TurfWars

[LaughingRat]

REPOST:

I'd like to take this opportunity to bring up TurfWars again. This is an ongoing or tournament style play for Thievery, which simulates guilds of thieves controlling different regions as their "turf" (the different maps). Matches consist of a guild challenging another guild on one of the maps under the challenged guild's control. The challenging guild has to "take" the region (map) by successfully thieving it, then hold it by guarding it. In the event of a tie in these two rounds, a counter-attack is made by the challenged guild on one of the challengers turfs as a tiebreaker. THe goal of tournament play is to control maps with half the loot total of all maps in play.

I'd like to invite the leaders and members of all guilds interested to grab a copy of the TurfWars Rules (http://webpages.charter.net/thensiek1/index/Thievery/TurfWars2.1.rtf), read them, and then contact me to register.[/quote]

[WildBill]

Moving over to this thread...
It could be a logistical problem, having completely different members doing the thieving and guarding, since most rounds will probably consist of teams of 3-4 members. You'd have to come up with a way for your thief members to get out of the match server quickly at the end of a round you thieve, and get the guard members in, and vice versa.

That would be hard, but having a couple minutes in between round to relax and plan wouldn't hurt, and that would give everyone time to switch around. Aside from that concern, is there any problem with the RLF and Wraiths registering together?

[LaughingRat]

That would be hard, but having a couple minutes in between round to relax and plan wouldn't hurt, and that would give everyone time to switch around. Aside from that concern, is there any problem with the RLF and Wraiths registering together?

I don't see any problem with that. I don't really regard the two as separate guilds, just as different aspects of the same guild. In fact, if some of the RLF guards wanted to take it as a chance to thieve, or some of the Wraiths wanted a chance to do some guarding, that would be fine, too.

Any objections by other guilds interested in playing will have to be addressed, though.

[WildBill]

If any other guilds object, then, let them post here.

[The_Dan]

I haven't asked anyone, but definately count FAG in for now.

As far as I know, all the Merc members were up for it when it was first suggested & so thats about 50% of FAG

[BobTheDog]

Yes, FAG is definitely in.

[LaughingRat]

Only RLF/Wraiths and FAG so far? How about the other guilds, ToB, TCO, KYO, EDG?

[MrEricSir]

How are guilds supposed to get maps if they don't have any?

[LaughingRat]

How are guilds supposed to get maps if they don't have any?

They'll be chosen by guilds at the beginning of the tournament, as detailed in the rules.

[DarkProject]

sure register us

[MrEricSir]

How are guilds supposed to get maps if they don't have any?

They'll be chosen by guilds at the beginning of the tournament, as detailed in the rules.
Yes, but what about after the tournament has begun? Shouldn't there be a time limit on the tournament, after which the winners are declared so it can start over again?

[LaughingRat]

Yes, but what about after the tournament has begun? Shouldn't there be a time limit on the tournament, after which the winners are declared so it can start over again?

Have you read through the rules? There's a section dealing with what happens if a guild loses all its turf, and how it can regain some. It also allows for a guild to enter late, as a guild without turf.

The tournament is won by a guild acquiring maps with loot requirements equal to half of the total loot requirements of all maps in play. This means that it CAN be quite an ongoing thing.

[Biohazard]

I guess if we're going to get in it would be best to join now.

So consider TCO in.

I really feel bad that we're going to have to school all of you! 8)

[LaughingRat]

I really feel bad that we're going to have to school all of you! 8)

Heh. Save it for when you've already done it Bio. Otherwise, you lose your dignity as WEEL as the tournament!

But you know, for as mouthy as those EDG guys have been about their scrim with RLF, I'd have figured they'd have jumped in by now. Guess they don't have the guts to go up against a REAL guild....

[Kiech Bepho]

I have one problem with the rules, not that it will necessarily apply to me:
New Maps
 Any unofficial maps (those not produced byt the Thievery Development Team) may be added to the Unclaimed Pool on a vote by the guildmasters of the guilds in the Turf War. One vote per guild is allowed, regardless of how many guildmasters a guild has. A simple majority is sufficient (that is, more than 50% - ties do not allow a map to be added to the Unclaimed Pool).

There is no guarantee that the guild who was creative enough to make the map will be able to use it. I propose that when selecting map pics, that the responsible guild may forfiet their first 'pick' (and subsequent picks as the case may be) to claim their self-made maps. If a map is created after the inital 'picks' are declared, the guild may claim that map provided they forfiet a similar map.

This will encourage creativity within the guilds to create more maps for the game community - which is definatley a good thing.

TOB would be a likely canidate for this rule, if you need an example of someone to reward.

Kiech

Edit: This special rule is to promote new maps. Maps that were availible during the previous 'draft pick' or were exchanged after they were created are not eligible for these changes.

[LaughingRat]

The problem with that, Kiech, is that a guild could create a crappy map that happens to have a really high loot requirement (consider the loot requirement in TH-Payback, for instance), claim that map, and drop a map with a much lower loot total, giving themselves a huge boost and possibly even a win simply by creating a map.

By having all participating guilds vote on a map, it keeps the quality of the maps at a higher level, and by requireing it to go into the unclaimed turf, it gives each guild a chance to snatch that map up.

[Kiech Bepho]

The problem with that, Kiech, is that a guild could create a crappy map that happens to have a really high loot requirement (consider the loot requirement in TH-Payback, for instance), claim that map, and drop a map with a much lower loot total, giving themselves a huge boost and possibly even a win simply by creating a map.

By having all participating guilds vote on a map, it keeps the quality of the maps at a higher level, and by requireing it to go into the unclaimed turf, it gives each guild a chance to snatch that map up.

Oh, I never said to NOT vote to see if a map is approved. I agree with you on that. I do admit my wording here is not perfect. But the honors of owning a quailty map that has been approved should go to the creating guild.

Let's try this language again:

New Maps
 Any unofficial maps (those not produced byt the Thievery Development Team) may be added to the Unclaimed Pool on a vote by the guildmasters of the guilds in the Turf War. One vote per guild is allowed, regardless of how many guildmasters a guild has. A simple majority is sufficient (that is, more than 50% - ties do not allow a map to be added to the Unclaimed Pool).
In addition, any approved map that was not availible before the last 'draft pick' may be claimed by the creating guild during the 'draft picks' by forfieting their first choice pick (and subsequent picks for additional maps the guild has created.) This claim must be declared and the map must first be approved before the first 'draft pick' is chosen.

Is this better?

Kiech

[LaughingRat]

Not really any better, no. Map selection only occurs as a prelude to the actual tournament, so there is no choosing up maps in the middle anywhere. And again, just letting the guild that created the map keep that map does two things:

Gives guilds that have one or more mappers an unfair advantage.
Creates an incentive for guild mappers to turn out low quality maps with high loot totals, again giving their guild an unfair advantege.

This was hashed over the first time this went around, and it was mostly agreed that allowing a guild mapper's maps to go to that guild automatically would not be in the spirit of the tournament, or be particularly fair. This way, if a mapper wants their map in TurfWars, they can have it in, but by putting it in as unclaimed turf, any guild has a roughly equal chance to pick it up, based on that guild's actual ability to play.

[DarkProject]

The problem with that, Kiech, is that a guild could create a crappy map that happens to have a really high loot requirement (consider the loot requirement in TH-Payback, for instance), claim that map, and drop a map with a much lower loot total, giving themselves a huge boost and possibly even a win simply by creating a map.

By having all participating guilds vote on a map, it keeps the quality of the maps at a higher level, and by requireing it to go into the unclaimed turf, it gives each guild a chance to snatch that map up.

my next crappy map i make won't have high loot...with payback i didn't really have a choice :P

and in that case you can make the map worth less..
for example in payback the thieves are stealing the loot to pay their bills. after getting 5000 for map loot requirement they and after payign the bill the thieves only have 500 bucks making the map worth less

:cool:

also my next crappy map won't be crappy....or at least so far it doesn't look like it'll be :) :cool:

[Rodent]

We'll take part

[DhaThief]

Same here

[LaughingRat]

Current list then:

ATG
CTG
EDG
FAG
KYO
TCO

[LaughingRat]

On thinking about this, with six guilds already in, I think I'm going to close "registration" as of this Saturday. Any guild not having expressed interest by then will have to enter as a "guild without turf".

I'll be needing to randomly determine which participating guild gets first pick of turf, second pick, and so on. Since Crackaz is running this, I'm going to recuse my guild from the random assignation, and simply have us pick last in the rotation, to avoid any complaints or worries about it having been unfair. On Sunday, I'll post the (otherwise) randomly determined order, and guilds can start claiming their turf.

[Kiech Bepho]

*WOW*

The RLF/WRAITHS haven't signed up yet?

[Kiech Bepho]

No TOB either.

[LaughingRat]

No TOB either.

Umm. Oops. Not sure how I left those out. Let me revise.

ATG
CTG
FAG
KYO
RLF/Wraiths
TCO
ToB

This is the correct list. Please disregard the previous list.

[Buho]

LaughingRat (and other guildmasters), I have a problem with the rounds and tie-breaker rules.

For all-around ownership of a map, a guild must show superiority when thieving it as well as guarding it. Hence the two rounds per match. However, doesn't it seem kind of silly for a challenged guild to have to thieve it's own map?

I suggest dropping the second round completely, so that challengers thieve and the challenged guard. This would also eliminate the unnessesary complication of a tie-breaker map.

The way it seems to me, the only way a guild can hold on to a map is if it first can thieve it well (to acquire it), and then guard it well (to hold on to it as it other guilds try to take it). In the end, both aspects of the game must be played by a guild supremely.

-----

Also, since the initial pool of maps must consist of just official maps (user maps must be voted in, which none have yet), what is the total loot count for all official maps? (And from that, what is the 50% loot threshhold?)

-----

Finally, I'm a little confused on the initial parcelling of maps. How many maps are in the initial pool? Lets say 13. Lets also say that the initial number of guilds participating is 7. According to your rules, after the first round of choosing, there will be only 6 maps left unclaimed, and not enough for a second cycle to begin. Does this mean every guild may have only one map and six will be unclaimed? What if the initial count of maps is 14. That means there will be zero unclaimed maps.

I guess I'm OK with that. I just wanted to point out that the cycling may be unnessesary, since there will be many guilds and few maps. A single pass may suffice.

By the way, LaughingRat. Excellent draft of rules. Thank you.

[LaughingRat]

Taken one point at a time.

As an initial point, the idea of a territorial war between rival gangs of thieves is just something to give the competition a little life and atmosphere. What the actual matches boil down to are still competitive matches.

That said....

First, a challenged guild must GUARD it's turf first. It then thieves it, whether or not the challengers successfully thieved it. In essence the guild that holds a map has to demonstrate it's proficience in both holding and taking its own territory. If it fails in EITHER of these tasks (a tie match) it has to demonstrate that it can take another territory in order to keep it's own. In essence, it threatens the challenger's territory, forcing them to back off. The challenge structure was set up so there would be the potential for three rounds, eliminating ties and the potential stagnation that might bring. For every challenge, a map WILL change hands (except when the challenge was issued by a guild without turf - if they lose, they have nothing to give up).

I haven't totalled up all the loot requirements, actually, so I don't know what the 50% requirement is. Feel free to do so yourself, keeping in mind that the one map with no loot requirement (Asylum) is still worth 250.

As far as the initial parcelling of maps, an order for guilds to choose maps will be determined randomly (except for CTG, who will go last). Each guild will then choose one map, in the order determined. If there are enough maps left over for everyone to have a second (there should be), the cycle will repeat. Any maps left after that go into the unclaimed turf pool, and fall under those rules for acquisition.

Again, it was just a sort of colorful format for a match structure. I thought, since this is a game unlike other multiplayer first person games, and since it was brand new, we'd have the opportunity to do something unlike anything that's been done in other first person games.

[Buho]

First, a challenged guild must GUARD it's turf first. It then thieves it, whether or not the challengers successfully thieved it. In essence the guild that holds a map has to demonstrate it's proficience in both holding and taking its own territory. If it fails in EITHER of these tasks (a tie match) it has to demonstrate that it can take another territory in order to keep it's own. In essence, it threatens the challenger's territory, forcing them to back off....
That's pretty clear to me. I'm just suggesting that perhaps it would be more logical and fit the idea of a true real life turf war if there were just one round where the challengers thieve the map they want to acquire and the challenged defend the map they want to keep.

I like the idea of a backlash with the tie-breaker, but in order to impliment that with a single-round, the backlash attackers must be given a slight advantage in a seperate match immediately following like extra starting loot. Like a penalty for a guild biting too much off and ticking off the defending guild. But all that complicates things way too much. A simple one round attack/defend seems just enough. What does everyone else think?
...The challenge structure was set up so there would be the potential for three rounds, eliminating ties and the potential stagnation that might bring. For every challenge, a map WILL change hands....
LR, what do you mean by stagnation? Also, see what I mean by a map changing hands every match? It just seems kinda screwy.

Of course, I'm just offering my input. It's up to everyone else to settle on common rules. I like the democratic process built into the rules that allow itself to change.

[LaughingRat]

LR, what do you mean by stagnation? Also, see what I mean by a map changing hands every match? It just seems kinda screwy.

By stagnation, I mean matches taking place, but no turf ever changing hands because the matches often turn out to be ties. Some maps being so much easier to guard than others would result in a lot of ties on that map, so it would never change hands. By including a tiebreaker round for each match, you ensure that things keep moving.

Also, by giving the challenged team the choice of what map to thieve in a tiebreaker round, you keep the challengers on their toes. They have to be able to defend their own turf, if they can't win both rounds on the attacked map. I think that balances out the advantage that the challenger has in being able to choose a map to play on from the attacked guild's turf.

[LaughingRat]

At this point, I'm going to ask all the participating guilds to start considering what maps you want. Do this however you handle these decisions within your guild, that is, the leader chooses, take a vote, whatever.

Assuming no other guild enters, I already have the order guilds are going to pick worked out. It's been randomly determined, with the exception of CTG, which is going last in the cycle to avoid charges of favoritism. I'll be posting that order over the weekend.

With 1.3 being imminent, though, the war will probably not actually be starting until after its release.

[LaughingRat]

For the sake of reference, here are all the maps, and their loot values:
Aquatone: 500
Asylum: 250
Bourgeois: 500
Breakout: 600
Dark Enlighten: 900
Flats: 1000
Folly: 300
Gerome: 800
Grange: 800
Korman: 500
Nostalgia: 1500
SkeltstonHead: 700
Spiders: 800
Theatre: 500
TOTAL: 9650
That means a guild needs to control 4825 worth of maps in order to win, assuming loot totals don't change in some of the updates in 1.3. That amount will also go up with the addition of new maps in 1.3.

[DhaThief]

I don't wanna make a fuss with this but i would vote to change the name of the competition "TurfWar" is ok but i would prefer "TurfDomination" ... just my 2 cents.
(I kinda don't like the word WAR right now)
Just a suggestion. :?

[The_Dan]

LR, One minor gripe with the values of each map:

- Some maps are loot orientated whereas some are objective orientated. Therefore, the loot-orientated maps are currently worth more than the those that just include loot as a side-requirement.

Therefore I suggest you add the following on the map values:

-200 for single-item objectives (book on DE, gem on folly, etc)

-100 per required item for multi-item objectives (evidence on Aqua, relics on theatre)

I suspect the values will have to be tweaked slightly, but I think you should take these into account or people will just be aiming for the loot-heavy maps (when loot is a fairly easy objective to achieve in comparison to specific objectives)

EDIT: Also remember that you're stealing specific objectives because of their high value, & so in Thievery-land, they must have a theoretical loot value which is off-the-scale, in comparison.

[The Keepers]

No TOB either.

Umm. Oops. Not sure how I left those out. Let me revise.

ATG
CTG
FAG
KYO
RLF/Wraiths
TCO
ToB

This is the correct list. Please disregard the previous list.

Your list still isn't complete.

[The_Dan]

If you did take my idea into account, you would have:

Aquatone: 500 + 500 = 1000
Asylum: 250(doctor?) + 700 (body & vaccines) = 950
Bourgeois: 500
Breakout: 600
Dark Enlighten: 900 + 200 = 1100
Flats: 1000
Folly: 300 + 200 = 500
Gerome: 800
Grange: 800
Korman: 500 + 400(each gem is like a mini-objective) = 900
Nostalgia: 1500
SkeltstonHead: 700 + 200 = 900
Spiders: 800 + 200 = 1000
Theatre: 500 + 300 = 800

TOTAL: 12350

6175 total required to win & the maps are slightly more equalised in value now

So, what dya think?

[Slappy]

<snip The_Dan's great idea about objectives being worth loot>

I think this is a great idea.

And now for my perhaps overly complicated idea:
To take Buho's idea further and to retain the multiple rounds plan, why not this:
Challenged and Challenger refer to the 2 guilds involved.

round 1: Challenged defends.

outcome of round 1 case A: Challenged wins
------round 2: Challenged defends again (they still own it)

------outcome of round 2 case A: Challenged wins
------------Challenged gains the Challenger's territory

------outcome of round 2 case B: Challenger wins
-------------round 3: tie-breaker on Challenger's map with
-------------Challenged as thieves.

outcome of round 1 case B: Challenger wins
------round 2: Challenged is now thieving, try to get it back

------outcome of round 2 case A: Challenged wins
----------round 3: tie-breaker on Challenger's map with
----------Challenged as thieves.

------outcome of round 2 case B: Challenger wins
----------Challenger acquires the Challenged's map.


Sorry for the "----"; I tried to put this in outline form to make it easier to follow the possible paths, but the forum removes leading whitespace. I hope this makes sense to someone!

The goal (of Buho's idea, and my extension to it) was to try to keep the sense of actually defending Turf, instead of just playing standard guild matches (where each side always gets a chance to thieve). If that goal is not desired by most of those involved, then I'll just STFU and play.

One downside I can see to my idea is that guilds with separate guard/thief players (ie, RLF/Wraith) will have to get 8 players able to play at the match, instead of just 5.

The upside is, it feels more like a "TurfWar" instead of being just a complicated system to schedule standard clan matches.

[LaughingRat]

Your list still isn't complete.

It's complete in that every guild that expressed interest is listed. You'll notice that not only is TuF not on the list, EDG isn't either. Neither guild expressed an interest in participating to me, by PM, IM, email, or in this thread.


Dan and Slappy: The rules are already fairly involved. I'd rather keep it as simple as possible, at least the first time through. It's true that the non-loot objectives do affect the difficulty of some maps, but this just adds to the strategic component of the tourney. Guilds will have to weigh the loot value of a map against it's difficulty to defend and attack. For instance, Nostalgia has the highest value (1500), but is probably harder to defend, and any guild that holds it is likely going to be the target of a lot of challenges from other guilds.

That's part of what I liked about this kind of setup. Guilds have to consider their strategy as well as their skill, and may form alliances to take down a guild that's in the lead. It's not just another "win-and-advance-to-the-next-round" tournament. You have a choice where to go and what to do, and your choices will affect the outcome. There's a whole strategic layer to this tourney format that there isn't in most tournaments, just as there's a strategic layer in Thievery that you don't see in most first-person games.

[[E.D.G]Chief]

yup as LR said we didn't show an interest :) The guild had a vote- those that Bothered to vote voted against Turf Wars and [E.D.G] so count us out :D

[[E.D.G]Skull]

Chief]yup as LR said we didn't show an interest :) The guild had a vote- those that Bothered to vote voted against Turf Wars and [E.D.G] so count us out :D


well we should vote again and tell all the members to vote...because i didn't knew we were voting

[LaughingRat]

Should EDG change its collective mind, it is always possible to enter late as a guild without turf.

http://www.chickenlover.ca/lover/cfo_barn/chicken.gif

[[RLF]Kore (V)acLoed]

http://www.maverickreport.com/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif

[WildBill]

What, is EDG scared? I assume TuF are entering (although it will be interesting given their members), which would make EDG the -only- guild not taking part in this. Or perhaps you don't expect to survive your encounter with the RLF this Sunday? ^_^

[[E.D.G]Chief]

tisk tisk DB- we wont be letting you have the fried gerbil gibs at the end of the game- u can have the giblets if you want.................. :P (they make nice gravy) :joking:

nah I was teaching certain guild members a lesson (those who dont actually go and READ all my polls etc that I put up) Ill be putting up another poll about it ill let u know the results tomorrow LR 8)

[The_Dan]

Dan and Slappy: The rules are already fairly involved. I'd rather keep it as simple as possible, at least the first time through. It's true that the non-loot objectives do affect the difficulty of some maps, but this just adds to the strategic component of the tourney. Guilds will have to weigh the loot value of a map against it's difficulty to defend and attack. For instance, Nostalgia has the highest value (1500), but is probably harder to defend, and any guild that holds it is likely going to be the target of a lot of challenges from other guilds.

That's part of what I liked about this kind of setup. Guilds have to consider their strategy as well as their skill, and may form alliances to take down a guild that's in the lead. It's not just another "win-and-advance-to-the-next-round" tournament. You have a choice where to go and what to do, and your choices will affect the outcome. There's a whole strategic layer to this tourney format that there isn't in most tournaments, just as there's a strategic layer in Thievery that you don't see in most first-person games.

Fair enough, I didn't want all the maps to have equal values but I just wanted to bring attention to:

-Loot ISN'T the defining characteristic of a map. More planning/teamwork (special emphasis on teamwork, in a guild-based tournament) is required for objective-items, whereas loot just requires thieves to stay on their toes & keep moving around the level

-Most objectives are meant to represent high-loot-value items, that would in most cases be worth more than the seperate loot that has to be thieved from the level

[LaughingRat]

Fair enough, I didn't want all the maps to have equal values but I just wanted to bring attention to:

-Loot ISN'T the defining characteristic of a map. More planning/teamwork (special emphasis on teamwork, in a guild-based tournament) is required for objective-items, whereas loot just requires thieves to stay on their toes & keep moving around the level

True, and those other qualities of the map still have to be taken into account in determining a map's strategic value, along with the loot total. You have to decide if the loot amount a map represents makes it worth acquiring or holding based on those other properties.

-Most objectives are meant to represent high-loot-value items, that would in most cases be worth more than the seperate loot that has to be thieved from the level

Again, true enough, but if you tried to put a loot value on a map like, say, Korman, with those two rubies, that map would be disproportionately valuable, assuming you could even get people to agree on a value. And how do you place a value on a Book of Enlightenment (even if all that's written in it is "Ooh, scary magic book!")??

[The_Dan]

True, and those other qualities of the map still have to be taken into account in determining a map's strategic value, along with the loot total. You have to decide if the loot amount a map represents makes it worth acquiring or holding based on those other properties.

Hmm, that is just gonna make a handful of maps "desirable" & the others "not worth the bother". OK, I know that is intended, but theoretically (my word of the evening) that means thieves should only have to get the loot & escape, since the £1000-gem isn't worth the fuss.

The logic you are using dictates that thieves hould have the option on whether to get objective-item or not, since it won't really affect why they will be attempting the map.


Again, true enough, but if you tried to put a loot value on a map like, say, Korman, with those two rubies, that map would be disproportionately valuable, assuming you could even get people to agree on a value. And how do you place a value on a Book of Enlightenment (even if all that's written in it is "Ooh, scary magic book!")??

I was quite happy with my suggested 200 (which is pretty low, all things considered).

Perhaps, I've just played against the wrong people, but Flats & Nostalgia don't feel like the hardest maps of the bunch due to their pretty large size & extensive shadows, & yet they are worth the most.
Therefore, I can see these maps changing hands regularly, or was that the intended plan?


Note: I know this is a futile argument of mine, since everything has already been organised, but I feel that this is an important point to be discussed & so at least we can show all the other forum members, why it won't be used.

[LaughingRat]

Hmm, that is just gonna make a handful of maps "desirable" & the others "not worth the bother". OK, I know that is intended, but theoretically (my word of the evening) that means thieves should only have to get the loot & escape, since the £1000-gem isn't worth the fuss.

The logic you are using dictates that thieves hould have the option on whether to get objective-item or not, since it won't really affect why they will be attempting the map.

Nope, maps must be won, per the objectives of the map. Again, the difficulty of the non-loot objectives has to be considered against the map's loot value. Is it really worth challenging on Korman, when you also have to deal with those two rubies? Or does that make it a high priority in your initial pick, since it's 500 loot you can hang onto easily, because no one will challeng you on it.

I was quite happy with my suggested 200 (which is pretty low, all things considered).

Perhaps, I've just played against the wrong people, but Flats & Nostalgia don't feel like the hardest maps of the bunch due to their pretty large size & extensive shadows, & yet they are worth the most.
Therefore, I can see these maps changing hands regularly, or was that the intended plan?


I suspect Flats and Nostalgia will change hands quite a bit. They're certainly not the hardest maps, but keep in mind that whatever guild holds them has to not only defend tehm, but thieve them. If they do either unsuccessfully, they have to go to a tiebreaker round, but on a map that THEY choose this time, so presumably, they'll choose whatever map their opponent has that they have the best chance to win on.

This was not the "intended plan", BTW, it's just how it happened to work out with the maps that have been produced.

After a run through the tourney one time, we can maybe see if adding additional loot value to maps for objectives would make it somehow more interesting or strategic. I guess you can say that this tourney, like Thievery itself, is still in beta!

[act smiley]

Count KTTM in... when I start recruiting tomorrow ;)

Its a very good concept, but seems a bit disorganised -will it have a subforum on yer guild site when it starts or something LR?

[Kiech Bepho]

Count KTTM in... when I start recruiting tomorrow ;)

What does KTTM stand for?

Kiech

[LaughingRat]

Count KTTM in... when I start recruiting tomorrow ;)

Its a very good concept, but seems a bit disorganised -will it have a subforum on yer guild site when it starts or something LR?

When you get a guild together, let me know then. Probably won't have a subforum for it at Crackaz, even though it would be easier for me to administer, since this site is really the community center. Thwark has promised to help out with some dedicated announcement threads here.

[act smiley]

You think I can't lose in style on my own ? ;)
Just a bit of warning :)


Community centre or not, it would make things a lot easier than having some stickies, though a sub-forum here would be the ideal solution, IMO :)

[poe]

this was too long to read =(

[assassin]

yes we did sighn up on the first page!!!!

[Buho]

So, there are only three challenges? Y'all chicken? When you going to fight? I want to see some action here! :guard: :chase: :bj:

[LaughingRat]

So, there are only three challenges? Y'all chicken? When you going to fight? I want to see some action here! :guard: :chase: :bj:

Really. Me too. What happened to ToB? I remember a time when they were ALMOST a force to be reckoned with....

[Kiech Bepho]

ShadowRodent had a good pick to challenge somebody, but I guess his guild decided to hold back for now. Maybe everyone is waiting for 1.3? Personally, I would want to take advantage of 1.2 right now and grab a map before it changes.

Ah well.

[NeoPendragon]

So, there are only three challenges? Y'all chicken? When you going to fight? I want to see some action here! :guard: :chase: :bj:

Really. Me too. What happened to ToB? I remember a time when they were ALMOST a force to be reckoned with....

Well, I've been mapping and testing. DP is busy with school I think...don't know about everyone else.

[DarkProject]

i'm not THAT busy...i kindda want 1.3 so we can have the new version of our map :)...

anway LR...we ARE a force not to be messed with...that's why we still got no challenge :D

....just wait...we will challenge shortly

[LaughingRat]

anway LR...we ARE a force not to be messed with...that's why we still got no challenge :D

....just wait...we will challenge shortly

http://www.chickenlover.ca/lover/cfo_barn/chicken.gif
*BAWK*BAWK*BAWK*BAAAAWWWK*

*watches sadly as DP pecks at seeds on ground....*

[WildBill]

anway LR...we ARE a force not to be messed with...that's why we still got no challenge :D

....just wait...we will challenge shortly

You guys sound like the FAGs bragging about their perfect win/loss record, which exists only because they've never played.

[DarkProject]

anway LR...we ARE a force not to be messed with...that's why we still got no challenge :D

....just wait...we will challenge shortly

You guys sound like the FAGs bragging about their perfect win/loss record, which exists only because they've never played.

I'm sorry but we were teh FIRST GUILD to EVER challenge another guild. and we didn't LOSE....we TIED :P

go get your facts straight.

we are planning to challenge some one soon...and right now we need more members seeing as we have a few that are inactive

[DarkProject]

http://www.chickenlover.ca/lover/cfo_barn/chicken.gif



you are a cock :guard:

[Buho]

That's a hen.

And about a bunch of inactive members, maybe you wouldn't have so many inactive members if you had a match every weekend!

[DarkProject]

That's a hen.

And about a bunch of inactive members, maybe you wouldn't have so many inactive members if you had a match every weekend!

we don't have many inactive members...maybe 1...but we don't have too many members because we kicked a lot. anyway...it doesn't matter, i said it once and i'll not say it again

[Yenzarill]

I'll see what i can stir up within the guild... sounds fun...

[Buho]

we don't have many inactive members...maybe 1...but we don't have too many members because we kicked a lot. anyway...it doesn't matter, i said it once and i'll not say it again
Didn't mean to accuse. Forgot my ":ebil:"

[Kiech Bepho]

New rule suggestion on the topic of New Maps:

Any new map that is brought up for discussion/vote shall be limited to a loot value maximum of 1000.

Simple, a good, round number, and it will let maps that, while quite playable and enjoyable, have a rather high loot value be considered serioulsy for TurfWars.

Any thoughts?

Kiech

[LaughingRat]

New rule suggestion on the topic of New Maps:

Any new map that is brought up for discussion/vote shall be limited to a loot value maximum of 1000.

Simple, a good, round number, and it will let maps that, while quite playable and enjoyable, have a rather high loot value be considered serioulsy for TurfWars.

Any thoughts?

Kiech

The rules already allow the guilds to set the TurfWars loot value for maps whose loot requirements are too high. I'm not sure, but I think a max of 1500 was included.

*goes to check*

[Kiech Bepho]

Ahh. At the very end, it states:

 If the loot requirement of a new custom map is ridiculously high, guildmasters will decide how much worth it will be with a vote. This does not, however, artificially or otherwise change the loot requirement of the map in-game.

Sorry I missed that.