Serious Discussion About Tournament Events

Why the sudden crusade to change the way tourneys are? The last team tourney was great, there were 4 teams? there would of been 6 but some peeps got sentenced to death and others walked off the field... The year before that the singles tourney was awesome, you had tons of events, the "token" challenges was great and it seemed enjoyable by all.

I am not sure how last years went.. but i did not show because it seemed there was to much change. Handicapping the race, encouraged cheating, and then it seemed like there was no organization do to the fact it was to be IC as held by a bunch of orcs. Seemed like a waste if i may be some callous. and quite frankly I was simply turned off OOC.

But the years past have been great, don't change to much IMO.

The team tourneys are just that, set up for teams. If your pc does not have a team, then is it IC to be part of it? Does your loan star wild elf really care if he participates or not? Go to enjoy the fights, the race the fun....Or in some cases form up a team and participate. IMO fighters, casters, or rogues should not be hindered no helped in any change to how their parts of the tourney are run, forget the FFA.... If there is a superior level or build, then that player has earned the right to be a favorite or a dominant force by putting in the time to buy up X amount of slays, or casting levels, by his dedication of time played over the years. As for locksmith, race runners, trivia IQ, general talent such as singing.... these are natural talents or gifts that are rarely influenced by whats on your character sheet, should this make a difference?... absolutely not. Its a combo of build, motief, and ooc skills.


-Toddy
 
the difference is that there is a time for a powerful fighter with all of those skills to shine.... it's called always.

I get Mike wanting to include as many people as possible. I personally don't care. I am rather vocal that I hate tourneys and wish we would stop running them every year. The whole game just shuts down and the people not participating are basically forced to watch. Conversely though, I can choose to just not attend tournament weekends, problem solved.

I agree that the "tourney" last October was probably the worst i have ever seen. It really took away from the rest of the event.

So besides running them only every few years (2, 3, only when it makes sense to do so via plot), or doing them as faire days as I recommended previously, if someone told me to run a tourney (haha) I'd set it up to be the most realistic medieval thing we could do. We can't joust, but melee works, archery, things that people can watch and bet on. Not a fan of "the hunt" as it exists now, nor of the trivia, nor of the race (what does running fast OOG have to do with anything). Entertainment is amusing but I don't know if it's "tourney worthy". I see a tourney as demonstrating extreme ability.

I'd do a real hunt. let loose X monster in the woods and go hunt it. or several. person/team who brings the most back wins. or something similar.

Colors makes sense for the team tourney. And should include the teams conduct throughout the entire event. Example: get points for being chivalrous, loose points for cheating, whatever.

I don't know, I just don't think tweaking this little thing or that little thing as far as how many people are allowed int he round robin will really make all that big a difference. It's still just not interesting to me.

::shrug::
 
Toddy, I think you made two separate points. And I think we are actually more in agreement than you realize.

Point 1) Don't change what works.
I agree. My crusades are trying to change what doesn't work. My opinion isn't the only opinion, but it is a VERY educated opinion (I have been to a lot of tournament events in 18 years). Combat technically works, but it is very restrictive. Furthermore, the lack of something similar to a FFA has caused people to be excluded from teams (I have personally witnessed casters get excluded when a team already had a caster... more than once).

As for individual events, I am still trying to figure out what works for these. So far, a total of four (maybe five) have been run. Some team events simply don't work (team combat, superlatives, colors), some need serious modification (race for example) and others become cumbersome due to the number of participants (hero's combat). To make things even more complicated, nearly every year plot decides that a different culture / group is going to run the individual's tournament and there is pressure for that difference to be stressed. It makes it really hard to narrow down what works and what doesn't in individual's tournament.


Point 2) Superior build should have advantage in "build testing" events
I agree completely here. But, I think we have long missed one thing. Alliance is a team game. If you want to TRULY showcase team vs. team combat, then open the floodgates and let the teams actually fight full out. What TEAM build is actually the most efficient, most powerful, etc? Maybe it is three sword and board fighters, or maybe an alchemist/caster/fighter set, or maybe just three casters. 3 on 3 with just weapons does not actually test team optimization, it only tests fighter build optimization. That test is already showcased with Hero's Tournament. I'd like to see which TEAM is truly the best, in terms of skills, tactics, teamwork, and synergy.

-MS
 
mikestrauss said:
(I have been to a lot of tournament events in 18 years)
Click to expand...

Me too. I was on your tournament team when your character permed...That's right people Mike S did PC. Now he has devoted his time to the dark side :thumbsup:

mikestrauss said:
Point 2) Superior build should have advantage in "build testing" events
I agree completely here. But, I think we have long missed one thing. Alliance is a team game. If you want to TRULY showcase team vs. team combat, then open the floodgates and let the teams actually fight full out. What TEAM build is actually the most efficient, most powerful, etc? Maybe it is three sword and board fighters, or maybe an alchemist/caster/fighter set, or maybe just three casters. 3 on 3 with just weapons does not actually test team optimization, it only tests fighter build optimization. That test is already showcased with Hero's Tournament. I'd like to see which TEAM is truly the best, in terms of skills, tactics, teamwork, and synergy.

-MS
Click to expand...

I have a question...its kind of like when people say that poker is all luck...Why is it that most of the time the winner of Hero's is not the winner of Three man? Some people fight great solo, Three man is relying on others to help you out, just like combat is in our game.
 
Dave,
I was wrong to suggest that Combat doesn't involve tactics. That wasn't what I intended. Combat is certainly a team tactic event.

What I wanted to say (and still stand by), is that it ONLY tests the tactics of weapon users. It doesn't test the tactics of combined warfare (weapons, spells, alchemy), nor does it allow for the same variety of tactical options. I think a FFA combat would better showcase the strategic and tactical abilities of the teams and better showcase how teams actually fight. Yes, some teams will still go all warriors (sword and board never gets old), but at least some will show off the warrior, templar, adept team they have. And that is just more inclusive.

-MS
 
If you want to test team tactics, and do something that would be totally new and possibly very cool I suggest you allow 'backpacking' or 1 healer + 1 fighter team tactics without offensive magic allowed or something like that.

some of the issue with mixing packet/weapon combat in a tournament context is that part of the reason weapon fighters shine so much is that spells and alchemy run out pretty quickly when facing 10+ enemies. In a tournament however that resource limitation doesn't matter as much since its just 'one fight' and your done.

In my experience if you just had a free for all 'anything goes' fight with all the teams or something it would probably be mostly decided by gasses if unlimited alchemy is allowed, or after that spells, if unlimited offensive magic is allowed, and after that weapons. Due to the unlimited, but non ranged nature of weapons they are the 'workhorse' of the combat game, but less 'flashy/powerful in a pinch'.

The key is figuring out how to balanced offering a chance to have both types of combat offered. I also still really like the spell-caster's singe elimination ladder competition as well. :)
 
mikestrauss said:
Dave,
I was wrong to suggest that Combat doesn't involve tactics. That wasn't what I intended. Combat is certainly a team tactic event.

What I wanted to say (and still stand by), is that it ONLY tests the tactics of weapon users. It doesn't test the tactics of combined warfare (weapons, spells, alchemy), nor does it allow for the same variety of tactical options. I think a FFA combat would better showcase the strategic and tactical abilities of the teams and better showcase how teams actually fight. Yes, some teams will still go all warriors (sword and board never gets old), but at least some will show off the warrior, templar, adept team they have. And that is just more inclusive.

-MS
Click to expand...

I agree if it is, like u said combined warfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top