Aus 1 - Our own Alliance Vs Alliance Tournaments

jjking87 · 19.09.2013

Was hoping more people to participle in the tournament, if open 2 new alliance for war which limit to 20 players, it will only benefit the existing players who already in the game for long / those who interested about it.

For those Beginner / middle player who hanging in between level 20-40 (start feel to be boring / not attractive / not much attack or defense going on) doesn't know whats going on and they will feel like being put a side.

Hope that we will show them the joy and fun of GGE , and of cos for sure they will bringing more friend into the game if they are interested / start enjoy the game.

aaron.l.douglas · 19.09.2013

i think the batle area would work best. 2 aliances. non existant aliances just made for this purpose. that way only active and participating members are included in the fights. we all have some players we would rather leave out of wars but if it has set rules it would be different. interested players could join the wars and the farmville players could stay at home

legoman693651 · 19.09.2013

yep I agree with aaron, 2 seperate alliances setup to battle it out which guarantees we only have players who want to compete in them. Besides, if we want bigger battles all that needs to be done is to expand the membership limit, and between 5-6 alliances, an upgrade on members shouldn't be that hard to achieve

aaron.l.douglas · 19.09.2013

what i was tinking was something similar to berimond, 2 sides(even) kevinp to judge it. if this is done right we could war for very litle drama and cost. for example if we decided all attacks and defences are done with ruby tools thats a massive amount of rubies saved, my last war cost in excess of of 5 mil rubies for me alone, darn i spent a mil in a day. this way even players who don't spend much can join in. anything that drives activity up is a + in my books

legoman693651 · 19.09.2013

yeah if this thing starts to cost people a lot of rubies, then people won't want to participate so we'll have to work that out. but 5 mill rubies thats crazy

s3cret_ (AU1) · 20.09.2013

the idea of 2 alliances created only for the war would be interesting.
as we can manage who joins and make them very similar strength

they all have the same amount of members and the members are similar strength

{take into account castellans and commanders stats, defender and attacker numbers}

s3cret_ (AU1) · 20.09.2013

if you managed to create the alliances they could be used more than once this event could be annual/monthly/quarterly
etc

Chance for people to set aside pacts and NAA's and attack people they never usually would

Also as berimond may be soon it could be planned for after so there is time to work out the technicalities

legoman693651 · 20.09.2013

I don't think commander and castellan strengths should be taken into consideration, if somebody has below-par castellans or commanders then that is their fault and shouldn't really be participating in the event.

(e.g people like malabo, aaron and sean all put in a LOT of work to get the best commanders and castellans they can, they shouldn't be disadvantaged for this work)

Arbitrator (AU1) · 20.09.2013

Perhaps for the smaller alliance wars - the leaders of these alliances are free to choose higher level players (maybe the limit is set at 5) from our pool of alliances involved in this competition - to fight for their cause?? This will help to balance the teams out and give teams a chance of winning - as long as the persons they ask are willing to war..

Here's some comments from Apatus:

"the idea with the two purpose built alliances is a good one because it levels the playing field as far as alliance bonuses work and whatnot.

the scoring system will need some thought. if it's just the number of casualties then people will just pool their men into one or two strongholds and the whole thing will turn into a defensive-showcase to the point where nobody is willing to chance their arm.

trying to classify players as ruby/no-ruby is a can of worms and may spoil it. if i bought a siege tower last june does that make me a ruby player? where's the line..."

tumeke (AU1) · 20.09.2013

Kevinp wrote: »

I like this Shattered - two new alliances are formed soley for the battle - have two neutral parties umpire and sit in each alliance, reports are forwarded to them and we can upload them to a forum thread so people can see the results - if people want to use tools, then we'll discuss the tool use and what the limitations are on it.

i.e. Say it is OL vs EE

we call one alliance War Team 1 and the other War Team 2 - we upgrade the alliance so membership is increased to 22, the other has 11 spots - both alliance leaders select 10 players - who will all join the one alliance all together, so everyone can recruit KG over two days or so with me.

While we have the two competitors in the one alliance, we can discuss the rules - the judges are made as the 'leaders' of each alliance - they have the power to kick people if they break the rules. I leave to go back to my neutral alliance, EE players join the War Team 2 alliance - two independent players/judges sit in on each alliance to record the scores, and upload to a forum thread..

They battle it out, and the alliance who wipes out the most troops over a time period to be set are the winners. I'll then go spend a couple of days with the winning alliance - which benefits their WHOLE team. However the only thing is I'd have a condition as part of this - that would be the leader of that alliance make me temp leader - so no one is able to 'kick' me if im offline, to take the capital. This is the only downside I can see. Once the two days are up, i transfer the leadership back to the leader and I go back to my neutral alliance

We can then work out who the next 2 alliances to verse each other will be...

Two alliances, numbers go up in 2's, me thinks 15 is a good number for both sides, not too many rubies spent to get to that number.
Either side is allowed to use resource, ruby, or armourer tools. Could have a 3 or 4 day battle (mon-wed/thur). The winner gets Kev in that alliance for the remaining 4 -3 days (thur/fri-sun). Then the pattern resumes on the Monday, Kev would return to his neutral stomping ground during this time, and let the two alliances hit it out again.

Or could do a 5 day (mon-fri) then do the next battle 14 days from the initial one, meaning the players involved in the battle would really benefit from Kevin's time with them (9 days).

legoman693651 · 20.09.2013

so I guess we are set with the 2 new alliance thing, team red and team blue.

Another option would be to get a well known player or the leader of a major alliance (aaron, sean, mal, ton, nuwan, bill69, mack3tt doesn't matter) and get them to pick a team from a couple of small alliances that wish to join, that way the smaller alliances get experience with the more experienced players and the experienced players can see what the smaller guys are like and if they wish to potentially recruit

christian s · 21.09.2013

Kevinp wrote: »

trying to classify players as ruby/no-ruby is a can of worms and may spoil it. if i bought a siege tower last june does that make me a ruby player? where's the line...[/I]"

I agree with what you are saying. I am just going to restate what im sure was already stated but with some more information. I belive that it should be rubie tools and resourse tools only. No armor tools. Now aday you get ruby tools in rankings and just for logging and picking the right chest. This applies to offense aswell defense. Only ruby tools and resourse would be best. If you want to buy them if you run out or something you can just buy yhtm instead of waiting for armor to come around. Just an idea let me know what you think.

Arbitrator (AU1) · 21.09.2013

We will wait to here some feedback from leaders of alliances that wish to be involved

jim3doors (AU1) · 22.09.2013

So far all the suggestions in this thread are great! One thing i might suggest is that each alliance who joins one of these dedicated alliances pays a rental fee. Keep it low but it will go towards improving the alliances. Even the talk of this has spiced things up a bit!

dan62 · 22.09.2013

May I suggest instead of trying to gauge a winner by the number of troops lost, gauge it by the amount of glory each alliance earns. The designated "leaders" announce to Kevin the glory points each alliance currently holds after the designated time period for the war, then it will determine who the winner is.

As the suggestion has been to create two alliances for this event then they will both be 0 glory. Then if this works and continues, the glory count will have to be advised to Kevin as this will also ensure activity with the war as you all know the alliance will lose its glory if there is none being earned.

Just a suggestion to ensure all are given a fare chance at determining a winner as some players prefer to defend then attack as we have all been involved with wars that have become stale due to certain methods of play by the opposing alliance.

jim3doors (AU1) · 25.09.2013

The format I had pictured is 2 alliances discuss a war, decide on tools used, amount of players etc, then contact Kevinp to join the Que. Alliances fight in order of joining the que for set period of time and the alliance which gains the most glory in said time wins the war. Would have 2 neutral judges to note down before and after war glory amounts and make sure that all glory was earned in accordance to the rules.

Leaders (judges) are not to be touched by any alliance that wants to participate in this idea.

http://aus1.freeforums.net/board/1/kings-guards-wars

Just did this quickly, if people think that a forum to help organise and discuss this then i will improve it further. Could use this as a point for alliances to discuss rules for there war, find an opponent or even as a general Aus server forum. Also has a chat box that can be used where alliances could discuss matters.

Bill692 · 25.09.2013

All,
I gave this some thought in last 2 days. I agree with Dan6's idea. I think net increase in glory score for each of the 2 new alliances is way easier to monitor for Kev, rather than nb of units killed, to decide the winner. There will be be so many BRs! But I also like the idea of dividing this by the number of players in each alliance (it should be the same, but just in case it is not).
Bill69

pokemonman · 26.09.2013

great to see some forward thinking i'm hopefull we all can get a great result from this, looking forward to seeing this evolve. regards poke.

pokemonman · 26.09.2013

smart i think a good idea

SKINK (AU1) · 26.11.2015

I know this is a old thread, but I wanted to know if this ever went ahead or instead was abandoned.

SKINK

Aus 1 - Our own Alliance Vs Alliance Tournaments

Comments

Leave a Comment