my next Tournament plans
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6987
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 07:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: my next Tournament plans
Posted By: kodabear
Subject: my next Tournament plans
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 02:01
|
I plan on doing another Tournament in about six months. But this last Tournament has brought up some questions so I thought I would create a post to get what you guys think. 1) How long the Tournament should be? 2) How long should the notice be? (keep in mind I still have to collect the API keys. This time around I will be having the alliance leaders gather the API key and send them to me.) 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? (in my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player ID list for medals) 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? 6) What do you guys think about having an unknown end date? (of course if i were to do a unknown end date no one in any of my alliances would know about the end date but i will tell rikoo or maybe SC about the end date to make sure the pick of the end date isnt based off of bias and what not. but it isnt likely to stop the complaining.) 7) So other then a king of the hill Tournament what other types of Tournament would you guys want? 8) What do you guys think of having a Elgea and BL Tournament? (meaning we could have two number 1st 2nd 3rd places or something like that) 9) What do you guys think about doing a server wide war of the wall Tournament? (for more information please read this post by BladeOfLife http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/my-next-tournament-plans_topic6987_post95194.html#95194" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/my-next-tournament-plans_topic6987_post95194.html#95194 ) edit spelling and grammar
|
Replies:
Posted By: Steven Quincy Urpel
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 02:04
|
1) Two to four weeks 2) One or two weeks 3) Yes 4) When the tournament starts 5) No (can only speak for myself, of course)
------------- They call me MISTER Urp! |
Posted By: ubluntu
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 02:21
|
1) Two weeks to a month at the most. 2) At least a week. 3) Yes. The fun is worth more than prizes. 4) At the end seems to be the best option. 5) Using the full Combat Report API will not stop SkB from playing. EDIT: Clarification on #4.: If there is not much notice(as was the case with the Tinkers' tournament) then the end seems a better option. But if there is a week or more notice, then I prefer the beginning as that would prevent some alliances from doing something that is not in the spirit of the tournament.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 02:39
| i'm in agreement with Urp. (i'll hear about this, i'm sure.) |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 02:43
| Even if your answers are the same as ones that are already posted please still answer as this is a poll type thing too. |
Posted By: Tucic
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 02:50
I agree with Urp.
|
Posted: 40 minutes ago at 21:04Posted By: white willow
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 03:03
|
1. two weeks is plenty. will keep folks closer to home squares 2. surprise was a good start for tinkers so real quick 3. yes 4. when it starts no exceptions 5. np
|
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 03:05
|
Most needed to divide the occupation time by the number of members in the alliance to arrive at a fair score. This will level the playing field for the smaller alliances. And be a far more interesting event. Not essentially, but large alliances could split themselves up for the tourney duration. You could perhaps even limit the number or players in each alliance to maybe teams of 10 or 20. Teams could form for just the tourney then return to their normal alliances. It would be very tactical to pick your teams well. Surely this would be far far more interesting for everyone.
|
Posted By: Bislorin
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 03:06
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? In my opinion, 3 weeks seems optimal. Not to short of a time frame to be irrelevant for an adequate challenge, but also not so long as to a major drain on resources and upsetting to any plans that may be in the works.
2) How long should the notice be? At least 2 weeks.
4) when should i do the snapshot of the alliance for handing out prizes? I for one dislike the idea of shifting Allegiances during a tournament if this is supposed to be Alliance (team) based competition, so at the beginning.
5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? Not in my case.
|
Posted By: Dravin the Sloth
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 06:26
|
i agree with Angrim. that distances me for agreement with Urp, right?
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 07:02
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? Anything up to a month 2) How long should the notice be? Less the better, a week is plenty. I'd prefer 24hrs (keep in mind I still have to collect the API keys. This time around I will be having the alliance leaders gather the API key and send them to me.) 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Yes 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? At the start (in my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player ID list for medals) 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? No edit spelling and grammar
[/QUOTE]
|
Posted By: Small Boy
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 07:45
|
1. Three weeks is good. 2. Two days / Max of 5 days 3. Yes, I know a lot of alliances who would fight for fun / regional pride. But maybe regional winners' medals with some simple design, instead of overall, would make sense. 4. Last day of the tourney, so you award players based on where they finally end up. 5. Combat API is way more awesome. Please do it. The stats you gave for NF tourney were amazing.
|
Posted By: Sargon
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 08:10
|
1) 3 weeks 2) A few days (less incentive for exodusing for tourney) up to a week 3) yes 4) Isn´t at the beginning AND the end possible, and only everyone in at both times gets rewards? 5) The normal key gives us way more interesting stats!
|
Posted By: Jadefae
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2016 at 15:31
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 3-4 weeks 2) How long should the notice be? gathering API key information, I would say 1 week (keep in mind I still have to collect the API keys. This time around I will be having the alliance leaders gather the API key and send them to me.) 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? yes, if people really want prizes they could petition their own alliance to give prizes. 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? once you start the tournament or at the end works. Both is to much of a hassle. But given the week notice, players should have the chance to jump to whatever alliance they plan to tourney in. (in my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player ID list for medals) 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? that will not deter WoT or HotH
|
Posted By: Lord Stanley
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2016 at 02:55
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 3wks 2) How long should the notice be? 2-3wks 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Yes. I think so 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? Beginning of tourney 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? Not for me.
|
Posted By: renthefinn
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2016 at 04:26
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 3 to 4 weeks 2) How long should the notice be? 2 to 4 weeks 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Definitely, I will send you prizes if you get one going! 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? Beginning 5)
I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the
combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will
this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? Won't make a difference to me...
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2016 at 07:37
|
1) 3-4 weeks 2) 1-2 weeks 3) Yep, not a problem 4) Beginning 5) I'm happy to send my API key |
Posted By: Meanolgranpa
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2016 at 22:20
|
Posted By: Grumpy
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2016 at 23:08
|
1) 2 weeks 2) 1 week 3) yes - obvious who will win, taking part is fun and needs reward/medal 4) should be in guild for entire tournement to count for a medal/prize 5) dont know what it means - combat API. not sure I am bothered by technical reqts. do what is needed
|
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 02:11
|
1) 2-4 weeks. 4 weeks was rather long so definitely not longer 2) couple of days at least 3) sure. I want to have fun and learn 4) end 5) I'm not sure yet, but I think i probably won't mind. I'm really surprized at the people promoting short announcement and Alliance snapshot at the start. You're essentially OK with leaving out all people who were not online in the time between announcement and start, or needed more time to arrange things, and with people loosing interest during the tournament (either because their alliance has secured a regional win or because their alliance isn't participating as expected). And all that because you're worried that "some alliances" might do what "some alliances" did last tournament? lol I'd like to take part in a tournament that is set up to include as many participants as possible, and I couldn't care less about the non-prices. Side-note: I wonder about a tournament with an un-known end-date. That would make it unclear when a regional win was certain, and take at least some of the dealing away? |
Posted By: Vio Valencia
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 02:55
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 3 weeks would work...a month seems to long, but I also think it would be interesting to have a month notice for a one week tournament...all out brawl for time! 2) How long should the notice be? Less the better, a week is plenty. Except for a short tournament I also like notice of only one or two days. I completely understand however if you need longer for API keys. (keep
in mind I still have to collect the API keys. This time around I will
be having the alliance leaders gather the API key and send them to me.) 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Yes 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? At the start and at the end. (in
my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was
in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause
any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player
ID list for medals) 5) I will be using the
combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has
better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone
way from taking part in the Tournament? No ------------- Vio Valencia |
Posted By: Lagavulin
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 03:01
|
Two weeks sounds good to me. But I don't really care that much how long. More tournaments done more frequently with different rules and start times would be the most fun. |
Posted By: wackturk
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 03:18
|
1 - 2 weeks to a month. it takes time to coordinate and travel if you are not close to a sqr so the longer the better 2 - i would say at least a week. There are many Vets that seem to not log on as frequently. So getting them aware of the coming alliance might take more time, and might get them more interested to log in more frequently. 3 - i don't think you really need prizes, although medals would be more than enough i think. Most players want to talk and boast about the wins more than any prizes they may have won. I think the medal gives them that ability and they really like wearing them 4 - I think that depends on the notice you provide. If you provide a week or more, than you should lock alliances at the start. if you provide less notice, then i think you lock it in at the mid point of the duration of the tournament. That should provide more than enough oppty for those slackers to figure out there is a tournament and make any moves if their alliance is not participating. Hard for some of the smaller alliances to even make a showing in the tournaments. 5 - Combat key i think is fine I was a newb when you ran your first tournament. It was exciting to watch, and even though i could only manage a very small military, it was interesting to play. The last tournament run by the devs, was great. I learned a lot and had lots of fun. So i look forward to another tournament, i want to really make an impact in the next one. Thank you for all you do, i know it can be time consuming and sometimes frustrating, but it is really appreciated by many of us, even if we don't tell you all the time :D |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 03:24
|
A month duration, two week notice. The only good prizes are the medals, the random single units are just kind of there for flavor. Snapshot should be at the end. Combat key is fine, just not all notifications. I seem to be in the minority with the viewpoint that tournament politics are valid strategy and an interesting part of the game. I've never understood why the tournament sponsor can't be trusted with full battle reports. If you don't trust them with your data, then why are you even in their tournament? |
Posted By: Lagavulin
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 03:54
| Brandmeister. I agree with you. That is why I said more tournaments with different rules. Some freezing alliances, some allowing poaching of players. All sorts of variations. I think its only if tournaments are rare as they have been that cause fighting over the rules. |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 07:58
Having spent some time considering my response I find that Benedetti has not only answered as I would have (apart from #5 where I am not bothered either way but agree with Koda that the range of stats available from the full api are much to be preferred), but that also made the points that I would have made. The idea of a tournament with no specified end date is also very interesting - time for some thinking... |
Benedetti wrote:Posted By: Dravin the Sloth
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 21:04
|
my earlier post applies, still agree with urp via angrim, but wanted to elaborate just a wee on 4. at the beginning, at the beginning, at the beginning. sitting very near the heart of almost every brand of competition i am aware of, is the premise that you play and finish with the same cards/pieces/equipment with which you started the game. besides, for myself; a fairly competitive person, that is how i want to win. and i would not want ecrow's successes tainted by doing otherwise. now, we did bring in some lone players who wished to participate in the tourney, (three i believe it was) and feel this should be encouraged. even merging entire alliances is fine, or players joining who want to play, but their alliances do not. do whatever you want, just do it before the game begins. *fixed a typo
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 21:17
| What do you guys think about a unknown end date? |
Posted By: Lagavulin
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 21:20
| The more I think of it the more I like it. |
Posted By: Duran
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 21:22
|
I think an unknown end date is a phenomenal idea, it will cut down heavily on tournament politics based on, how long each alliance needs to hold which square, assuming you are doing another KotH style of tournament. +1 on Unknown End date ------------- "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 21:46
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 21:48
|
Koda, you are incredible for considering another tourney. :) My reply for Harmless: 1) 2 to 4 weeks 2) One or two weeks
3) Yes 4) When the tournament starts, no exceptions 5) No problem. ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Dravin the Sloth
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 22:17
|
the idea of an unknown end date is interesting. if that route is chosen, you may want to have an outside party, as well as yourself, be aware of the date, chosen but not announced. perhaps rikoo? just to bely any potential cries of conspiracy.
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 22:30
of course if i were to do a unknown end date no one in any of my alliances would know about the end date but i will tell rikoo or maybe SC about the end date to make sure the pick of the end date isnt based off of bias and what not. but it isnt likely to stop the complaining. [HIDE]Can you see this part?[/HIDE]
|
Posted By: Dravin the Sloth
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2016 at 22:32
| yeah, there will be always be those that assume the worst. just a precaution or two and let it be. |
Posted By: white willow
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 00:13
|
6. I like surprises no end date is ok. just would prefer within a 2 to 3 week total time. A surprise start would be even better |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 00:14
| it would be impossible to do a surprise start as i will have to collect API keys before hand |
Posted By: Terraformer
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 00:23
| Unknown end date? How about an unknown begin date? The only thing we really need to know is will there be bacon. And pie. Or bacon pie. |
Posted By: Bobtron
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 04:09
|
1) 2-3 weeks, either that or a 2-3 month long tourney, where the emphasis is on troop replacement and not big standing armies 2) around 1 week 3) yes 4) at the beginning, alliances will have 1 week to make their "deals", and players will have ample time to leave and join the alliances they want to be in for the tourney. Special situations that have players outside of the alliance for siege and stuff could always be handled on a case-by-case basis. 5) No 6) Sounds good ------------- I support the Undying Flame! |
Posted By: xaindean
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 04:57
|
The earth trembles. The pre-dawn mist is stirred by small creatures
seeking shelter, then larger animals in all-out flight of terror. They
flee from the sound. The approaching rumble rapidly becomes a deafening
roar as the earth quakes and groans. The first rays of dawn find their
way past the distant mountains and glint off crafted steal. Then all
at once morning breaks and reveals the horror that is coming: one
million blood-thirsty troops, marching to battle below. Orcs, elves,
dwarves and humans, marching together, come from all points of the
compass to converge on the the appointed killing ground. Down the
mountain passes and up the valley below, their ranks spread out for
miles across the lonely plains, flying the banners of a dozen great
houses and hailing from dozens more mighty cities. Some have marched
for days on end, some for mere hours, but all have timed their journey
to arrive at exactly the appointed time...this exact moment...their
moment of glory. They take the field of battle unopposed. There is no enemy here. But these warriors are under orders to occupy this place until reinforcements arrive...or die in the attempt. They set about making camp, ranged units taking the high ground and spearmen the low, infantry among the rocks and foliage and mounted units on any flat terrain to be found. Thousands of military scouts find vantage points and hiding spots, ready to send word to command the instant inbound hostiles are seen in the lands surrounding this massive colony of death. However, no enemy presents itself, and so they wait...and occupy...unopposed...for a month. They are told that they have won, though this does not compute in the minds of these seasoned warriors with still shining armor and un-wetted blades. Their masters will be given medals to proclaim their military victory and lords will buy them drinks and congratulate them for holding their ground...against no one. A new kind of tourney? Excellent idea. Surprise end date? Brilliant. How about more surprises? Don't disclose the RULES til the day before, like occupation time doesn't start until you capture the square from an occupying force, or you can only occupy tourney squares in regions you DON"T have a city. How about a new KIND of tourney? Instead of king of the hill we play capture the flag, first one to take twenty occupied squares wins, or a berserker's ball: first to inflict one million casualties. Of course, I've never been in a tourney so I have no idea what I'm talking about :) But this is my two cents: I don't mind what the duration is, I'll fight til I can't; I don't care about warning, I've got six months to prepare; I'll play if there's no medals, I don't plan on winning; it doesn't matter when the snapshot is, I won't be moving; I know nothing of API keys, but I trust Koda. There is something I do know: this tourney will definitely be different than all others that have come before it, because when the Horn calls, the Heroes will answer. Not for medals or prizes, but for the thrill of the fight and love of the game. Even if I'm not victorious, those who seek me out on the battlefield will remember the day that Xaindean held his ground. And I'm going to have FUN. Thanks for asking, Kodabear :) |
Posted By: Lord Stanley
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 05:17
|
After thinking about it, I like the idea of shorter and more frequent tourney's with different rules than few big ones with the same rules each time. While I think setting the teams ahead of time is the fairest, I do think that tourneys with the alliance snapshot at the end could be fun as well. If you can run say 4 a year with different rules, it would keep things interesting. Perhaps something like the World against the Crows(or some other volunteer) in a War of Walls setup(so no loss of actual city pop) might also be fun. Simulates War without the hostility or loss of resources. I am sure other ideas could be proposed as well for different tourney styles besides KOH. |
Posted By: Darifal
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 09:24
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 2 weeks or more 2) How long should the notice be? Less the better, a week is plenty. Second :) I
completely understand however if you need longer for API keys. 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Some are, but all like some prize like medal or great pint of beer 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? At the start and at the end. (in
my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was
in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause
any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player
ID list for medals) 5) I will be using the
combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has
better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone
way from taking part in the Tournament? No
|
Posted By: xander
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 14:07
|
This is what I think :) 1) 4 weeks duration 2) short notice 3) I wouldn't really be in it without prizes 4) snapshot same as last time 5) API code thing won't turn me away 6) I'd much prefer a known end date Great news that you're thinking about another tourny
|
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 17:24
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 3 weeks is less taxing than a month.. 2) How long should the notice be? Less the better, a week is plenty. A week is good 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Not worried about prizes ... 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? At the start and at the end. (in my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player ID list for medals) 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? No issue with it.. ------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 22:17
| Disappointed in the lack of support for boosting smaller alliances in future tournaments. Surely even the big alliances would enjoy better competition, if all the alliances were all competing for top spots. So why not divide occupation time by number of alliance members to get your tourney score. Come on folks it would bring every single alliance into the tourney. Would be genuinely interesting. How many players dont bother because their alliance has no chance. Me for one. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2016 at 22:50
|
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 00:34
While it could lead to interesting shuffles between the larger established players (Mano making a single player alliance vs others grouping up in smaller alliances :D) it could also very effectively sideline every small player in the game. Since people from small alliances can temporarily join other alliances, I much prefer to include smaller players over smaller alliances. (And I say that as a player from a small alliance that joined the pirates for last tournament. Thanks guys!) Now, if we were to divide by nr of cities, in stead of nr of members... :P (I don't actually think that will go anywhere, this is not a serious suggestion!) |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 01:56
|
||||||||||
Posted By: Djehuti
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 02:27
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? if King of the Hill, 3 weeks seems good. 2) How long should the notice be? 1 week 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? I think medals are important - maybe not regional, but the top 3 placings at least. Other type of prizes (items, gold, units, etc) are nice, but i would participate without those. 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? Depends if there was notice for the event - with proper notice, i'd say a snapshot on day 1 or 2, and another just before it ended. With no notice, a snapshot at day 3-5, then another before it ended. Players would have to be present for both to be awarded. 5) I will be using the
combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has
better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone
way from taking part in the Tournament? To the best of my knowledge, this would not prevent HORDE from participating 6) What do you guys think about having an unknown end date? I like the concept, but I think I would like to have some sort of maximum possible duration known - as in: under a month, but no specific end date. That way players have an idea of what theyre getting themselves into. Hard for me to answer this, as Im not entirely sure what is available to players who write tournament codes. Something like a treasure hunt around the map would be interesting (sending the correct unit to the correct map tile sends the player an IGM with the next clue, similar to the fortune teller or allembine quests). This could allow players of almost any size to participate. Probably would need an Elgea version and a BL version to minimize travel times. A timing tournament might be able to work - each couple days have a new set of tiles with target times for alliances to attempt to hit exactly at XX:XX:XX time, with points awarded for accuracy. Personally, I wouldnt enjoy this type of event so much, but i feel like others might. This one would take some assistance from the devs, but perhaps a "(evil) magic bears hunting tournament" - for a limited duration, have the devs add a new NPC to the game and either keep track of which alliance kills the most of said unit, or the total amount of collected animal parts dropped by said unit. In terms of king of the hill, im also in favor of separate tournaments for Elgea and BL. I know one wouldnt really be able to stop Elgea players from sending to BL tiles, and vice versa, but even with that I like the idea. Lastly, also regarding king of the hill style, I think it would add to the event if: (a) as many players have already said, the target tiles changed with each tournament, and if (b) DURING the tournament, target tiles changed without notice. Meaning, at any given time during the event an announcement could be made with new target tiles, and players would have to recall their forces from the old one and send them to the new target. |
Posted By: Ryklaw
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 02:54
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? 3 weeks 2) How long should the notice be? As short as practical 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Yes 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? At the end 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? Yes, but it does not matter. Use the combat API 6) What do you guys think about having an unknown end date? Doesn't sound like a good idea but that doesn't mean it isn't worth a try. 7) So other then a king of the hill Tournament what other types of Tournament would you guys want? A diplo or sieging tourney. 8) What do you guys think of having a Elgea and BL Tournament? Nah, although it also may be worth a try. ------------- Finishing the Race! II Tim 4:7,8 |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 03:08
|
1. I think between 2 and 4 weeks. 4 weeks is a big commitment in a world where we are time poor. 2.Spring it on people, if they know it going to start in Feb, they can build troops, but will not know the commencement date. 3. Glory is gold. Prizes matter less than bragging rights 4. Awards should be handed out when you feel comfortable based on what is easiest. 5. Nope, any key is fine 6. Get DEVS to generate a random end date, they can give 24 hours notice for you to tie things up. 7. Undead tournament, anything that spontaneously appears and we can hunt down. King of the Hill is boring. 8. Selfishly I would say keep it one tourney, we based our alliance positioning on this premise. ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 07:39
|
6) An unknown end date could be interesting  7) A capture the flag style tournament could be cool where each alliance nominates a city it must defend and then the aim is to siege other alliance's nominated cities whilst not allowing your own to get razed. 8) I think leagues based on alliance size would be better than based on location.
|
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 08:02
|
I haven't read any replies. I may comment later on those, but here is my reply to your post, Master Bear... 1) How long the Tournament should be? I think a Month is too long. From past experiences, from fellow players and my own, I have seen people getting burned out; a month is just too taxing. I say two weeks at the most. Although I am aware this will be related to *2. 2) How long should the notice be? (keep in mind I still have to collect the API keys. This time around I will be having the alliance leaders gather the API key and send them to me.) If the notice is two weeks before it starts, Alliances can send to whichever spot they want to go for if they are far away. If some of those spots happen to be heavily contended, more fun, and more chances for the NOT-BIG 3 to score. It adds a strategical component. And it can add fun for those who guessed right ;) 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Hell yeah! There is a public scoreboard, and alliances can issue medals based on that. I really doubt that an alliance ending #2 or #3 will issue a winner medal. 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? (in my last Tournament I did rewards based on what alliance the person was in at the end of the Tournament so alliance switching wouldn't cause any problem when I went to hand out prizes and sent the devs the player ID list for medals) In my opinion, you should only take snapshots at member lists at the start of a tournament, and at the end. If people who are on a start list in one alliance and show up on another list at the end, they get the rewards of the alliance they started in. This allows new players to get in and get rewarded, while discouraging players to jump ship when certain alliances recruit because they want to win so bad... 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? Not me, and it shouldn't anybody in my opinion. This is a game. You are not handing over your bank account details. I have seen complaints, from alliances before. I laugh at those. 6) What do you guys think about having an unknown end date? (of course if i were to do a unknown end date no one in any of my alliances would know about the end date but i will tell rikoo or maybe SC about the end date to make sure the pick of the end date isnt based off of bias and what not. but it isnt likely to stop the complaining.) See my earlier comment about players burning out... Having an end date is essential to planning. I may not be a war player, although I learned a lot while in SIN, but I am a capable tourney player. And speaking from HUGcr's last campaign, there was planning. An end date is essential, because Tourney Generals need to know when to send what. EDIT: Also, if you just suddenly hit the end button unannounced, you will get a lot of FLAK from alliances who did not win, maybe even calls of being biased. Just avoid that trap... 7) So other then a king of the hill Tournament what other types of Tournament would you guys want? I would like to see individual tournaments, maybe hunting, where small players have a shot at winning. Maybe set a limit to size of players allowed in. 8) What do you guys think of having a Elgea and BL Tournament? (meaning we could have two number 1st 2nd 3rd places or something like that)
I think that is a good idea. But I also think somebody else will have to step up to do BL tournaments. Organizing a tournament is a lot of work. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: BARQ
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 13:45
|
well why not try a leaderboard based on tourney points . Each win in a tourney (either regional or Global ) having some specific points . and alliance ranked on the basis of those points (war victory defeat can also be included if players really want) . and top 3-5-10 alliances on that leader board getting a specific bonus (like lil boost in troop stats / production or res production or anything else) till they lose their place . with a tourney every 4-5-6-12 months . so alliances fighting in each tourney just to improve their ranking and getting those boosts . thoughts ????? < ="application/x-dap-" id="DAPPlugin" style="visibility: collapse"> ------------- I m the most scarring dream of your life |
Posted By: kaelee
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 17:17
|
Koda, I like the idea of Elgea - Broken Lands split for the next tourney for selfish reasons. All of my cities are located in BL. Distance/Time... I also like hunting tourney's...as this is more aligned with my personal interests in the game...namely it changes the markets to my favor  and I'm in a better position to actually be competitive as a hunter but I know most vets prefer a bigger challenge like king of the hill.No problem with the combat API... Seems to me you are already giving everyone advance notice by soliciting input here. I prefer an end date for tactical and strategic planning purposes. Prizes are of little consequence as long as participation is fun and interesting.
|
Posted By: Kafka
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 18:33
|
in reply to 7) i wonder if another way of measuring results would even out a tourney. one idea i had was to measure with an alliance-population-to-number-of-kills ratio, so that a small alliance would have a better chance of competing with a large alliance. but one of the problems with that might be that alliances would not be as likely to capture a tourney tile, so would it be possible to have constantly regenerating NPC armies on the tourney tiles? what other ways of measuring performance results could even out the large and small alliances discrepancies? anyone have any ideas? ------------- One day I awoke from unsettling dreams to find myself transformed into a medium-sized Illyriad player |
Posted By: Humanoid
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 19:24
|
1- 4 weeks is perfect 2- 2 weeks i think 3- yes (only speeking of myself) 4- at the end is better i think 5- no 6- i agree 7- i think a havresting Tournament will be good here are the rules: *every alliance should send cotters to the Tournament square *for every hour cotters get 1 point *the alliance can sned army to guard the cotters *if an other alliance attack the army and kill the cotters then (and only then) the send their cotters they can get all the points in the square (for example alliance A got 3 point in a square and have an army there if alliance B kill that army and send their cotters they get the 3 point in the next hour plus 1) *sending cotters to a Tournament square while the alliance have cotters there will make the first ones go home *every 5cotters get 1 point per hour *point are a sort of ressorce (i dont know want but i think you can find a solution) *the first alliance that get 1250 point win the 1st place *the second alliance win the 2nd place *the third alliance win the 3rd place and end the Tournament (so the end date is unknown  )8- i dont think it's a good idea |
Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2016 at 21:42
|
Hi Kodabear I think there should be about 1 week notice and a tourney should last 2 to three weeks with a known end date. Otherwise strategies are just a random guess. Its a strategic game not a dice throw. Medals are nice but prizes are irrelevant. A tournament where you get one point for being in possession of the square on the stroke of the hour would be very interesting - timing rather than brute force! Regards Aesir
|
Posted By: BladeOfLife
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 20:00
|
Koda, First, thank you for all you do. I am going to focus my answer on #7 - what other kinds of tournaments would like to see. However, I'll also answer the others. #1 - Given travel times in Illy, peoples attention spans and such a distributed king of the hill tourney should last 2 to 4 weeks. #2 - 30 days notice. But other ideas such as no notice, general notice of the month that the tourney will start but not the exact time and others promoted on this board are all interesting #3 - I think prizes are wholly unnecessary. #4 - Alliance snapshot should be at the start of the tourney unless the notice of the tourney is very short. People need time to return to their home alliances from sieges and other wanderings #5 - I have no concern about the use of the combat api #6 - An unknown end date is SWEET! #8 - Elgea and BL tournaments would be a good variation #7 "Illyria revitalization project"
Fellow Illyrians. What I’m about to say, I do not take lightly. I am a player who played and loved illyria for 2 years and left. I am back because I was unable to find another game that had all of the wonderful qualities of Illy. This is truly a special game. It is special because of it’s design, but more so because of its community of players. However, many otherwise wonderful players leave our ranks every day. I believe they depart because at some point, Illy becomes boring to them. I believe that this need not be so. The game of illyriad has all the makings of a challenging, deep war game. The community, to it’s credit, has chosen a peaceful path. This is wonderful in the general sense and sets illyriad apart from other games. But it also contributes to our down fall. Close your eyes. Imagine the same Illy that you have always known. Welcoming to noobs. Respectful alliances. Peaceful. But…with one key difference. THE OPTION OF Full on (but friendly) competition using all of Illy’s tools - magic, diplomatic attacks, sieges, feints and blockades…. This is the part of illy that we rarely see and when it is used it is often in ugly disputes. This would be different. Competition.Player vs player, team vs. team or alliance vs. alliance variety. I’ve outlined how I think it could work. I would greatly appreciate input from those with far more experience than I. I’m sure others have done this type of competition before. I simply think that as a community, we can make it a more integral part of what occurs in Illy. Ongoing tournaments…perhaps culminating each year with an Illy wide invitational resulting in the crowning of that years “Champion." So without further ado, here is my vision of what we could create. Rules for Tourney’s:
Player vs. Player and Team on Team Tournaments. For Team on Team there will be maximum number of players and max number of cities involved. These terms will be agreed to prior to the start of competition.
Iteration #1 Alliance vs. Alliance
Iteration #2 Player vs. Player
Iteration #3 Team vs. Team
|
Posted By: zap
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 20:07
|
Kodabear,  Thank you for doing a new tourney. King of the hill is going to get boring after so many . Another idea for different tournament is maybe get a list of all abandoned accounts and have a siege tournament. Only those accounts that are on the list should be sieged which would require planning and strategy. Once the tourney starts no one should be allowed to leave their alliance to stop unfair advantages. This would also be good in helping to clear out the newbie ring of all the accounts that are abandoned. Just an idea . Again Thank You for all your efforts in making this a game that is fun to play. 1) 2-4 weeks 2)week 3)yes 4)beginning of tournament 5)no 6)does not matter to me 7) see above 8) good idea
|
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:26
Wow, interesting insight to Illy game playing... its a BIG War of Walls with a point system.. and set rules. This could work ANYTIME of the year!! Thanks Blade!! ------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:45
(suggested entirely opt-in tournament rules snipped for length of quoted reply) +100 intertubes to you, good sir. An extra +100 webpipes for also coming up with a ruleset that works for a player-run tournament; the scoring system means that there is little need for us devs to enforce particular rules. I can see some possible clarifications needed for the given ruleset. For example, the penalty for breaching Rule 6 - is that one point total for doing it, or one point per breach, or one point per city pairing? Rule 7 breaches would similarly need a specified penalty. Rule 9 (re mercenaries) would be very difficult to police. But these can all be overcome. imo ofc, this is the first truly innovative, original and clearly well-thought-out suggestion for a truly different kind of tournament that I've seen. Kudos, Best, SC |
Posted By: Benedetti
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 23:06
WOW! It looks like a very interesting setup. The only thing that worries me is enforcing the rules and restrictons. As in: there is no way to enforce it. It'll mostly be honor system or penalties if caught. Those penalties are ofc just an interesting addition once you start considering them as just a price to pay *if* you get caught :D. Better make sure the penalties really hurt. About the quoted rule: why not? Once the point has been recognized and counted, and the wall rebuilt, is there a reason not to bring that city back into play? The tournament is point based, not "last men standing". Also, to prevent 2 groups of helping each other (reducing walls themselves/not defending sieges, etc) should the loser lose a point as well as the winner gain a point? Btw, if group A is attacking a city of group B, I assume it is OK for group C to then attack that siege? Either to prevent A from getting a point or to siege B themselves? Hmmm, that will lead to people waiting until a wall is near 0 and then attacking the siege and finishing the city off themselves? I need more time to think about this |
Posted By: BladeOfLife
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 00:53
|
Thank you SC. I appreciate the comments. I think you are correct that we would need to refine and specify penalties. My thinking is that if you incorporate penalties for rules violations into the game, then discovering violations become part of the game.... My specific thoughts were to award a point for each violation. In other words if a city marked as 'OUT' had a caravan 'caught' by a blockading force, that would be one point. If the same thing occurred at another city that would also be a point. These would be heavy penalties so hopefully people wouldn't cheat...or at least they would cheat very carefully :) I'll have to think about the mercennary rule. I was thinking that that one would be relatively obvious due to battle reports and the like...but it might be that we need heavier penalties for that particular rule, particularly if it becomes obvious that there are ways to employ mercenaries with little risk of being caught. Again, this is why we need people with varied experiences and more experience than I have to weigh in. Blade |
Posted By: BladeOfLife
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:02
Interesting idea...I hadn't considered "OUT" cities returning to the fray. Seems like that could be permitted, perhaps once walls were rebuilt to a certain level? Alternatively, if the point is collected (and siege called off) once city walls hit zero, the owner of the city could have the option of moving the city to "OUT" or keeping it in the game with the caveat that the other team might have an easy go of sieging the city again and getting an easy point by leveling a wall from a low level to zero. So, perhaps moving the city to "OUT" is optional once the walls are at zero.... Blade |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:14
| Cities declared "OUT" couldn't trade by city to city trade mechanisms then? Because that would result in their caravans potentially being caught, if someone who was "in" bought the goods. |
Posted By: BladeOfLife
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:24
Hmmm...my intention was to permit cities involved in the tourney to use the faction markets and city to city trade. I can see a scenario where it might not be immediately obvious whether a shipment was the result of city to city trade or just a shipment of resources. This might be where the referee would have to ask for additional information (i.e. the trade report that you receive as an IGM). My thinking is the burden of proof should be on the parties making the trade. They would have to provide documentation of the sale to the referee and if it was a legitimate sale (i.e. not for clearly below market prices) it would be permissible. The over riding principle should be that rules violations only 'happen' if there is proof - IGM, screen shots, etc - that the ref can rule on. In this case, if there is proof of shipment, the trading parties would need to prove that it was a legitimate trade to avoid a penalty. Blade
|
Posted By: BladeOfLife
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:33
|
Maybe we can move further discussion here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic6996_post95203.html#95203" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic6996_post95203.html#95203 So we don't disrupt the original intent of this thread. Blade
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:35
| I havent read your whole post yet BladeOfLife but it seems like it will be server wide war of the walls. this kind of tournament has been brought up many times and it sounds like it would be very fun. but i have no idea how the tournament page would be set up for this type of tournament. and what kinds of stats we will have at the end if any. IF you have any idea how the page would be set up then i will really think about doing a tournament like this. Another problem would be NAP and confeds but that can be easily fixed. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:35
| In this thread is fine by me BladeOfLife . in fact this was what i was hopping for |
Posted By: Lagavulin
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:52
| went to Steam and voted |
Posted By: BladeOfLife
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 02:03
OK. Right here is ok then To be honest Koda, I hadn't thought about a Page. I really had thought about it in terms of a 'single elimination tournament' where 2 alliances, teams or individuals would square off at a time. Winner would move on to the next 'round.' In that scenario the 'Page' might just have the 'score' for each match up and the 'bracket' showing who progresses and who it out. But really, this conception was just because I'm not a coder and don't think in the terms that you do... But as I sit here and type, if we COULD make it an Illy wide - OPT in - war of walls....now THAT would be really cool. Let's assume that it is an alliance vs. alliance thing. We declare a start date and the alliance has to designate a certain number of "ACTIVE" cities (say 100 cities max - setting a max could act as a bit of an equalizer for smaller alliances). Would we be able to have a page that lists the alliances that have the ACTIVE cities? Would we also be able to list the 'score' for the alliance? Not sure how the combat api works so I don't know what is possible and what isn't Blade |
Posted By: white willow
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2016 at 02:39
| I am in favor of anything that cuts down the deal making although nothing will stop the bigger confeds |
Posted By: Queen Bikini
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2016 at 02:53
|
1) How long the Tournament should be? I think a fun tournament would be a surprise ending. No one knowing when it would end would add something new and spicey. 2) How long should the notice be? Keeping the notice as short as possible, while still allowing you the time needed to collect what you need from the allainces. 3) will people still be willing to take part if there aren't any prizes? Personally I like prizes. No prizes would be boring and I would loose interest in getting my troops killed for no gain. I have a solution for this. A special unknown prize awarded by the devs. Somthing like Prestige to the winning alliance in the form of scraps or parchments to be given out by the alliance leaders or a specific prestige amount to all participating members of the top three alliance. No regional allotment, just overall. Regional prizes could still be medals. 4) when should I do the snapshot of the Alliance for handing out awards? No switching alliances after the tournament starts! This makes things very tough on the tourney organizers. Since we would not know when the tourney ends it should also be a deterrent. 5) I will be using the combat API key for my next Tournament because the combat API key has better stats, and I already have code for it but will this turn anyone way from taking part in the Tournament? Why would it? 6) What do you guys think about having an unknown end date? (of course if i were to do a unknown end date no one in any of my alliances would know about the end date but i will tell rikoo or maybe SC about the end date to make sure the pick of the end date isnt based off of bias and what not. but it isnt likely to stop the complaining.) This would be so awesome. Here is why- No end date knowledge could make for some serious fighting much sooner then if we knew the date. Plus if the devs throw in prestige for prizes then the willingness of players to participate could go up by a lot. I believe the combo of both no known end date and a prestige or "unkown", but valuable prize would attract some attention. Unknown surprise prizes for secret prize squares would be neat. That way ANY alliance and player from the smallest to biggest could get a prize without having to be one of the top three alliances or biggest most active player. Gives everyone a chance for something without having to be in a huge alliance. So if you have say 3 secret squares that would award prizes for the alliance holding it at the end how cool would that be? Time of possession would not matter at all and since we would not know when it ends participation could be incredible. 7) So other then a king of the hill Tournament what other types of Tournament would you guys want? Mentioned it above. Surprise end, surprise prizes, secret square prizes for possession of those squares at the end of tourney. 8) What do you guys think of having a Elgea and BL Tournament? Make being in Elgea or the BL a non factor with secret square prizes. 9) What do you guys think about doing a server wide war of the wall Tournament? Meh. Anyways, those are my thoughts.
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 02:44
I have now decided what the Tournament will be and some of the rules. It will be king of the hill again because it won the vote and the person I would be asking for help with the coding is a little busy currently to help with any of the other Tournament. The Tournament will be 3 weeks long this time around.
I will have the notice be at least 2 months. The start date will be one day after the Tournament sq change this way I can have the notice as long I want it to be and no one will be able to explain about the notice being too much (IE people exo to Tournament sqs)
There will be prizes most of which I hope will be stuff that is donated to me. and the dev prizes (no idea what they will be. I will talk with them a few days before the Tournament starts). The snapshot will be at the end of the Tournament just like how I did it in the last Tournament.
For this Tournament we will have a known end date. But the next one will have an unknown end date. I will ask the devs if they could pick an end date and ask them not to tell me what the end date is until 3 days before it ends
I do like the idea of having an Elgea and BL Tournament. I am able to do it with the current coding (Run two Tournament at ones and have one with only the Elgea sqs and the other with BL sqs but I am worried about server issue. So I am still debating on this part. If you guys truly want this part please let me know |
Posted By: Dravin the Sloth
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 06:45
| with the exception for 4, (not at all a deal breaker) sounds great |
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 06:52
|
I like it all, Koda. Except for the option of an unknown end date. I am a planner, and often keep troops in reserve for the last phase of a tournament (mainly Knights). Also, for some players tournaments are time consuming and it would be nice to know an end date. If you want to fight without a known end date, there is the option of war And on semantics, I'd think the definition of tournament implies a set time (but I am not going to look that up)  ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 06:55
|
On a side note, with a preparation time of two months, I like having tournaments lasting two weeks instead of a month. It will be in favour of alliances not in the top 10 (unless those go kartel) because there is less reaction time. It would also be a possibility for some unexpected pitched battles. Let the Lord of Chaos Rule
 ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 11:52
|
I like the idea of an unknown end date. However I doubt it would be a good idea. Who is going to decide when the end date is? Imagine what will happen if someone takes top place just before the end of the tournament is announced. I'm sure the alliance getting dropped to second place will think there's some scheme behind it. If it was dev run most would probably believe in a neutral decision, but when it's player run it would most likely come to a lot of forum bashing, gc conflicts and maybe even war between players who just wanted to have fun in a tournament. The whole idea of a tournament is that there's rules and everyone involved knows them and knows they are being lived after.
|
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 21:09
|
Same old, same old then. Nothing in it for the numerous smaller alliances. About as interesting as an F1 race. So announces the result of the next tourney - a win for VCROW. Must be as boring for them as for everyone else.
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 21:22
What you talking about Slaves to Armok [StA] (currently ranked 25) got 3rd in my last one and they arent a large alliance. and I hope you realize how hard it would be to do a Tournament that is fair to the smaller alliances. So instead of whining about it why dont you offer some idea for a more fairer Tournament
|
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 21:41
|
Ummm, I have, repeatedly. A number of ways you can level the playing field by either arranging the entrants into equal sized alliances or teams, or by scoring it differently so that occupation time is divided by number of alliance members, would be the 2 most obvious options. And people who do not necessarily agree with your opinions are not necessarily "whiners". Well done for encouraging forum debate and participation.
|
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2016 at 00:32
I have read your two post and they have the same problem you are complaining about, also it would make it pointless for smaller player to take part. The larger players will still win and pretty hard to make sure that no one breaks these rules without coding changes which currently cant be done and i am not a fan of having punishment of disqualifying alliance because they break the rules which is what I will needed to do if I were to do a Tournament based on teams.
|
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2016 at 01:16
|
I'm not up to unending battle. I'm not online 24/7 and somedays recently not at all.. I am a planner much like Angrim and I do like to sleep A LOT when I'm exhausted from that thing called real life (I caregive 3 different age sets, children to a disabled family member to elders over 80) Everything else about type or the rules are fine... 2 gold coins tossed in the pot. D ------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2016 at 11:20
|
One suggestion would be to level the playing field further by weighting the scoring according to number of alliance cities held rather than number of alliance members. I appreciate that this would require additional coding, but perhaps not that much and if you could pull it off you would have made such a massive improvement to the whole tourney concept. It would be very worthwhile. And if that actually works slightly against the large alliances who have a number of useless members then good. every tourney does not have to be geared to suit them and it may encourage some alliance trimming, which would be great.
|
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2016 at 12:02
|
and most of the work would be done for you by players forming their own tourney alliances, just for the duration, so then maybe all you need to do is - no. of cities/occ time = score.
That would be genuinely interesting. |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2016 at 12:04
| occ time/no. of cities = score. Rather. :) |
Posted By: Hyrdmoth
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 08:21
|
Most scoring systems can be gamed in one way or another. Your suggested scoring system would be an invitation for players to set up single member, ten city, alliances in order to game the scoring system. It would do little to help relatively small, growing, alliances with lots of relatively small cities. It's true that a small alliance cannot compete with vCrow for #1 spot, but they can aim to compete to be in the top 20, or the top 30, or top ??, depending on their size. They can compete in the regions where they are strongest. They can create their own targets and aim to progress from one tournament to the next and then, one day, they will be ready to challenge vCrow and win. Maybe.
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 09:40
|
One forgets that the smaller alliances can compete for a square and actually win it. The larger alliances are large with large armies but have to spread them over many squares. Its not rocket science people. If someone needs me to clarify my point sent send me an ingame IGM and I will gladly explain to you how it is possible and easy to topple the large alliances off their dominance and make tournaments more competitive. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 11:02
|
Of course it would benefit smaller alliances and more players, and by doing so, make it more interesting and less inevitable for the likes of vcrow. Every player does not have to be equal. Nobody is suggesting that a newbie with a population of 62 should have equal standing with a huge veteran. But anything to level out the scoring system would be a great benefit to the vast majority, winners and losers, in making the results less predictable. Every future tournament need not be scored in the same way, you could still have the vcrow 100% yawns as well. But other than the question of the effort involved to set it up, which i dont think would be huge, give me a strong reason not to do something like this.
|
Posted By: BARQ
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 11:41
|
hey do u have any idea how a big successful alliance is formed . it takes lots of effort and time so they should get some benefit for it . and for small alliances if they work on their growth like those big (once small) alliances worked eventually one day they will be on top . u know illy is not a short term game < ="application/x-dap-" id="DAPPlugin" style="visibility: collapse"> ------------- I m the most scarring dream of your life |
Posted By: Jim
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 12:04
|
Of course they would still have some advantage. Ill say it one more time, if you have missed the point. An inevitable 100% guaranteed win for vcrow, is just as boring to them as it is to everyone else. This change would benefit them just as much as anyone else. Would you get any fun out of playing a game of football if your team had 100 players and your opposition had 10. And if anyone wants to argue that its not guaranteed then let them come back after the next tournament result (which is a vcrow win) and argue it again.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 12:04
| Koda, it sounds fine, except for the split tournaments. Alliances like eCrow won squares in both Elgea and Broken Lands. Cutting the game in half would probably result in a much lower ranking for us. I don't understand why your tournament structure should heavily favor alliances who only focus on one continent? |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 17:52
|
If you're not happy with the way tournaments are being run there is nothing to stop you running your own in whatever way you want. Kodabear has been kind enough to volunteer his time to organize tournaments and to ask for our opinions/thoughts about them. I for one will be happy to accept whatever he puts up. If others come up with a tournament open to others then I'll certainly look at taking part in them as well. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 23:36
If you're not happy with the way that people are providing feedback on this thread, there is nothing to stop you from making your own thread in whatever way you want. Kodabear has been kind enough to volunteer his time to organize tournaments and to ask for our opinions/thoughts about them. I provided my feedback in a polite manner, including the points where I disagreed his proposal. I believe that is within the spirit of his request. |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2016 at 01:19
|
My post was not aimed at you Brandmeister. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2016 at 14:26
|
One thing I didn’t add into my http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/my-next-tournament-plans_topic6987_post95344.html#95344" rel="nofollow - plan post was that I will be using
the combat API key. I do understand this will make it where some people won’t
take part in the Tournament but imo that is there problem not mine. If you have any questions/comment
about this, please either make a post or send me an IGM.
I am wondering why do people want to penalized large alliance just
because they are large?
I am not sure where you got “unending battle” from but if you were
talking about the unknown end date the max the Tournament could be would be 2
months. And I am not going this route
And if that actually works slightly against the large alliances
who have a number of useless members then good. every tourney does not have to
be geared to suit them and it may encourage some alliance trimming, which would
be great.
no. of cities/occ time = score.
Every future tournament need not be scored in the same way, you
could still have the vcrow 100% yawns as well. But other than the question of
the effort involved to set it up, which i dont think would be huge, give me a
strong reason not to do something like this.
One of the big issue
with weighting the scoring according to number of alliance cities is the
same issue that doing it by alliance members is that alliance will be penalized
for having newbie take part. And I am not a big fan of having a Tournament that
limits newbie in taking part. (this is more likely to hurt training alliance as
they can’t go and form new alliances because they need to train the newbies and
what not. Unless they have a 3rd party chat room). Here is
likely what should be done to do something like this. The town datafiles must
be added to the coding of the Tournament (IE create a database/table that will
hold the town datafiles). Then it will need updated every day since it should
take into count players that join after the start of the Tournament and if any
leave. Then it will also need to either save the score in another table or it
will need to make sure it keeps records of the towns and when it goes to output
the score it will check the occ time and the town data that matches the time
that the occ time happen. If this part isn’t done an alliance could be a large
alliance for the whole Tournament and right before the end kick everyone out to
improve their time. (highly doubt anyone would try this but you ever know what
people are willing to do to win). It will require small edits the a few of the
table/columns. How the Tournament page is currently set up will need a large
overhaul. It isn’t 100% that vCrow will win, Slaves to Armok [StA]
was able to take 3rd in my last Tournament and Slaves to
Armok [StA] is currently ranked 25th in sov, 20th in
pop, 33 in towns and 45 in membership. Slaves to Armok [StA] won
because they had a great strategy so if StA is able to get 3rd I
am sure another alliance could be able to take 1st.
Currently I am not going to split the Tournament because concerns
of problems with the server and what not. One of the reason I wanted to do it
this way because it would be something different from what the last two
Tournaments have been and it doesn’t take any coding changes. Another reason is
because I think it would be interesting to see how the ranking would turn
out to be if it was split I do realize that it would favor alliance that are
mostly in one continent. It may turn out that vCrow win 1st in both BL and
elgea (in the dev Tournament vCrow won 9 sqs and about 4 of them were
in BL)
Even if he started his own thread he can’t
control the way people are providing feedback he would need to create his own
forum to do that. I am fine with feedback as long it isn’t just complaining
about something and not offering anything like a way to fix it or giving a
reason they think that way. While feedback is welcomed but I am unlikely to
change my mind on how the next Tournament will go. I am pretty sure the only
thing I am currently debating on is will it be split or not. |