Bokoli,
I have the slight suspicion your understanding of English his not sufficient to be constructive in this conversation?
You are talking reaaaally strange mate 
I'm now back for 1 month. Nothing really changed.
Because planes are now playable outside GM rounds, AFTER the initial rush there are now more strategies possible.
Epecially in the larger maps.
But that has nothing to do with the arguments Demonaire is bringing in this topic.
again, I am talking about high level games were everyone is aware of that.
player 1 attacks player 2 with cavs
player 3 mops up player 1 & 2
Hey Frieza. I think you and me think alike 
I was just assuming all sides being extremely active & skilled
At that point, just like in any other RTS, you have to focus on the highest impact unit which is relatively cheap and can be built relatively soon.
So you end up with artillery rushing however you play it.
AFTER that initial rush, I fully agree with what your saying though
of course it is a personal decision. A decision to uphold the basic rules of of fair competition or not.
You clearly decide to prefer easy wins over a fair contest
IT is not a matter of right or wrong. The game allows your vision aswell. So your opinion is just as correct as mine is.
Mine just happens to be in line with the olympic thought of fair play.
Any standard game that is entered by a premade alliance, even it is only 2 persons out of 500 is unfair.
It gives you an advantage that is not available to the other players who do not have such an advantage.
Ethics? Fair play?
I'm starting to understand why almost nobody use this forum...
Golden Frieza,
I just noticed in another topic you are mainly speaking of 500 player maps.
That is an entirely different game compared to the 10 player maps I prefer.
My comments would, in my opinion, improve 10-31 playermaps alot.
And have small to no impact on the later stage of the game in 100-500 player maps.
Playing as a team from day 1 in an individual game is not honest imo
Easy solution: when creating a game, use the game comment to make it 100% clear you are a group that will play as a team? Nobody can claim it was dishonest then?
Basically you are starting a team game then.
Even better choice: invite other groups to enter your games as a team aswell, to have some healthy competition
Golden Frieza,
as a player who has not been around for 5 years, care to enlighten me with this "new strategy" that obliterates an army that contains 10x more artillery?
Let's say your opponent has 25 artillery and you have 8. How does your strategy solves this?
I'ld say sticking to reality would become an extremely complex story.
My main motivation is the love for strategy. Strategy and not tactics are the cornerstone of Supremacy for me.
With Artillery as it is in the game now, tactics are way too important. Often even countering a much stronger strategy
I'ld say there is only one change necesary for Artilleries: after & before movement they would require an hour of deployment/packing time.
This would stop the hyper-activity (ab)use of artillery. And make the game more strategic, as i think it is intended to be?
Here is one thing I would REALLY like:
allow a player, to pay the 5000 entry fee for gold rounds for other players.
I don't mind doing that once in a while, but apparantly it is impossible
already know the answer.
:p
QuoteYour mission: Conquer and hold two of three Control Points for four ingame days
4 days in total or continuous in one go?
Care to form an alliance?
We could slowly recruit more players?
I restarted this game last week after a looong break (2012?). Andwill not become obsessed with it as in the past.
Played single tournament semi finals back when they organised them.
but after being too vocal, admittedly i did voice my opinion in a crude way, about anti-gm issues i lost my main account.
got a bit de-motivated then
so currently planning to enjoy the game for what it is. But not planning to start more then 1 game a week.
and even then, my job will not allow me to crazy
Those are only the formats for a "speedy" tournament.
You can of course opt for a slower format. More of a league system, with 1 game per month. Here i'ld again aim at 4 team round robin
Again the example of 25 teams. => 4 groups of 4, 3 groups of 3
After 3 months, seasons is ended. First seasons would have no single winner though. 7 winners + best placed go to highest divions.
Month 4 = entries for new seasons
Month 5 = start of season 2. let's say all 21 teams stayed = 4 left and 9 more joined => 30 teams total
Highest division => 8 teams, 2 groups with 4 teams => 2 groupwinners play an extra game for the titel. teams 3&4 relegate to division 2
2d division => 16 teams, 4 groups of 4 teams => groupwinners advance to division 1. nr 4 relegates to division 3
3d division => 6 teams, 2 groups of 3 teams => top 4 teams advance to division 2
and so on
Other option for the "slow" format
the standard leagues + playoffs = very long. About 1 "season" per year
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.
This even thought itis the marketing model of other games, would be a very upsetting move people dislike heavily when you take something free away all of a sudden, they hate it more then when it had never been free.
True. an easy way to fix it is this: have all excisting users keep the option.
And new users have to acquire the option
