I’m not even at a high enough level yet in Supremacy 1914 to make an alliance...but...here goes..
Seeing as the revamps will be going live shortly, with the aim of 
, I would like to make a non-GM alliance tournament to kick-start the new era...I run a top-quality Call of War alliance and we want to branch out into Supremacy. The question is though...how many alliances are interested in taking part in this tournament? If we get enough interest then we can go ahead with this idea..
I'm guessing this is a community based initiative? If so don't hesitate to contact the crew for technical support We will try our best to support initiatives for me activity
Thanks....I guess this would be community organised tournament..and yeah any help would be appreciated..in Supremacy can game staff do gold checks? Because I know that Call of War game staff can..
And I have to say..the last Bytro organised tourney was in 2013-2014...long time ago.
Yeah you had EnSeCo but that was also community driven.We can do gold checks. I will however have to ask around if there is room in the sceduals to do so. as only a few people can
Of course, it's something that needs to be done to keep things interesting.
We currently have an alliance tournament in the ES server with 16 teams playing. The new forum will make it easier to organize international events.
Well on the English forums everybody is always grumbling about the lack of tournaments..
If this goes ahead should we organise it via the forum or via Discord?
On the Spanish forum, even if there are just a bunch of players using it, they always talk about the lack of them too.
Regarding the where we should organise it, well, if i'm not wrong we're not allowed to share links of Discord and such either in the forum or in the game so that would make it harder. This forum allows the possibility to get organized well via the conversations where you can add many accounts.
We need enseco, I believe many alliances would be interested. I'd bring alot of good player to the table in any case.
We want to support ideas like this.
I've tried to set up tournaments in the past but usually it's spoiled by players that say they'll participate but in the end just go inactive.
As well as the crew has hard times which makes that not every server has people to set up something like this.
We want to help you however where we can. Some of us can do the GM check and we can make maps and assign everyone a country. We can help with advertising and stuff. The only thing we need from you is a solid idea with great and clear rules.
If you have a great idea, do not hesitate me to share them with the crew, you can always find me on skype if you want 
In Supremacy League, I believe this was the name, there was option to buy GM free game/limited GM use games. Not sure exactly how it worked but I heard of it being used.
Is it possible to copy this part of game code into superchan's tournament? They should have it somewhere in 2014-15 backups
// From what I have seen in a last 8 years:
1. in general alliance do not like to play each other in comparison to 2010-2014 as you loose a lot of ELO and there is small amount to gain. That is why I sometimes saw GMs and exploits used by better alliances just to make sure they will not lose ELO against weaker opponent. ELO is based on ranking but better aloiance have nothing to gain playing weaker ones but they have a lot to lose in weaker alliance is better/uses gms/ sits longer/knows betetr exploits.
2. other problem is ofc GM ( golden rush / golden fortress/ checking enemy troops every hour). No GMs games or limited use of them can fix the problem.
3. activity based gameplay related to Shoot & Scoot (S&S) or reactive form of playing that is basically based on waiting for opponent to go afk and catching her/his troops in the middle of move. There were initiatives to make it fair and square for everyone ie. creating sitter accounts who can play for you with limited number of option: moving troops, no gms, maybe attacking and building units/building as it was successfully used in other games but it stays the way it is and alliance games turned into butchery shops where account ( not person) with more time for S&S wins.
4. coming from the number 3 - remote control of other alliance players by one Sentry Player who has access to all account in this alliance game. It is ofc forbidden but never the less a lot of teams within alliances do that. Sometimes alliance leaders do not even know about that and deny use of remote control. technology went way ahead of security measures and we cannot do anything about that. I believe solving issue nr 3 with ie. Sitter Account can make a change.
5. Less known but also practiced - account run 24h/day by group of players. If you have such an account in your team all you need to do is to give him arts, resources for arts and , yes you got it, everything that is required to fight with arts. Then it ( the account) take all of this and shoots opponents 24h/day all the time winning alliance games alone. I saw weak alliance without any skills of experience, without GMs or activity, donating everything to 1 player. Pure example straight from 2012: Small Europe 5 vs 5. Weak alliance lost everything except Spain when they produce infantry and arts. Last man standing gather everything and started campaign- first ofc Morocco to take hold of oil fields. Then the rest of the map. It shot down all 5 enemy players holding 9 countries . It was close to loosing on points but eventually managed to do that.
6. Bugs, exploits,errors - in general it is known that team with better knowledge of game mechanic and its faults is better suited for winning. Long ago I saw guy who shot down enemy alliance as he was able to shot enemy troops 3 minutes in advance. They did not need anything else to win games - just this one trick. In another game friend told me someone was using teleportation to patch up holes in defense and make quick raids. Possibility to shot RG cannon from the sea ... battleships swimming to Moscow to destroy enemy stack, landing of troops in 22 minutes instead of 4,5 hours. Troops passing through my army unharmed and taking undefended provinces behind. or the worst - seeing how you gather 3 armies of 120 in allied fort and they are beaten by 60 men of enemy.
Now sir- if you see such a things and alliance from place 9715 below taking 40 ELO points from you - will you be still willing to fight? All this things happens mostly in higher ranks like top 30 but you never know if a wise guy hasn't not started a new alliance.
My idea would be to play non-ELO games , non-GM games and solving somehow limited activity problem of less active players ( in contrast of trying to limit overactive accounts).
I believe I covered all topics related to alliance games but feel free to comment.
In Supremacy League, I believe this was the name, there was option to buy GM free game/limited GM use games. Not sure exactly how it worked but I heard of it being used.
the cost was 25k Gold per team if i remember correctly
/knows betetr exploits.
Bugs, exploits,errors - in general it is known that team with better knowledge of game mechanic and its faults is better suited for winning.
if you see any team using exploits just report it and it will eventually cost the game and maybe the account for them
account run 24h/day by group of players.
i understand you mean account-sitting, which is also punishable
where account ( not person) with more time for S&S wins.
i think i do not really get the point here, you mean multiple persons with 1 account, right?
1. if you see any team using exploits just report it and it will eventually cost the game and maybe the account for them
2. i understand you mean account-sitting, which is also punishable
3. i think i do not really get the point here, you mean multiple persons with 1 account, right?
1. they were reported but the games were lost anyhow
2. yes
3. account-sitting, main problem when it comes to S&S
1. they were reported but the games were lost anyhow
2. yes
3. account-sitting, main problem when it comes to S&S
points from 3 to 6 in your statement, it all seem to be pretty avoidable if the support team do their job properly
i don't really think losing more or less ELO in the "new" system is a problem but i do understand your point as I know how it worked before it
use of GM's can be, if previously approved, to be checked by the support team in order to keep games out of gold users
truth be told, i loved how the Supremacy Alliance League worked, didn't like the warchest tho but that's another topic(glad they took it out), all those matches being constantly played just by setting a search of what type of matches you want to play and also ranking up in leagues, amazing job they did there, including the no-gold option as you mention, but i also believe they made a terrible mistake with the warchest and therefore with how the league worked. the fact that as a free player you couldn't add the gold you win from games, sincerely, that was a bad move, yet again glad they removed the warchest
out of topic/
there was another problem with league- winning bigger maps = more poitns in the league
so it was point grinding based on activity and S&S for the alliance I know, not to much strategy, thinking, planning - only reactive play based on activity
I am not sure but small europe 10 players looks liek the most balance map in a whole supremacy , like a clear chessboard with everyone having even chances. If we can add GM free feature to it and allow ie. ELO free games then I am guessing most of work is done.
when it comes to work of support - some teams are better than others and that is the way how it goes. If the teams can agree to have same set of rules for every server , original written down on DE org ENG serwer, that could be useful as some interpret Bytro Rules as they understand them and this creates chaos and confusion.
there was another problem with league- winning bigger maps = more poitns in the league
so it was point grinding based on activity and S&S for the alliance I know, not to much strategy, thinking, planning - only reactive play based on activity
if the account sitting is removed from the equation i dont see the harm on having it by the most active, at the end its a real time game, how else would you like to win, by spending the same amount of time? that would just ruin the game experience in my opinion, i do like to face oppenents that sets a challenge just by their activity
I am not sure but small europe 10 players looks liek the most balance map in a whole supremacy , like a clear chessboard with everyone having even chances. If we can add GM free feature to it and allow ie. ELO free games then I am guessing most of work is done.
agreed
when it comes to work of support - some teams are better than others and that is the way how it goes. If the teams can agree to have same set of rules for every server , original written down on DE org ENG serwer, that could be useful as some interpret Bytro Rules as they understand them and this creates chaos and confusion.
you wont believe this but we do have the same rules for every server as they are meant to just be translated and then copy-pasted, true tho some are more specific than others, new terms raise as users get creative xD
you wont believe this but we do have the same rules for every server as they are meant to just be translated and then copy-pasted, true tho some are more specific than others, new terms raise as users get creative xD
Exactly The rule set is created by bytro. However some servers face rather server specific issues which forces them to create several separate rules
Anyways - idea of tournament is good
But maybe instead of creating groups - lets start straight away with a Playoff ladder.
If you face better team- it does not matter how many even alliances you have defeated as the better one will always beat you.
I am guessing we can gather 8, 16 or 32 alliances
If there is more alliances: preliminary games between alliances with lower ELO to lower their number.
You know you have to win every game and noone will be manipulating with a places in the group.
did this idea start?
I am not in alliance, so would not participate myself; But setting it up would be rather easy?
let's assume Europe 10p map, teams 5 a side? Score after 30 days decides?
Round Robin type Tournament (not preferred)
You coulld easily divide all participating teams in a 4 team groupstage, let's assume team A B C & D
Option 1: In game team totals = the point you earn for the groupstage ranking = you have to push for points untill the last day even if the opponent team has resigned
Option 2: you work out with win/loss system e.g. 3 points for winning/1 for losing/0 for a no show
?
You could easily divide all participating teams in a 4 team groupstage, let's assume team A B C & D
Schedule could be
Day 1 first games start: A v B & C v D
Day 8 2d games start: A v C & B v D
Day 15 3d games start: A v D & B v C
Day 46 groupstage finished.
Due to the nature of this game, I would opt to have every stage a 4team group. It is just more interesting to follow for outsiders. & faster then 1v1 eliminations
And you want to limit the amount of rounds otherwise the tournament takes too much time
example: 25 alliances enter the tournament
Round 1 = 25 teams, 7 groups, 4 groups of 4 & 3 groups of 3, winners + 9 placed non winning teams advance to R2
Round 2 = 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, winners advance to final
Final = groupstage with 4 teams
So, in total 12 games needed before you know a winner
Swiss system Tournament (preferred)
All teams get assembled in one huge group.
theoretically, it works like this (example with 8 teams)
first match ups are decided by draw
Round 1 could be: A wins B / C wins D/E wins F/G wins H
Standings: ACEG 3 points / BDFH 1 point
=> now you play against someone with same amount of points (or as close as possible) but not against a team you played before
Round 2 could be: A wins C / E wins G / B wins D / F wins H
Standings: AE 6 points / CGBF 4 points / DH 2 points
=> again you play against someone with same amount of points (or as close as possible) but not against a team you played before
Round 3 could be: A wins E / C wins G / B wins F/ D wins H
Standings: A 9 points / ECB 7 points / GFD 5 points / H 3 points
=> for 8 teams 3 games are enough to decide on a top 4 for placement matches.
Advantage is, that for a larger group, you do not need many more matches to decide on a top 4.
With 25 teams, you could suffice with 6 games each to decide on you rtop 2 teams. You will need a good fair tiebraker because big chance a few teams will be very close. You could again take the in game Supremacy points at day 30 for this. => after 7 games your tournament is finished. Compared to the 12 above: much faster
Added bonus: everyone can play more games
To speed up things: step away from the classic Swiss system and make the draw of the rounds in advance, in order to allow games to start every week.
Disadvantage: it is theoretically possible to have 2 "weaker" teams reaching top positions
Advantage: you can start 1 game per week. Compared to the full round robin system you don't have to wait for day 45 to start next games before starting game 4.
Solution: have the top 4 teams play in a round robin final as described in the "non preferred" system
=> brings the total of the games to 10. Still less then the 12 of system 1.
