Or in reality everyone was forced to ignore the competition after the first day.

At that point all the flags had been captured and were secured behind fortresses that couldn't be attacked due to the fortress power cap mechanic.

This is a really badly designed event. Worse still the rewards are huge and significant. They can't be fought for, just a scramble of who is online at the right time.

While its good Plarium are trying new things they have to be thought through with some understanding for the game. This is game damaging content. We will only see how much when the buffs are used within the next week. I sure hope dynasties that were build up over 2yrs+ aren't severely damaged by one stupidly designed event.

why did leagues get, fishy debuffs The top winners have far less debuffs compared to leagues that finished in lower position.

I do not recognise this screenshot. Is it only available to league marshal and those with diplomacy privileges?

...Our devs will investigate why players didn't receive a letter with the Rankings.

I've got some fresh feedback for you, guys.

Our team has discussed this Tournament with our devs yesterday. Our main goal was to make sure they have received your feedback and understand the issues you've described. Like the one with Attack Limits and with strong Leagues in low Tiers. 

It's hard to find the best solution, but they are looking for a way to make this Tournament better.

djmoody said:

I know it might be hard for them to hear but you did tell them it's utterly broken right....... you didn't sugar coat it.

No content (event was done in hours with no fortresses left to attack).

Was totally dependent on "being online at the right time" to attack all the undefended fortresses

Rewarded that "gameplay" with incredibly unbalancing buffs and debuffs.

This event is going to completely unbalance one of your games, propelling a league who did little to nothing over a league that strategised, planned and played hard for 2yrs+ to gain their position.

I can't say "it's broken". It's not constructive. I pass only constructive feedback including the points you mention here. They also know how many players are dissatisfied with the Tournament and overall impression.

I can't say "it's broken". It's not constructive. I pass only constructive feedback including the points you mention here. They also know how many players are dissatisfied with the Tournament and overall impression.

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

I can't say "it's broken". It's not constructive. I pass only constructive feedback including the points you mention here. They also know how many players are dissatisfied with the Tournament and overall impressio

All of djmoody's points demonstrate how the event is broken.  How is saying "its broken" not constructive when it sums up all the points he made?  That's like saying "it exploded" isn't constructive, but saying its perfectly valid to describe the mess from the explosion...

djmoody said:

Best idea is that a group of players act as a council of representatives for the players and suggestions get talked through with them before implementation. Eve does this very well with their "CSM" as a working example.

No one understands a game better than the players - cause they are in it 24/7.

I've heard of it in EVE, and I also have their Whitepaper open in my browser to read when I have some time. Friendly speaking, I think it's a good idea to make something similar.

But our company is different. EVE has one game and 1 server, we have 6 games (excluding Mobile ones which are developed independently), on 2-3 English-speaking platforms, and 3-4 Russian speaking platforms. 

Let's imagine how would it look like - 6*2 = 12 platforms, approximately 2 servers at each = 24+/- servers. Even inviting 1 player from each server would be too many people in one room (chat). 

I really don't know if we can do this in Plarium, but we will discuss this opportunity within our team. If you have any ideas  on how it would look like, what information could be shared with those players, etc., please create a topic in Off Topic thread, I will pin it so everyone could share their thoughts. Maybe it will be a start for something big and interesting which would involve players into the process of game creation.

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

djmoody said:

Best idea is that a group of players act as a council of representatives for the players and suggestions get talked through with them before implementation. Eve does this very well with their "CSM" as a working example.

No one understands a game better than the players - cause they are in it 24/7.

I've heard of it in EVE, and I also have their Whitepaper open in my browser to read when I have some time. Friendly speaking, I think it's a good idea to make something similar.

But our company is different. EVE has one game and 1 server, we have 6 games (excluding Mobile ones which are developed independently), on 2-3 English-speaking platforms, and 3-4 Russian speaking platforms. 

Let's imagine how would it look like - 6*2 = 12 platforms, approximately 2 servers at each = 24+/- servers. Even inviting 1 player from each server would be too many people in one room (chat). 

I really don't know if we can do this in Plarium, but we will discuss this opportunity within our team. If you have any ideas  on how it would look like, what information could be shared with those players, etc., please create a topic in Off Topic thread, I will pin it so everyone could share their thoughts. Maybe it will be a start for something big and interesting which would involve players into the process of game creation.

To be a bit blunt. Plarium got more or less one game, that is re-skinned a few times over. Not many changes happen to one game, that doesn't get applied to the others as well, just differnet names, looks and so on. (or so it feels like)

Now, as a long time eve player (over a decade). I can tell you there is more diversity inside that game, and interests to represent than across all the Plarium games. There is more or less safe space, lawless space, deadly space, wormhole space so on, each with their own interests and playing styles, ranging from industrialists, to pirates and mercenaries. The CSM members in EVE get voted in by the players, and they each run their campaigns which is tied to their area of interest. So when all said and done, you have a council of members that have the best interest in heart for the players, but also they are very much differnet in opinions and so on.  Yet they work together for the greater good.

 And yes, there is very much successfull Russian players in EVE too. 

Imho, you could have 4 players from each server/game. They represent theiir server/game, they send 1 of those 4 to act as a representative to meet with others from the other games/servers. They can discuss between themselfs topics of interest they can bring forward to Plarium to look at. or whatever.

Don't just look at how troublesome something can be but solutions to overcome it.

Gadheras said:

Don't just look at how troublesome something can be but solutions to overcome it.

scarlet said:

As the first place league of this tournament both times running, I agree that it needs serious work. What other tournament decides the winner within the first 60 seconds of starting? 

yep, i saw you guys were nearly triple what anyone else was at one point. lol..did i see you even started giving flags back?  and you still ended up in first place.

Yes, we had the tournament wrapped up within the first 60 seconds......last night we decided to work with other leagues to move them up the leaderboard by returning flags and letting them claim them.  And further still, this morning, I released 8 flags 30 seconds before tourney ended so that  leagues could claim some sort of reward for having their own flag.

scarlet said:

Yes, we had the tournament wrapped up within the first 60 seconds......