1 vs 1 Tournament

Feints are useless in this situation as players do not see incoming on an occupied square.  For reference.

Hi all,

This is all very interesting. 

We're very keen for this to be - as far as possible - a player-run enterprise, although we might extend some of the concepts out to encompass (eg) Factions and Faction-run tournaments, potentially with special prizes.

If you guys can collectively come up with a simple, fun and rewarding Tournament system that people want to participate in, with a full rule set etc, then we're happy to find some space in the dev schedule to code in any specific things that might be required to make it function.

One of the key requirements from our perspective is that people cannot use the Tournament feature exploitatively.  For example, if you say "During a tournament, players are invulnerable to attack from anyone except their Tournament adversary" then we're unlikely to enforce this through the code, as it will be exploited unfairly by players.

I suggest that compliance with the rules (no assistance from third parties etc) should not be enforced by the code, but enforced through reportage - ie the Combat API Key system, although I accept we will probably need Diplomatic & Trade Report API key system in place as well for completeness of information, so everyone can see if a player was within the spirit of the rules or not.

If we can genuinely make this a player run system relying on API Key reportage for enforcement of whether players abide by the rules - then different players / alliances can run multiple tournaments of different types with different prizes and rules (eg a One City Siege Tournament, a Capture the Flag tournament, a Kill the most Arakvar tournament, whatever...) that the player/alliance running the tournament can enforce.

Keep thinking about it, keep the ideas coming - and when you've got to a point where there's a workable system, let us know if there are any specific dev/code changes that need to be in place to make it happen, and we'll try and slip them in.

Regards,

SC




Edited by GM Stormcrow - 28 Oct 2010 at 15:30

Destroy as many of Faction X's cities as possible before Y date.

Each side is allowed to foil the sieges of the other side, but not directly with military attacks.  Diplo/magic is fine.

waylander69 wrote: A simple challenge system, you post a set of rules example 2000 troops mixed reward 10000 gold if you can defeat them, it cost you 10000 gold to take the challenge, the person setting the test can limit the number to a max of 100 below and above the number of troops they use. 500 horse reward 5000 gold and so on, that way its up to a player to make the reward and test worthwhile for someone to take it but it also allows lower level players to join in unlike a hold the flag for 24hrs which would need a larger army.

I feel for the tournament to work the best, it has to start simple. All of this gambling talk, would make things more complicated and too much of a hassle. There should only be a fixed buy-in to enter the tournament. After each tournament we can improvise and add more things to it to make it better. I always believe in starting with the foundation first (figure out if the tournament will be about destroying a city or take down walls fastest in a week or occupy two squares the longest to advance in the tournament). There will be two different types of players involved, a care bear and a non care bear we have to cater to. I feel the walls idea (non care bear) and the two squares idea (care bear) would satisfy both parties. I have finally come to an understanding that losing a city is too much for 99% of the population. I want to start a poll after we get enough ideas.

There should be consequences for cheating in any of these tournaments. I feel losing a city or being forced to pay back double of what you stole or being banned from future tournaments should be some options the community should consider for such cheaters. Let me know what other or if you support these consequences of cheating in tournament. The consequence I feel has to be so bad, that a member would be terrified to cheat.

At this point, as a community I feel we should look at two ideas, the wall idea Crank suggested and Grunks expansion of HM's idea for two squares. Destroying or conquering a city can still be discussed. However, we need a poll that would last for one week or so to figure out which foundation of an idea the community would support the most. I say take the top 2 ideas and work from there. Once we figure out two concrete ideas, we can work on details from there.

Lionz

Nortasha, hold the flag would be no good to new players who would not have an army large enough to withstand the attacks. Unless something is worked out thats fair for all levels of player then it wont work and people will go back to moaning about how this only works for either