I have been contemplating where to go with the sieges for sometime. Obviously we need more boards, and this should happen quite soon, but I haven’t really thought about different queue rules such as this.
Originally posted by flexmore just a thought - as if russ hasn't already got enough on his plate....
if the list for one of the castles was ordered, not by time of entry to the list but instead, by highest rated player first.
Wait a minute.If I understand it correct,then when a 1500 joins a queue,he pushes down all players rated below him!!?? 😲
Lower rates will never get to the top!
And then I won't even start about why a higher rate should get priority over a lower rate in the first place.
I vote NO!
Originally posted by SirLoseALot Wait a minute.If I understand it correct,then when a 1500 joins a queue,he pushes down all players rated below him!!?? 😲
Lower rates will never get to the top!
And then I won't even start about why a higher rate should get priority over a lower rate in the first place.
I vote NO!
Sir Lot.
hang on there fella - the idea is NOT intended for all sieges - NO WAY!
it is only intended for just one or two of them of them, it would be incredibly difficult to hold one of these castles because you would be fending off high rated players constantly; it would guaruntee the owner a constant stream of very tough opponents.
players like you and me we would never get to participate - but we would get to watch some classy struggles!
Originally posted by flexmore if the list for one of the castles was ordered, not by time of entry to the list but instead, by highest rated player first.
i would suggest one with timeout 1 days and timebank 14 days,
and another with with timebank 7 days and 28 timebank.
i would also suggest not allowing entry into the list if you played in the last ten games of that castle.
further - i think it would be nice to have castles where the "king" is white.
Actually, sieges that were banded would be cool. You'd have to be below the maximum rating when joining and when starting your fight. If you aren't eligible when the actual game starts, you are skipped.
Unlimited
below 1700
below 1400
below 1199
Either grid them with different timeouts, or make it 3/7. My theory is that if you want to take/hold a castle, you need to be somewhat active on the site. Attacks on castles that last several months aren't necessarily the best for maintaining interest.
Originally posted by Pie1120 Actually, sieges that were banded would be cool. You'd have to be below the maximum rating when joining and when starting your fight. If you aren't eligible when the actual game starts, you are skipped.
Unlimited
below 1700
below 1 ...[text shortened]... eral months aren't necessarily the best for maintaining interest.
mmmm .... nice intentions, but unfortunately i dont think this would work - ironman was rated 1200 not long ago ..... which genuine 1200 player could take him out?
Originally posted by flexmore hang on there fella - the idea is NOT intended for all sieges - NO WAY!
it is only intended for just one or two of them of them, it would be incredibly difficult to hold one of these castles because you would be fending off high rated players constantly; it would guaruntee the owner a constant stream of very tough opponents.
players like you and me we would never get to participate - but we would get to watch some classy struggles!
You realize that if this was in place, Bbarr could loose a siege (if he already held the castle) and re-enter it straight away because he is the highest rated player.
Originally posted by marinakatomb You realize that if this was in place, Bbarr could loose a siege (if he already held the castle) and re-enter it straight away because he is the highest rated player.
it would depend on the implementation - people could be barred from reentering the line if they were one of the last few challengers - otherwise the castle owner might get "bbarred" to death.
either way the owner of the castle would get a continual stream of very tough opponents .... scary ain't it !!!
Good idea flex, here's two more ideas to throw around:
-How about a clan siege. There could be 1v1, 3v3, 5v5, etc to account for different clan sizes. The clan leader would select which players are entering the siege.....
- Or how about rating restricted castles. A 1300-1399 castle, a 1400-1499 castle, etc.
Originally posted by saintnick How about a clan siege. There could be 1v1, 3v3, 5v5, etc to account for different clan sizes. The clan leader would select which players are entering the siege..... yes i have suggested this before - i think it is the best future of much clan competition. there would also need to be many different time limits - a lot of castles - and of course a 20 player castle.
Or how about rating restricted castles. A 1300-1399 castle, a 1400-1499 castle, etc.
this is doomed i believe - unless you mean to kick the king of the castle out just because his rating goes too high.
as i said above, ironman and dscp were 1700 not long ago; any 1700 player who could kick him out of his castle is also no 1700 player.
Originally posted by flexmore mmmm .... nice intentions, but unfortunately i dont think this would work - ironman was rated 1200 not long ago ..... which genuine 1200 player could take him out?
Actually, it wouldn't be a problem, because with the banded sieges, you would have to qualify when you joined the list AND when you started each match. So if Ironman had qualified for the below 1400 band initially, by the time it was his turn, he would no longer qualify. No problem.
Yep, I forget about the rating increase. You would have to kick out the winner or you would have an 1800 as king in the 1200-1299 castle. Thanks, Flex.
I think clans can go to a clan siege and/or leagues. I would like to see either one happen, but I know Russ and Chris are plenty busy and RHP isn't making thier Ferrari payment for them.
31 May '04 17:52
highest rated player siege castle
Back to Top