Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TurfWars Rules Revisions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LaughingRat
    replied
    Kore:

    If you challenge a specific map, and they lose that map before you play them, your challenge is withdrawn. However, if you challenge them without naming a map, you can play them on any map in their possession at the time the challenge map has to be named, which isn't until the beginning of the match.

    You're right, though, that isn't clear in the rules, and I should clean up the wording. However, that is the logical outcome of the way it's currently worded.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kiech Bepho
    replied
    In that case Kore, the challenger can choose to back out of the match or change what map it is going after. It's probably a good idea to not declare what map you want to take over in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • [RLF]Kore (V)acLoed
    replied
    LR:

    I have a question about challenging that does not seem to be clear from the rules. When a guild challenges another guild are they; A: challenging that guilds current maps? or B: Challenging the maps owned when the match takes place.

    So if guild X challenges guild Y and declares "payback" as the map they want. However guild Y has a match with guild Z before and loses "payback" is the match with guild X cancelled? Or do they just pick another map?

    Or if guild X challenges guild Y and does not declare a map. And before that match guild Y beats guild Z and acquires a new map. Does guild X now have the option of attacking the newly acquired map? Or are they only allowed to match on one of the maps guild Y had when the challenge was made?

    I hope that makes sense. It did when I typed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaughingRat
    replied
    Originally posted by Shug
    Which also brings up another point: can a match be postponed and if so, how many times? I think it should be allowed to be postponed once and only once unless both guilds reach an agreement, however the final match date MUST fall inside that period of 4 or so weeks.
    If you're going to allow postponement of a match, but require it fall within 4 weeks anyway, you might as well allow it to be postponed any number of times, as long as it falls within the time requirement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shug
    replied
    LR: with regards to the scheduling of a match within two weeks of the challenge date, I think the match should be played within four weeks (of either the challenge date or the agreement date, in cases of postponement) or else the map is forfeited.

    Which also brings up another point: can a match be postponed and if so, how many times? I think it should be allowed to be postponed once and only once unless both guilds reach an agreement, however the final match date MUST fall inside that period of 4 or so weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kiech Bepho
    replied
    What Salvage said, but make it the number of maps. Of course, guilds that have never had a map should still get a chance to simply recieve it first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salvage
    replied
    Possible addendum to challenging an attempt for new turf(new maps):

    Only guilds which have the same amount of turf or less than the guild which is attempting the takeover can challenge the attempt.

    Turf in this case either defined by maps owned or loot value of the maps, I'm not sure which would be best.


    I can see this as speeding up the challenge/attempt process, while giving the guilds with less turf a better chance to get back in the game. This will most likely prolong the wars overall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kiech Bepho
    replied
    Thinking about the new points brought up, what needs to be added is a 'grievence' procedure. If a guild has a Turfwars issue such as the challenger not agreeing to a schedule, or 2 guilds that schedule their match a year out. Obviously, this should apply to more than just those 2 points.

    -Any guild that has a grievence with another must bring the issue up with the Tournament Director(thats you LR.) The TD will attempt to moderate the issue at hand. If a resolution cannot be reached, then each side must produce a solution that is acceptable to them, and the guildmasters will be called to vote on the issue. The solution that recieves the most votes will be then applied.

    I think thats fair. Grank(for the most part-excuse me if I am off base here) is running CTG's matches, so I don't think there will be much of an issue if LR has to moderate a dispute against the CTG, as if unresolved, will go to a vote anyways.

    And for the part of rescheduling:

    -If a match needs to be recheduled for any reason other than server crashes/unavailibity, then both guilds must agree to a time before the match is to take place.

    Not sure on that last one. But I like the grievence system.

    Kiech

    Leave a comment:


  • LaughingRat
    replied
    TD:

    First off, you'd be grandfathered in on this one, since the challenge was made before any rule change would take place.

    Second, the revision only requires that the match be SCHEDULED within two weeks. The match can take place beyond those two weeks, but it has to be set up within that time.

    It's not really feasible to allow a guild to refuse a match. Consider, who would accept a challenge from a guild, if losing it means the challenging guild would win the tournament? And if there's a guild in such a postition that they only need one map to win, who would ever challenge that guild? Allowing a match to be refused essentially means no one would ever win. One or two guilds might get close, and the other guilds would basically keep battling it out down below.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kiech Bepho
    replied
    I don't think you should be allowed to refuse a challenge. Its just not sporting. However, looking at the rule from your point of view, its kinda spotty, and the challenging guild could simply not agree to any schedule, and take the map by default. On the other side, 2 guilds could choose to declare a date for sometime next year, thus protecting them from any challenges indefinatley. I don't think any of the guilds would ever try that, but it could happen.

    However, I don't know how to sympathize with the fact that your guild is unable to play TurfWars.

    I amazingly don't have a solution prepared right now, but it brings up a few points.

    Kiech

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Dan
    replied
    Originally posted by LaughingRat
    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.
    Please no, I'm having enough trouble getting our match sorted as it is.

    We couldn't do last week because we didn't have a server, & now I find out that only two members of FAG are able to make this Sunday

    This means that larger guilds could easily bully the smaller guilds into forfeiting the match, because they haven't been allowed the right to refuse a challenge.

    Please allow guilds to refuse a challenge, since it's not as though the attacking guild has nothing to lose or the challenged guild would gain anything from refusing challenges (they wouldn't be moving anywhere on their current loot total & so are no closer to winning).

    Leave a comment:


  • LaughingRat
    replied
    Originally posted by DarkBill
    Once I finish this research paper I'm writing I'll have a bit of input.
    What's more important, your "research paper", or TufrWars?!? Gotta get your priorities straight, man!

    Leave a comment:


  • DarkBill
    replied
    Once I finish this research paper I'm writing I'll have a bit of input.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kiech Bepho
    replied
    Actually, I am told I might be accepted into a guild soon. That and I hate to see posts go unanswered.

    Kiech

    Leave a comment:


  • LaughingRat
    replied
    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:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X