Jump to content

TE Round 46 Start Date


Recommended Posts

Tournament Edition round 46 will start Friday morning 6/29/18. The new round will include a couple of changes to the prize categories with a new award for "Most Nuclear Missile Launches". If you have any ideas for the next round please share in the TE suggestion box.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
7 hours ago, Brewersalliance said:

random and stupid question, as I cannot find the answer anywhere, but... how long is this round? lol

437892b764.png

 

you can also see the countdown in the world demographics page

8ddfbb049e.png

Edited by Overlord Wes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just wondering... how about a round with no Nukes? Just pure brute manpower (and some Aerial and Naval sideshows).

(maybe admin can take out uranium or MP just for 1 round?)

It will be harder to keep infrastructure down, so to stop Flag Runners, we'd probably have to be at War most of the time. (in which case, perhaps a reduction in the "Gentleman's Agreements" to not war without a 7-day break in between would be advisable)

It would be like World War I, you just keep throwing more bodies at no man's land until someone wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Strongest Alliance - United Nations - 67.58 Score

 

That should be Alliance with the most Infrastructure Destroyed right?

And Sexy Gladiators

 

Also, can the wording of this Award be changed? It sounds like Most Infra lost, but is defined as most infra destroyed.

 

 

Edited by StevieG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Suggestion with awards:

 

Change the most casualties from: in the alliance with the most casualties to: just the top 2 nation with the most casualties.

 

Don't think it should always come down to the top 2 large alliance winning all the awards.

 

AL

 

@admin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2018 at 4:04 AM, AL Bundy said:

Another Suggestion with awards:

 

Change the most casualties from: in the alliance with the most casualties to: just the top 2 nation with the most casualties.

 

Don't think it should always come down to the top 2 large alliance winning all the awards.

 

AL

 

@admin

I'd also like to see those who earn the most casualties take awards over the largest alliances who effectively win it by simply being larger than everyone else. For the benefit of the game we need balanced teams and a good place to start is to take away the advantages of being the largest alliance. Most alliance kills, strongest alliance, etc. 

 

One issue was the larger alliances constatly declaring war on the smaller alliances in pursuit of most kills. Many never got the opportunity to declare their own war and from my own observations a lot lost interest to fight back.

 

When looking at alliance awards, using averages would be more beneficial to help keep teams balanced and more fair.  

 

@admin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoadRash said:

how about you just give me all the awards :P

You'd be more worthy of these awards over those who're orchestrating most destructive and taking advantage of less experienced players and smaller alliances to advance their award ambitions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most casualties sure. Il take it.

 

You guys dont have a great memory.

 

And no It shouldnt come down to 2 AAs, but it will ALWAYS come down to the top 2 (or 3 or 4 if there is enough strength)

 

So stop sitting in 5 to 8 man AAs? You need about 20 members to compete, is that too much to ask?

 

You are talking about removing an Alliance award in favour of Individuals. I didnt ever expect this loop to be made. If you cant win, maybe you just arent good enough. Or you didnt go to war enough.

 

How exactly do you expect to award AAs for achievements? You want to break it down to an average infra killed or soldiers killed? HG you will grasp at anything. And needless to say plenty of dead weight/temper nations/nations who didnt engage can easily be removed from the AA. Hey lets try Elitism again?

 

When the Awards were for Economy and ANS etc it favored an Elitist approach to running a good AA. Now, however that Elitist mentality serves no purpose but to push beginners and learners away, because their inactivity or lack of skill is no crutch to whatever AA they call home. Mainly due to the "warring" nature of awards.

 

You would have us take a backwards step and go back to that Elitist mentality simply because you lost. Its pathetic really.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StevieG said:

Most casualties sure. Il take it.

 

You guys dont have a great memory.

 

And no It shouldnt come down to 2 AAs, but it will ALWAYS come down to the top 2 (or 3 or 4 if there is enough strength)

 

So stop sitting in 5 to 8 man AAs? You need about 20 members to compete, is that too much to ask?

 

You are talking about removing an Alliance award in favour of Individuals. I didnt ever expect this loop to be made. If you cant win, maybe you just arent good enough. Or you didnt go to war enough.

 

How exactly do you expect to award AAs for achievements? You want to break it down to an average infra killed or soldiers killed? HG you will grasp at anything. And needless to say plenty of dead weight/temper nations/nations who didnt engage can easily be removed from the AA. Hey lets try Elitism again?

 

When the Awards were for Economy and ANS etc it favored an Elitist approach to running a good AA. Now, however that Elitist mentality serves no purpose but to push beginners and learners away, because their inactivity or lack of skill is no crutch to whatever AA they call home. Mainly due to the "warring" nature of awards.

 

You would have us take a backwards step and go back to that Elitist mentality simply because you lost. Its pathetic really.

 

 

I guess I understand what you are trying to say, just a !@#$%* way of saying it....but something should change. 

 

TE does not have the interest it used to so we are down to 2 maybe 3 large alliances. How is it fair if a 10 man aa fought just as much as a 20 man aa, or even more, two of their members have the top 2 most casualties but don't get the award because someone has a 30 man aa and their aa obviously has most casualties? Ill answer.. its not. The game is basing multiple awards on the largest aa winning.

 

Maybe its the top player with the most casualties and the top player with the most casualties in the most casualty alliance?

 

Im just trying to find some suggestion to make everyone fight and want to go after something not just all join 2 aas like what happened a couple rounds ago...

 

AL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, StevieG said:

Most casualties sure. Il take it.

 

You guys dont have a great memory.

 

And no It shouldnt come down to 2 AAs, but it will ALWAYS come down to the top 2 (or 3 or 4 if there is enough strength)

 

So stop sitting in 5 to 8 man AAs? You need about 20 members to compete, is that too much to ask?

 

You are talking about removing an Alliance award in favour of Individuals. I didnt ever expect this loop to be made. If you cant win, maybe you just arent good enough. Or you didnt go to war enough.

 

How exactly do you expect to award AAs for achievements? You want to break it down to an average infra killed or soldiers killed? HG you will grasp at anything. And needless to say plenty of dead weight/temper nations/nations who didnt engage can easily be removed from the AA. Hey lets try Elitism again?

 

When the Awards were for Economy and ANS etc it favored an Elitist approach to running a good AA. Now, however that Elitist mentality serves no purpose but to push beginners and learners away, because their inactivity or lack of skill is no crutch to whatever AA they call home. Mainly due to the "warring" nature of awards.

 

You would have us take a backwards step and go back to that Elitist mentality simply because you lost. Its pathetic really.

 

 

Elitist are only a group of people who operate at the highest level. I am fine with this as long as someone isn't stacking/poaching the most active people into one alliance like we've seen in the past. Why don't you try building an elite group from the ground up forging newbies into elite fighters and builders rather than merging with other flag greedy groups. A reason a lot of sport organizations have salary caps is to prevent too many elite players from being in the same team and help keep the teams fairly balanced. Using averages will not spawn an elitist group today to take flags, 90% of the community do not care who wins them. Most of them played the game before there were flags and if people cared about flags as much as you, why isn't anyone merging their alliances to take flags? I know why.... no one cares cos they're out of reach except the top 2 largest. At least with averages, every alliance with the required amount of members are then in the race. 

Edited by HiredGun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...