TurfWars Rules Revisions

[LaughingRat]

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.

[Kiech Bepho]

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

[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.

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.

[[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

[Kiech Bepho]

You misunderstood Buho, new maps aren't the lifeblood of TurfWars, but rather of TUT. Case in point: Thief fan missions.

Kiech

[LaughingRat]

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!

[Kiech Bepho]

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!

[Salvage]

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?

[Kiech Bepho]

Only if the bank accepts it, and only after it clears.

[Kiech Bepho]

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.

[LaughingRat]

(ahem)

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

[Kiech Bepho]

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

[LaughingRat]

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.

[WildBill]

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.

[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.