Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: TurfWars Rules Revisions

  1. #1
    Proposed addition to START UP/Joining Late section:
    • A guild that joins late and can't choose turf from the unclaimed turf pool because there is none cannot claim any maps added to that pool later without going through the takeover procedure.
    Allowing guilds that have joined late and without turf to simply have any maps added will be a deterrent to allowing more maps into the TurfWar. In addition, any guild that joins late should have to struggle for their postition.

    Proposed addition to PLAYING/Match - setup section:
    • A challenged guild must respond to a challenge within two weeks of the date it's made. If the match is not scheduled by that time, the challenged guild forfeits one map of the challenger's choice, to go into the unclaimed turf pool.
    The reasoning behind this is too keep things moving, and not allow one guild to hold up the entire tournament. This provides a penalty, without allowing the challenging guild to gain a map for nothing. A potential problem is the challenging guild demanding unreasonable match conditions, making it impossible for the challenged guild to set up a match.

    Proposed addition to PLAYING/Match - rounds section:
    • If the server the match is being played on crashes three times during the match, the match is considered void and must be rescheduled.
    If this occurs, the server or it's connection is probably not stable at that time. It may just be best to reschedule the match. I don't see any room for abuse in this rule.

    • If a team loses 1/3 or more of its lives in a round due to random disconnects, the round must be started over.
    I'm dubious about this. Any player matching should make sure they have a stable connection, but sometimes problems occur. However, I can see it being open to abuse by players just disconnecting if a guild wants a replay. I have a vague idea how to handle that, but I'm still formulating it.

    Proposed addition to PLAYING/Skirmishing section:
    • If the guild attempting to takeover an unclaimed map defeat the guild challenging that takeover, that guild can choose to take the tiebreaker map provided by the challenger instead of the unclaimed map. If the guild elects to do so, the remaining challenges to the takeover attempt are dropped, and the unclaimed map is returned to the unclaimed pool.
    This prevents a guild attempting to take over an unclaimed map from potentially acquiring the takeover map as well as one map from every guild challenging the takeover attempt, while still requiring the guild challenging the takeover to take some risk.

    I think this covers all the issues and ambiguities brought to light to date. Some of this is very rough and will need to be refined before being voted into the rules by the participating guilds. Every attempt has been made to be fair, while still allowing guilds who've joined by the deadline to retain an advantage for having been prompt in their responses.

    Questions, comment and suggestion? Contact me.

    Flames, hate mail and death threats should go to Grank.

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    First: Confirmed that LR wants replies here. You might read his post as 'PM the suggestions to me'

    Anyways, my suggestion to start:

    I like the rules, but the first one is a bit edgy to me since I think new maps need to be promoted - as they will be the lifeblood of the game. The old idea of 'if you haven't had a map yet and have been waiting the longest' sounded pretty good to me. It promotes new maps and gives guilds an opportunity to 'catch up' in the game.

    Not to mention that more playable maps will spice up turfwars a lot more.

    Kiech

  3. #3
    Member Buho's Avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hey guess what? Santa Hat season is coming...
    Posts
    1,562
    In response to Kiech:

    I might be nit-picking, but I disagree that new maps are the "lifeblood" of TurfWars. I don't see too many maps being added to TurfWars, considering how long they take to make, and I don't see a guild creating a map especially for TurfWars as a strategy to boost their points.

    More back to the point of the revisions, I think they are good, although I think unresponded-challenged-guilds loosing a "random" map needs tweaking. First of all, it's a bit unrealistic that a map from the challenged guild goes into the unclaimed turf. Seems to me that the challenger should acquire it by default. However, I understand that fairness supercedes realism (thieving and guarding your own map to defend the turf, for instance). In short, I agree with that. My second point to that is I think the map penalised should not be chosen by the challenger, but rather the map be the map challenged. I don't see any reason why it should be at the challenger's disgression. For simplicity, just make it the map. Oh, unless the challenger never announced which map they were to take over, in which case, nevermind.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Elsewhere.
    Posts
    677
    maybe its how i read it but he said of the game not of Turf Wars-meaning the more fan missions made the more Thievery will survive. I also agree with Kiech
    [E.D.G] "Eaves Droppers Guild - we're on the edge."

    All New Thievery-O's!

  5. #5
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    You misunderstood Buho, new maps aren't the lifeblood of TurfWars, but rather of TUT. Case in point: Thief fan missions.

    Kiech

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Buho
    My second point to that is I think the map penalised should not be chosen by the challenger, but rather the map be the map challenged. I don't see any reason why it should be at the challenger's disgression. For simplicity, just make it the map. Oh, unless the challenger never announced which map they were to take over, in which case, nevermind.
    Heh. At the beginning of this I was already composing my reply, but I see you ended up in the same place I did!

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by [E.D.G
    Chief]maybe its how i read it but he said of the game not of Turf Wars-meaning the more fan missions made the more Thievery will survive. I also agree with Kiech
    Yea! A completely unbiased player agrees with me! Wait a minute...LOL!

    Now that my post is cleared up for you, Buho, what do you think?

    Please note: Kiech Bepho does not accept bribes from anyone unless its a lot of cash-money. I haven't been offered any such bribes yet. Please send money and I will support you too!

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the conservatory with the lead pipe.
    Posts
    1,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    Please note: Kiech Bepho does not accept bribes from anyone unless its a lot of cash-money. I haven't been offered any such bribes yet. Please send money and I will support you too!
    So what about the oversized award cheques?

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Only if the bank accepts it, and only after it clears.

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Buho
    In response to Kiech:

    I might be nit-picking, but I disagree that new maps are the "lifeblood" of TurfWars. I don't see too many maps being added to TurfWars, considering how long they take to make, and I don't see a guild creating a map especially for TurfWars as a strategy to boost their points.
    I missed the second little part of this sentance, sorry, Buho. All maps have to be approved by the other guilds to become part of TurfWars. If the map is horrible, then it won't be accepted. If a good map is made, then why do you care if the creator benefits a little bit from it? But it would be a little obsure for that scenario to happen anyways. They would have to make a map, then put themselves into Turfwars, then hold the map and not win any challenges, and pass up any opportunites to claim other 'unclaimed' maps until you become the senior 'never had a map' guild.

    Sounds kinda boring, entering a match but never playing. You can even add the stipulation, 'if you never had a map, and a new map comes into the pool, when you have a map pick availible, you must pick a map or forfiet your right to do so.

  11. #11
    (ahem)

    Still looking for comments on the rules additions....

  12. #12
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Again, everything looks good to me except for the points I mentioned. However, you have no procedure for voting in new maps. How long will the guilds have to vote? How much discussion is needed? Will the vote be handled by e-mails to you, or some other means? What happens if a guildleader is not able to vote, may a proxy (subject to confirmation) vote in his place?

    Kiech

  13. #13
    SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!!

    There's a rough outline of a procedure. It requires more than a 50% vote. A week seems like more than enough time, and there's one vote per guild, doesn't matter who makes it, as long as it is, in fact, the guild's vote.

  14. #14
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Shadows
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    You misunderstood Buho, new maps aren't the lifeblood of TurfWars, but rather of TUT. Case in point: Thief fan missions.

    Kiech
    Thief was a single player game. Thievery is a multiplayer game. Thievery doesn't need new maps to not be boring after a while, single player games do.
    Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

  15. #15
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkBill
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    You misunderstood Buho, new maps aren't the lifeblood of TurfWars, but rather of TUT. Case in point: Thief fan missions.

    Kiech
    Thief was a single player game. Thievery is a multiplayer game. Thievery doesn't need new maps to not be boring after a while, single player games do.
    I am not going to argue over that point. We simply disagree.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkBill
    Thief was a single player game. Thievery is a multiplayer game. Thievery doesn't need new maps to not be boring after a while, single player games do.
    Sorry, DB, gotta disagree with you here. The existing maps are VERY rich with possibilities, but at some point, people will get sick of playing them, just like with every other first person online game. It'll happen a lot more slowly than with a single player game, because human opponents offer a much wider variety of opposition, but it will happen.

  17. #17
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Shadows
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by LaughingRat
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkBill
    Thief was a single player game. Thievery is a multiplayer game. Thievery doesn't need new maps to not be boring after a while, single player games do.
    Sorry, DB, gotta disagree with you here. The existing maps are VERY rich with possibilities, but at some point, people will get sick of playing them, just like with every other first person online game. It'll happen a lot more slowly than with a single player game, because human opponents offer a much wider variety of opposition, but it will happen.
    Mayhaps. I think multiplayer games are far more focused on the players, while single player games are more focused on the map and the story. I was objecting more to the analogy Kiech was drawing than to his actual point, although I don't believe fan maps will be very important to Thievery.
    Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    You just didn't like the analogy? Compare it to Quake, Doom, Unreal, DukeNukem, or any other host of games that have a map editor. Using Thief was just convienent.

    And I do think the players are the focus. But I also think the new maps help refresh the game and keep more players while adding new ones to it. Right now we have a great DEV team that is working hard to make the game work its best, and the players know it. But someday they will be done, and there will be no more 'suprises' or 'suggestions' to argue over. New maps will help continue that spirit, along with the players.

    Kiech

  19. #19
    Member DarkProject's Avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    CA, USA born in Lithuania
    Posts
    1,554
    sounds fine...but with my disconnecting luck i bet ever match will have to be started over and noone will ever win :roll: .....damn new ctg server !

    why in the hell do these random disconnects occur?

  20. #20
    So, now that this digression is over (ahem), are there any more comments or suggestions on the rules revisions? In particular, I'm not happy with the section on disconnects during a match.

  21. #21
    Member Buho's Avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hey guess what? Santa Hat season is coming...
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    Quote Originally Posted by Buho
    In response to Kiech:

    I might be nit-picking, but I disagree that new maps are the "lifeblood" of TurfWars. I don't see too many maps being added to TurfWars, considering how long they take to make, and I don't see a guild creating a map especially for TurfWars as a strategy to boost their points.
    I missed the second little part of this sentance, sorry, Buho. All maps have to be approved by the other guilds to become part of TurfWars. If the map is horrible, then it won't be accepted. If a good map is made, then why do you care if the creator benefits a little bit from it? But it would be a little obsure for that scenario to happen anyways. They would have to make a map, then put themselves into Turfwars, then hold the map and not win any challenges, and pass up any opportunites to claim other 'unclaimed' maps until you become the senior 'never had a map' guild.
    Whups, yeah. I forgot new maps must be voted on. As to new maps being the "lifeblood" of Thievery, mm, ok, but unless they equal or exceed the quality of the "official" maps, I won't play them as much or at all. I abhore ameture maps. Too many sucky maps and they will turn me off to Thievery. But that's just IMHO. Also, we have no reason to expect new maps in 1.4, do we? That means fan maps are all that's left to come.

    Looking for feedback, LR? on all of your points.

    I wonder what Thievery and its community will be like in 12 months....

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Buho
    Whups, yeah. I forgot new maps must be voted on. As to new maps being the "lifeblood" of Thievery, mm, ok, but unless they equal or exceed the quality of the "official" maps, I won't play them as much or at all. I abhore ameture maps. Too many sucky maps and they will turn me off to Thievery. But that's just IMHO. Also, we have no reason to expect new maps in 1.4, do we? That means fan maps are all that's left to come.
    A couple "amateur" maps that have been made already are QUITE good. TH-Archery, for instance, and TH-Breandor. Once downloads are enabled and we have a redirect server set up, those are going into rotation on the Crackaz server.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buho
    Looking for feedback, LR? on all of your points.
    GRRR! I'm not looking for a thumbs up on everything. Critique, take it apart, tell me what you think is WRONG with it. As I said, the part on disconnects I'm particularly dissatisfied with, as I think it's far too open for abuse. I just haven't come up with a way to make it NOT open to abuse.

  23. #23
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by LaughingRat
    If a team loses 1/3 or more of its lives in a round due to random disconnects, the round must be started over.
    I'm dubious about this. Any player matching should make sure they have a stable connection, but sometimes problems occur. However, I can see it being open to abuse by players just disconnecting if a guild wants a replay. I have a vague idea how to handle that, but I'm still formulating it.
    If a team experiences several random disconnects during a match, they may ask the other team for a restart of that map. Only one restart is permitted per match.

    Now ettiquete will determine if a restart is acceptable, and it can only be allowed once per match.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    If a team experiences several random disconnects during a match, they may ask the other team for a restart of that map. Only one restart is permitted per match.

    Now ettiquete will determine if a restart is acceptable, and it can only be allowed once per match.
    You think only once per match, and not once per round within the match?

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Yes. If a team has players that keep dropping, then there is probably an issue with the players computer, however, I am already pondering a revision on that:

    If a team experiences several random disconnects during a match, they may ask the other team for a restart of that map. Only one restart may be approved for each team per match.

    A little better. It allows a 'if you scratch my back i'll scratch yours' policy. No more than one per team though. If a player continues to drop, they should have an alternate ready to go. Still mandated by ettiquete, and guild discression.

    Kiech

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    If a team experiences several random disconnects during a match, they may ask the other team for a restart of that map. Only one restart may be approved for each team per match.
    Personally, I'd rather go with this.

  27. #27
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Good. Did we cover all the issues now?

  28. #28
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Oh, I know what you forgot.

    "Guilds that wish to participate in TurfWars must publish their member list publicly."

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiech Bepho
    Good. Did we cover all the issues now?
    You and I did, and to a lesser degree, Buho. No one else has had anything to say, though.

    Funny how all the input is coming from people not in guilds. :wink:

  30. #30
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,462
    Actually, I am told I might be accepted into a guild soon. That and I hate to see posts go unanswered.

    Kiech

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Turf Wars II - The Awakening. Map, Rules & Challenges.
    By ]>CoD<[Chief in forum Thievery Guilds
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th Oct 2004, 12:40 PM
  2. Designing the New TurfWars
    By Biohazard in forum Thievery Guilds
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 24th Sep 2004, 10:09 PM
  3. Standard Guild Match Rules
    By WildBill in forum Thievery Guilds
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 24th Sep 2003, 11:32 AM
  4. Forum Rules
    By Thwark in forum Community Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26th Jul 2003, 07:40 AM
  5. A simple list of forum rules
    By Thwark in forum Community Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 6th Apr 2003, 07:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •