacking people will be the answer to this. Where exactly will it end? You kill scouting armies because they are in your view (and not without reason) part of the tournament. I might be tempted to siege some cities because i think that sending troops to a tournament square makes them a valid target. They are participating in the tournament, and the game allows it, so surely it's ok? Once we start killing/razing outside the tournament square, I doubt there will be a clear concensus on where this killing/razing should stop. Said diplomatic incident you dont want to discuss currently has a StA city under siege, with perfectly logical reason. *That* is where this will end, if we do not stay on the tournament squares. Oh, and before the warmongers in this game say it: no, there is nothing wrong with a tournament ending with a server war. Just as long as people know what they're signing up for at the start :D |
Posted By: Kazuli
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 02:20
|
The concept of pre-emptive strike as a defensive strategy has been well used in history. Can you: - attack units that are scouting the tourney square but not on it - attack cities that have exodus'd to a location specifically to give them advantages associated with the tourney square - attack any city that is producing and sending troops to the tourney square - attack / raze any city that is closer than yours to a tourney square - initiate total war against any alliance that dares to send any troops to your tourney square Once you open up attacks / actions beyond those on the tourney square, it becomes a slippery slope on where you draw the line. Personally, I am ok with attacking any assets that have been placed specifically to provide an advantage in taking and holding a tourney square, as long as those assets were moved during the tourney and the player is actively participating in the tourney (by having their alliance attack and/or occupy the tourney square). |
Posted By: palmz
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 06:34
|
I feel just putting a city next to a tournament square is a valid strategy and so is dealing with it! However I feel both go against the good nature of competing in these tournaments. If that a good spot for your city so be it. (without the square being there) But I would like to say those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, once a line is crossed it is hard to re-draw it and say this is the new line. |
Posted By: TomBombadil
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 09:16
More question like this please!
Some tournament squares are also smack in the middle of alliances clusters and land claims, but that doesn't stop anyone else from building their own alliance cluster around a tournament square or claiming the land around it. If you are dedicated enough to build a thousand cities around a tournament site perhaps you deserve to win it. Sieging all those cities away would take a thousand times more effort than just competing over the tournament square itself. Sieging a single city directly next to a tournament square however is fairly easy and provides a big benefit. It does bring politics into the tournament however, which can have a considerable effect on its outcome. Perhaps the devs meant it to be this way? Perhaps such actions will only end when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and the honey badgers come out of their holes to play their bongo drums, or however that saying goes.
Killing a scouting party is easy, you need only a handful of troops to do it. Sieging multiple cities requires more troops than it would take to take and hold a tournament square in the first place, with sieging a city far away providing little to no benefit at great cost, unless that city has its own mammoth training grounds or something. I doubt the large scale destruction of cities would at all be an efficient tournament strategy for anyone.
Lines have likely been crossed in every tournament so far in one way or another. Which is why I'd like to find out where everyone considers the line to be or where it should be drawn in general. |
Benedetti wrote:Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 10:57
|
You want to play tournaments you stick to tournament squares and scouting armies. You want to play war you take on the city. As most in the game are terrified of war I suggest you stick to tournaments or accept the consequences of your actions. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Jadefae
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 11:41
|
I do agree that moving a city next to a tournament sq goes against the nature of the competition. There definitely should be something in place to prevent this. Whether it be siege or the inability to move a city during tournaments, that is not my call. However if by siege, everyone that participates in that action needs to be prepared for the consequences. As far as scouting armies. I 100% believe they are fair game. If you were at war (and tournament is mock war) and someone were to place scouts right outside, the scout armies would die be killed. |
Posted By: TheBillPN
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 12:22
|
Cities next to a tourney square is perfectly valid. If you were to introduce a limit, say 25 squares or so, to how close a city could sit next to a tourney square, the closest person outside that limit would then become the one with the advantage on that square. It would make no difference, except for the fact that a few other towns could be as close, and then it would become a game of who is either the best at military, is on the most often/has most sitters in different time zones, can replenish troops faster blah blah blah. The one who won out in the end, and it would happen pretty quickly, would then have control over the square, and would only need to send regular clearings to the square, in case the others managed to build up their troops again. This is my first tourney, and I'm sure the City-next-to-square tactic was used in the other ones. If you want that square, then exodus some of your own towns as near as possible and fight for it. Attacking cities is a declaration of war, tournaments are not war. There was a hunting tournament a while back that has nothing to do with the squares, so maybe they could be made to happen more regularly, if you think that would be fairer.
|
Posted By: Arx
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 13:40
Plus one. Personally, I'd like to see a limit on how close a city can be placed to a tournament square - being able to place one directly adjacent seems like it reduces a lot of the competition to a race to put a city down there first. I guess I'm also in the camp that says it's against the spirit of the thing. I like the idea of relocating towns to be close to the action - that's a good play, but it's a commitment. If you want to commit to the tournament, that's great! Moving a city directly next to the square smells a little too much of exploiting the ten-square exodus rule, though. Specifically, it's a way of gaining a very strong advantage that can't be assailed without breaking courtesy. That seems discourteous, to me. Your mileage may very, caveat lector, in my opinion, etc. |
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 14:12
|
Now that Tourney squares are permanently marked, is there going to be a rush as to who is going to exodus, settle a city near 1 or 10? As for anything else, the cotters from that city are making a boon collection. Fortunately, I have found that some alliances will be generous to return some gear. I'm not for the city placement next to a square if you wanted just an opinion. I couldn't find that one in the poll.
------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: Seadog
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 15:18
|
I certainly feel that placing a city next to a tournament square is against the spirit of the tournament. This is particularly the case when the tournament square is held by a different alliance than the one placing the city. If a tournament square is considered to be a strategic resource and there is value in settling near it, surely whoever is currently occupying that square has a claim to it? What would be the position if a city exodused next to an occupied mine or grape plot? Personally I would like to see new tournament squares for each tournament. I understand that this would involve more work from the developers and is unlikely to happen. Random placement of the tournament squares would mean that any advantages of being close to certain squares would not be carried over to the next tournament. It would also give us different terrain types each time.
|
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 16:17
Different eyes see solutions. This is a good one. Though exodus or settle still might happen, it's a partial one so far. Positive will always have a negative or a way around it. There's a way though, just haven't seen it posted yet.. LOL :/ ------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 18:35
|
A rush to Exodus near tourney squares? /me looks around Utopia There goes the neighborhood ... Seriously I don't think we need any "rules" around tourney squares. There is one general rule in Illyriad, which is that if you piss people off, there will be consequences. Mostly I try to avoid pissing people off for that reason. Hey, no one ever said I was good at this.
|
Posted By: Boobylicious
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 18:44
|
I say yes fair target! If a city is moved directly next to a tournament square for the tournament, then surely it is part of the tournament? And if it's part of the tourney then it's fair game. If an alliance wants an advantage over a tourney square by placing a city next to it, then they should be challenged for the dominance. If they can successfully defend the city as well as the square then I feel it adds a whole new level for king-of-the-hill tournament. And if they can't then they shouldn't put a city near a square. But if a city that has been there weeks, months or years before the tourney square was made then its just bad luck. Those cities are fine in my book as they have not been placed there for a tournament square.
|
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 18:47
|
Rill - piss people off???? Checks to see what alternative reality he's wandered into... I do like the idea of the squares being different each time but to paraphrase Diva - somebody will always find a way to gain an advantage. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 18:49
How are you going to be able to tell if a city was there before the tourney square was made?
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 18:54
|
I think it's perfectly acceptable to destroy snooper armies sent to monitor tournament squares. I have both sent such armies, and destroyed such armies. They are a de facto extension of the armies fighting on the square itself. Most of the posts here have focused on destroying a city moved next to a tournament square. If the adjacent troops are an unfair advantage, then why not eliminate the troops, and leave the city intact? It seems that so many players in this game want to take conflicts straight to the ultimate escalation, the siege. Destroying a city can result in reciprocation, which naturally results in war. Wiping out a tournament city's troops, while hostile, seems more on parity. The moved city is being used as a troop container to dominate the tournament square, and eliminating those tournament troops is an extension of competing for the square. If it really bothers you, claim Sovereignty V and move your own tournament city adjacent to the square to neutralize their advantage. I think an argument could be made that violating the 10 squares around the tournament square negates that specific city's rights to 10 squares. Any move made against the city itself could be construed as hostility, so the main factor to evaluate is the hostility of the alliance trying to dominate the square, and their willingness and ability to escalate any response, and your own ability to handle that response. In short, it gets handled by politics on a case-by-case basis, pretty much like every other issue in Illyriad. |
Posted By: Boobylicious
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 19:10
|
"How are you going to be able to tell if a city was there before the tourney square was made?" There might be a clever tech-guy thing to do or some are just obvious, like low pop cities full of cottages directly next to squares, or cities with low pop or very little sov. Or most of dittobite's are next to tourney squares. Now if someone razed one or two of them... |
Posted By: jtk310
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 19:20
|
I have a city near the Westmarch square. In fact, we have several cities near the square (just as many alliances have several cities near some square or another). Sure, I have an advantage on that one square, but that won't win me the tournament. There are a bunch of squares, and alliances who have folks ready to compete in multiple areas have a better chance than us geographically contained folks. Especially at an advantage are large alliances, as extra cities and extra troops confer a much larger advantage than proximity ever could, especially if you have the ability to get your timings correct. In the end, what assets you have at your disposal and your ability to put those assets to use is going to be the main determining factor. Maybe I am wrong, but that seems apparent to me. This entire idea of attacking cities due to their proximity to a tournament square, to me, seems like asking for trouble. I would argue that that attacking cities is a quick way to derail a tournament because (at least in my case) it will almost certainly lead to broader skirmishes or even war, and the tournament would then take up valuable troops that would instead be put to use attempting to deal with the aggressors. EDIT: hmm, just realized that a giant alliance could in theory move a few of their cities to every single square and "compete" in that way, so we are talking about more than the occasional city near a tournament square inside an alliance bloc. If someone takes it to that extreme I will revisit my opinion. Seems like that would leave them pretty vulnerable outside of tournament time to local powers wiping their isolated cities out of their areas.
|
Posted By: Boobylicious
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 19:35
|
It cant help you win the tournament but it can help you a win regional prize(s). And lets take a look at vCrow, the obvious tourney dominators, cities in BL. How many are near tournament squares?  |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 21:45
|
if i thought this were an actual problem (which i don't), i would suggest that the game randomise the tournament square each time a tournament is declared (or maybe once each month, so that the devs could automate it and not be involved)--one square per region, randomly selected from all settleable, unoccupied squares that don't have incoming settlers or cities in exodus. it's not a bad idea anyway. keeps the tournaments fresh, stops penalising alliances with homelands located on the wrong side of their respective regions, and would vary the terrain in each region on which the tournament is fought. (...stupid bloody plains squares...) |
Posted By: Wintersmith
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 01:04
|
Moving cities next to tournament squares may be ungentlemanly, unsportsmanlike and a lot of other things but it certainly isn't cheating. It is however very naive of those involved with tournament square placement who didn't think this was going to happen. It's also obvious that alliances will select tournament squares and move several players cities adjacent to dominate the square for the duration for an easy win. The fix is beyond simple and can be done in no time: A non tournament player handpicks the squares, keeping the terrain type balanced as well as the spacings as much as possible. The Devs just need to check for settlers etc., as Angrim pointed out above. Then only release the locations at the start of the tournament. (Of course, some tournaments may have more or fewer squares if that is desired) This way everyone gets a chance to exo a city (If they really want to) and that location will be useless come the following tournament, with all new locations again. To throw a spanner in the works, you could always make time into points and modify(multiply) by distance of the nearest occupier. It would be completely pointless being next to a tourney square then for any reason other than rapid clearing. |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 07:16
| Having probably been the reason that this poll was created, I will make one post. Plenty of players have relocated either next to or in close proximity to tournament sqs both in the past as well as during the current event. Some do it during the tournament or in the lead up, others have done it in between and hardly been noticed. I am neither for it or against it but simply copied the tactic from others. STA were well within their rights to attack,siege or raze the city as there is no rules against it just as people have similarly stated here about locating cities next to sqs. In our instance we felt that razing the city was too extreme and advised them that we considered it an act of war. Combined with the fact that we are a 3 person alliance that would have no real influence on the tournament. Initial contact at the time with STA was not forthcoming but they eventually let us know their motives and razed our city. We have now retaliated and razed an STA city and consider the matter closed. STA or moreso Quentin see it differently and have vowed to hunt us down at some point. Such is their right. We were advised after the fact that it was only Quentin and his alt who acted and no one else from STA was involved. We accepted this on face value but are of the view that if you are in an alliance then your alliance is as much responsible for its members and their actions as in the reverse. We have learned from the whole thing that placing a city near a tourney sq is something that not everyone agrees with and probably is only something that a large alliance can support. Going forward we will avoid the practice next tournament if we are still around. I have not voted on the poll because there is more than one correct answer. |
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 12:01
And here's the whole problem. It's easy to say such cities should be targets, but will smaller alliances really take out cities from vCrow or Storm? It opens the door to a form of powerplay that will make tournaments much less interesting for smaller alliances. And if the community isnt succesfull in limiting the scope of which cities exactly *are* valid targets, pretty soon it can be "Hey, you, little guy. Stop attacking my troops on that tournamen square, or else..." If you think that's OTT, remember that at least one StA member has sworn revenge for the way Grey responded to having their city razed.
Efficient? This is a game. I can see how people will let things escalate because "it's fun, and a couple of sieges will be good practice" |
Posted By: Agalloch
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2016 at 12:44
| I doubt everyone would ever agree to any of this, players will continue pushing boundaries and existing norms as they see fit and if they think they can get away with it. |
Posted By: TomBombadil
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2016 at 14:00
That is true. I often forget that many do not consider fun and maximum efficiency to be the same thing. **TomBombadil is totally not by any legal definition a robot.
I'd very much like to add these two options to the poll! Unfortunately I can't add new options to the poll(?) and would not like mess around with the existing ones since votes have already been cast. **Note to self: /me has a big crush on every word that Brandmeister has ever written. Don't ever get caught admitting that it public though...
Wasn't there a tournament involving undead in the past where the target squares changed every week or something? That would certainly not only help with the problems mentioned but make for much greater variety, though it does come with its own set of problems. e.g. tournament squares being out of reach of most armies' marching time if they change too quickly and so on.
I think it is fair to say that this poll would not exist without you, Mr Damage ;) But I'm also hoping that anything mentioned and discusses here might help the devs design improved tournaments in the future, or at the very that they'd at least realise that many are keen on the idea of some more variety. Wink wink, nudge nudge, elbow elbow, I know you are reading this GM Rikoo! (Not you, koda! You are doing excellent work, apologies for any IGM spam I might have caused you!) |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2016 at 14:38
|
The reason why this is an issue is that it is impossible for tournamanets in Illyriad to exist outside the scope of the metagame. These tournamanets are not fought solely on the battlefield; they are mostly negotiated through political horse trading alla the metagame. The same is true with the use of siege warfare to neutralize the appearance of an excodused city for the sake of dominating the square. Siege warfare is a speies of the metagame, and when alliances take such action, they transmute the tournamanet into a pretext for a larger war. Illy is a sandbox, and if we want to have tournaments, then yes, we will have tournaments. If we want to have an art contest where we build arial artwork out of sov squares (ajq's idea once), then yes, we can do that, too. But as for tournaments, I don't see them as being nearly as divorced from actual war as others do, which is why this is all happening. And frankly, I think it's pretty intriguing. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Arx
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 16:29
There seems to be a persistent rumour that tournament positions are primarily bought and sold, but I have yet to see any evidence of it. I'd like to see some from anyone who contends that. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 21:36
| in future tournament shouldnt it be up to the person who is running the tournament to side what is allow and not allowed? |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 22:03
|
+1 Koda. Those who put the effort in of designing and running a tourney should also be able to decide acceptable behaviour. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 22:08
| I doubt whether in addition to all the time and effort is required to code and run tournaments organizers will wish to become involved in arbitrating disputes about city placement and/or sieges. It's interesting perhaps to discuss what people "should" or "shouldn't" do, but I don't sense any kind of consensus that would promote enforcement of a particular perspective. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 22:21
| doesnt matter much players are going to annoy the person running the person who is running the Tournament with question if this is ok or not allow. plus it would be up to the person running the Tournament to decide what if an alliance/player breaks the rules and are taken out of the prizes pool |
Posted By: palmz
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2016 at 23:57
| Can we not give a busy person more to do please, I for one would not want to see others discouraged from trying to run tounaments because people want to tell them how it should be run. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 00:22
| whether or not you personnel not want the person who is running the Tournament to have to deal with this stuff but what is going to happen is that they will get IGMs about this stuff. (30% of the IGM i have gotten that had to do with the Tournament are about "what is cheating and not". plus if people think its ok to siege people during a Tournament that is likely to put people off of doing Tournament as they wont want to be the cause of a war |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 02:18
| I for one couldn't care if a war started because of my Tournament in fact i think it would be pretty funny if one did :) but not everyone has my level of conscientious and may feel bad or very guilty if there Tournament caused people to be razed or caused people to quit the game. (just something to think about when you are voting on this meaningless poll) |
Posted By: Yitshak
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 06:08
Indeed - the person who creates the tourney also decides the rules. However there is one caveat - if the tourney is to be a "success" then the opinions of the participants should be taken into consideration when deciding the rules. Of course you will never please everyone - that's life - but if the rules are known beforehand, those who don't like it don't have to take part. Personally I have enjoyed this tourney greatly, and learned much - on many levels - and look forward to see how things pan out at the finishing line. As for exoing to near a tourney tile for the purpose of gaining an advantage in the tourney, my view is that such cities then become a part of the tourney and therefore a valid target, as scouting armies placed near a tourney tile to "spy" on the tile have been in this tourney. I have had an "army" eliminated for this - hey ho - that's the price. Perhaps another option is an exclusion zone where cities within a certain radius - say 5 tiles - are excluded from participating. Lots of things to debate, but that is for the future, lets crack on with this one for now, and learn from it. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 06:44
|
Even if Kodo said siege wasn't allowed. Its not like he could do anything to prevent a siege of an opposing city. Reminds me of an old tourney where it was alliances vs global stuff. For a while nobody attacked each other then some of the winning people got attacked. At the time it was considered fair game and no one escalated to war. But there isn't anything stopping from the entire server devolving into war during the tourney.
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 07:02
| The best thing future people who run Tournament is to disqualified the alliance/player who sieges a player in name of the Tournament |
Posted By: Oldwolf
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 11:23
|
I have had several "spy armies" who camped outside of the tournament square targeted and eliminated in the name of the tourney. I expected it. I'm not mad over it. It was all a part of the tournament. I believe if you exo a city very near the target square you should be fair game. However, the problem comes in when a tournament square is chosen very near an existing city. That person did not move there to gain an advantage and as such should not be a target. It is too difficult for a person running the tournament to have to mediate these disputes on top of all the rest that needs to be done. Leave it the way it is. By the way, GREAT tournament kodabear! Thank You!
|
Posted By: TomBombadil
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 11:38
Your tournament your rules! Just make sure they are stated clearly beforehand so that nobody can argue with you about them when they are enforced.
|
Posted By: Yitshak
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 13:44
|
Question - are the tournament tiles permanently placed ?
If so, I can see that the area around them is gonna get awfully crowded. If not, then could I suggest that the exact location of any future tournament tiles remains undisclosed until shortly before the start (perhaps a few hours or a day ?) |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 14:26
|
As it stands at the moment they are fixed in the approx center of each region so you are right in that there is a high chance of those areas becoming very popular especially if more people decide to run tournaments. |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 14:38
|
This has to be the one of the most useless discussions in the forum. One tournament in 2 years and suddenly city placement is an issue? Until tournaments become a regular thing you are arguing about nothing. Combining war and tournaments is great in my opinion but unless you are willing to do both you best leave the cities alone. I support anyone declaring war on an alliance if they want to raze cities. You want a tournament advantage you move your cities as well. Because someone had a great idea before you is your problem. Deal with it. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 14:47
If alliances had forged secret meta-game arrangements around tournament squares, I rather doubt they would reveal them just because you personally refuse to acknowledge them without proof. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2016 at 15:27
|
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2016 at 01:55
|
I was just about to hit some dogs, when i realized that according to many people here that army would suddenly become a valid tournament target... those dogs are close to a tournament square. Interesting, the potential of a war breaking out over a NPC killing army being mistaken for a scouting army :D I still think the tournament had best be kept on the tournament squares. |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2016 at 04:19
|
Scouting armies are valid tournament targets. Cities are what people are in doubt about. Armies=Tournament, cities=war. Simple logic. I know some of you like to argue and bring up non issues but the principle remains the same. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2016 at 15:58
Thats what you say. I happen to know words have been had over the destruction of scouting armies too. I think: tournament square = tournament. Even simpeler logic. Everything else opens the door to "eh... those guys are bigger then us, so maybe better not" which ultimately leads to making tournaments interesting for fewer people. |
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2016 at 16:23
|
Tournament happens on the tournament squares. |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2016 at 17:35
|
Well, The size issue seems to have been proven false. Just ask VIC and Shark. As to scouting armies, anyone wanting them killed but are too afraid of the fallout just igm me, and I will do it for you. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2016 at 03:31
A proposition negated the moment someone posts a recon army within 4.5 squares of the tournament square. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2016 at 22:14
|