Lacks new stuff

[Pedronicus]

I read in one of Lacks posts that over the summer hes working on tournaments

how many people do you think a tournament will need?

and will tournaments lead someone to the holy grail of making general or whatever the top ranking is

[max is gr8]

He might have 16 player tournaments

[johnnyrotten]

Shut up max.

[Darkfire001]

You shut up Johnny, don't be such an Ass.

[johnnyrotten]

How about no.

[Phate]

Owned

[Stoney229]

I think tournaments should not affect points, but if you win then you get a trophy icon next to your rank icon, maybe?

[Jucdor]

I think it would be great if Tournaments were a little different than just ordinary games in a row which could be arranged through active members in the forum as well. I'm thinking about huge maps (yes, ones that would make you scroll your screen a bit) with over/around a dozen players. And the game would last as long as there are let's say 4 players left. And if there were three such games going on the winners from each would play yet another one like that. And winners from that would play an ordinary match which would decide who wins gold, silver etc.

That way a the tournament wouldn't be too long for even a newbies to participate as simple 3 round tournament would fit 36 players. For 4 round tournament it would be 108 etc.

And this formula would allow quite a bit flexibility to decide how many players one wants to allow to participate to a tournament.

[Jucdor]

Oh, and one more thing to enchance my suggestion. It would be great to somehow motivate people for killing one another as nothing is more boring than people who just build up their armies. In that scenario where you don't need to be the last man standing it would be a good motivation if for each player you kill, you would get one (or two or whatever) more troop to the next round. That would make games interesting for everyone as one that is suffering knows that this time all I need to do struggle & last long enough for other to die first. And the big ones would be in a rush to kill the weaker ones to get advance to the next round.

[Darkfire001]

I've seen one of those buildup rounds, and just a bunch of newbs too pussy or ignorant enough to make a calculated move. You get one decent player in their and the whole house of newb cards falls to the ground.

[Stoney229]

I think that getting a players cards is motivation enough to kill them, you know? Those cards get you a lot more than just 1 or 2 armies

[Jucdor]

Yes naturally. I've vowed never to join a no cards game again after I played one here that lasted a whole month when everyone just started building armies.

But the fact is that if you don't have to be the winner, then it's easier just to sit down & sleep on top of your tons of armies & wait for your good position to make you qualify. Thus this could lead to a lenghty games once some players with good armies but no weak enemies nearby wouldn't do a thing, which is very bad in Tournaments that have schedules to follow.

[johnnyrotten]

Yes naturally. I've vowed never to join a no cards game again after I played one here that lasted a whole month when everyone just started building armies.

Lol I'm in a no cards game which started nearly a month and a half ago.

[Pedronicus]

I've only got 4 games available to me, Thank god I've never wasted my time in a no cards game.

[freakshow]

It would be cool if there was some way we could do this on levels. everyone plays games on the maps representing contries (Canada, america, brazil etc)then the winners are given control of those contries on maps that represent continates(northamerica, asia, europe, etc) then the winner of those are given control of those continates in game on the clasic map. It would require many more maps but they just need to be quick temporary additions, nothing fancy. It would also give you this sort of story line of a single warlord fighting his way through everyone to control the globe.