| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Mr Damage 
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598 |
 Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 06:55 |
 Kumomoto wrote:
MD-- 80% of Illy wasn't in the war... The vast majority of alliances are untouched by it. And isn't it interesting how population was ignored back when folks were arguing about whether the war was fair or not (soup vastly outnumbered us) but now it is all important? |
Kumo, I dont remember ignoring population during the war, in fact I was one that tried to get you to admit your claim of Soup outnumbering Coal was incorrect. All the alliances on Coal's side both officially and unofficially were at the time of the discussion, approximately 5 million above Soup's number from memory.
Anyway my original post here held a little sarcasm within it, I have openly congratulated H on their efforts in the past and yes I know I have disagreed and argued with you too but never have I disrespected the H brand intentionally. The rest of us should be trying for 1st place in the tourney instead of 2nd hence we would need to take you guys out instead of each other which is giving you guys some easy results on certain sqs. Mind you your general location is quite good also which helps. Time will tell but H is smashing it currently.
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 15:11 |
|
Mr Damage - your Population calcs are unfortunately flawed but this probably isn't the thread to debate it though.
Let me put something by you which might get you to understand. Let's say your alliance was currently in first place and a bunch of people started posting on the forum (rightly or wrongly) that it was because you were way too powerful and everyone should "take you guys out instead of each other" what exactly would you do? Sit back and let it happen?
The facts are that we are the largest alliance, however we've just come out of a 6 month war having spent literally millions of troops and a ridiculous amount of resources. When you then figure in that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th alliances did not participate in the war I'm pleasantly surprised about where we are right now.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 15:18 |
|
With regard to the tournament pages - can someone on the dev side please fix the graphs on the regions page which start at 1 and not 0 - it's annoying (and incorrect).
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 15:42 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
With regard to the tournament pages - can someone on the dev side please fix the graphs on the regions page which start at 1 and not 0 - it's annoying (and incorrect). |
Example?
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 15:53 |
|
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/TournamentSquare/25
"Ancient Champions won" graph.
The start of the graph makes it look like a champion was won between day 1 and day 2. (since the graph shows zero on the y axis and 1 on the x axis at the origin.
The graph should be [0,0] at the origin and the first data point for Soon should be at [1,1] - after 1 day of the tourney they had 1 champion.
At the moment it looks like we're in the middle of day 7 not day 6.
Edited by KillerPoodle - 08 Apr 2013 at 15:53
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 16:27 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
The facts are that we are the largest alliance, however we've just come out of a 6 month war having spent literally millions of troops and a ridiculous amount of resources. When you then figure in that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th alliances did not participate in the war I'm pleasantly surprised about where we are right now.
|
This is all very true... But it seems so strange that when H? was at 10 times the military capacity (100%) you performed so low at the beginning of the previous tournament.
Luck is surely on your side this time.
|
|
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 17:45 |
I will take a great deal of the blame for our "low" participation in the last tournament.
I was very vocal about H? holding off till the later part of the month primarily for the following three reasons:
1) We had just came off a huge win in the prior tournament and knew that several of the larger alliances were gunning for our locations. As such, I wanted to have the option of reacting to and utilizing our vast cavalry reserves rather then as in the prior tournament the cavalry reserves of competing alliances being used against us. I seem to recall a 40K cavalry hit that forced the devs to relook at their combat system.
2) This was the biggest factor: The squares would be become more valuable in the later state of the month. So, I championed again to hold our reserves in order and to start off by "punishing" with cavalry certain squares/stacks so as to build up the value of certain real estate.
3) The skyclad was an unknown unit and without any stats associated with them, I again did what I could to forestall H?'s total commitment to the tourney. I refer you to thread announcing the rules and prizes for the last tournament and my fourth post requesting stats for the units in question. With the devs not being forth coming, I personally wasn't going to put my troops or H?'s troops at risk till there was a clarification of this point. Combine this with #2 and you can see that I was more then happy to sit back and watch things develop.
Edited by Anjire - 08 Apr 2013 at 17:46
|
|
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 18:45 |
Anjire wrote:
I will take a great deal of the blame for our "low" participation in the last tournament.
I was very vocal about H? holding off till the later part of the month primarily for the following three reasons:
1) We had just came off a huge win in the prior tournament and knew that several of the larger alliances were gunning for our locations. As such, I wanted to have the option of reacting to and utilizing our vast cavalry reserves rather then as in the prior tournament the cavalry reserves of competing alliances being used against us. I seem to recall a 40K cavalry hit that forced the devs to relook at their combat system.
2) This was the biggest factor: The squares would be become more valuable in the later state of the month. So, I championed again to hold our reserves in order and to start off by "punishing" with cavalry certain squares/stacks so as to build up the value of certain real estate.
3) The skyclad was an unknown unit and without any stats associated with them, I again did what I could to forestall H?'s total commitment to the tourney. I refer you to thread announcing the rules and prizes for the last tournament and my fourth post requesting stats for the units in question. With the devs not being forth coming, I personally wasn't going to put my troops or H?'s troops at risk till there was a clarification of this point. Combine this with #2 and you can see that I was more then happy to sit back and watch things develop.
|
An excellent post/lesson on strategy and military tactics!
|
|
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598 |
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 19:41 |
|
KP dont forget those 2nd,3rd and 4th alliances were in a tournament around the beginning of the war and H weren't the only ones in the war either. All parties are weakened in truth and you guys are indeed performing well as expected. We will always disagree on the numbers per side in the war, doesn't matter now its over. Best of luck with the remainder of the Tournament.
|
|
Sirius
Greenhorn
Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 54 |
Posted: 12 Apr 2013 at 20:05 |
|
Can assassins attack encamping commanders? I've sent many assassins against armies occupying a portal square; although I only received successful reports no effect was ever visible.
Someone knows if assassins have been disabled during the tourney, if they still don't work against occupying armies or if it can be a NAP/confed issue?
|
|
Tweet
Tournament VII - Champions Return - Rules/Prizes
