Clean up clan forums + IDEA

I like the idea ...and i want to enter ;d

i disagree with two rules

- If you were challenged and lost on that map, you can try to regain it as many times as you'd like throughout the month. You must wait 24 hours to issue a challenge on a map you have lost. To be official, challenges must be posted in the forum. A screenshot from chat would also be acceptable of an agreement, but must be posted on the forum for verification.

*i think we need limit this...
*like if you lose you can try regain max 3 times...if you dont regain...well try take other maps and/or players ;d

**If a player defends any one of his own maps successfully 10 times, the player has the choice to no longer accept challenges on the map, the map will be locked and will officially be controlled for the remainder of the month by whichever faction holds it** (Not sure about this rule??? I think I like it.)

-i like this rule but need balance it with 6th rule(or first rule, i think need balance/limit revenge)

-most maps in cd/dc are nice for 2x2 3x3 or maybe 4x4...i think one faction can try take maps from another in team maps whatever player(holder of map is on), like one time per map per weekend...


sorry for my english

and great idea...congratulation clay and sammael ;d

Yeah what are we going to do about 2v2? 3v3? 4v4? Do those challanges just effect maps under 1 person's name? If a map can accomadate 8 players, must all 8 players be present? Or should it only reflect upon the challange? ex. sewers or angvirs.

Maps:
I think when we count up the points each map should be scored like this
# of players divided by 1/2 rounded up and that is what the map is worth? (w a min. of 1)
2 player = 1 (1v1)
3 player = 2 (2v1)
4 player = 2 (2v2)
5 player = 3 (2v3)
6 player = 3 (3v3)
7 player = 4 (3v4)
8 player = 4 (4v4)

Which would then make a person who has sewers or angvirs a main target more frequently.
I challange you 1v1 on sewers. I win and my team gains 4 points at the end bc I own the map.
(if I dont accept the challange in 10 days, I lose the map anyways)

Is that fair?
Actually that sounds EPIC to me!

We can limit games of tournament...like...each player have 20 tickets for 1x1 and 20 tickets for teams game... with this we can limit influence of one player hardcore in result total ;/ ... 40 tickets maybe be much ;/. just sugestion

and 2x1 3x2 4x3 is unfair ;/... i think this no will work...

sharman wrote:

We can limit games of tournament...like...each player have 20 tickets for 1x1 and 20 tickets for teams game... with this we can limit influence of one player hardcore in result total ;/ ... 40 tickets maybe be much ;/. just sugestion

and 2x1 3x2 4x3 is unfair ;/... i think this no will work...

I dont like the tickets for the games.
I think sammael mentioned above if you dont have any maps you are out or something, right?

No tickets... and yes if you have no map you are not allow to play, but i guess that a month is too much. Like i said before it all depends of the number. And this forum will be hard to look. So i recommend a own forum to this. Where we can put challenges as treads not as post in a topic. It would be easier and cleaner.

Btw idk if you guys notice but we have now 15 online and 7 are logged. Long time huh???

Edit.

And i also dont like the 2v3, 4v3 etc games. The probably to lose is higher and its not fair, maybe in a real war that would happen, but we cant call for backup and then a saviour come and let the game equiparate (ex:3v3) lol I know it was quite crazy but i guess you got it ^^

Yeah for team games something would have to be worked out.. Idea is still in its infancy stages obviously so alot needs to be worked out.

But as far as you not having any maps and you're out.. There's obvious ways to get around not losing all your maps. If you're down to 1 map of your own you can delay the challenge (if you're scared =P) until you play a few of the people you've challenged and try to take maps off them. I mean really, you'd have to lose like 10 games in a row to lose all of your territories/maps...

I think the structure allows for quite a bit of playability. Cause remember it's not just your own four starting maps. If you start with four and then win two matches where you were the challenger on someone elses map.. you'd then have 6 maps. You would then have to lose 6 times defending separate maps without defeating anyone else on their own maps in order to actually get knocked out for the month.

I think the vast majority of us are good enough to not lose 8-10 times in a row regardless of map. And if you do.. you probably deserve to be knocked out for the rest of that month and work on your game for next months competition.

Faction Points

As Sammael states below, faction points will be awarded to players who show outstanding gameplay and prove themselves worthy.

Sammael wrote:

And instead of doing game by game faction points, you would be awarded faction points for the next month when it restarts, giving the team who won the prior month an advantage.


Below will be ways you can earn Faction Points:
1)Player with the most maps = 1 point
2)The team who collects the most maps (winners) = 1 point each
3)Defend all 4 of your original maps without a single loss = 1 point
4)If your team takes over the entire world of Darien = 3 points each
5)First player to get knocked out = 1 point???? (i think we should give the weakest link an advantage for the next month, just saying)
6)Defeat a player who is on a 10 win streak = 1 point
7)Win 10 consecutive games = 1 point

Agreed to all of the above.

The next thing to cover would be what the points allow you to do.

I suggest:

1. Adding a map that had previously not been available to pick (3rd party included) (you stated this originally)
2. Removing a unit from ALL games (for instance no one could use a Treb, or a Blade Demon, or a Neo Dragon or something) for all games in the next Darien Crusades period.
3. **Possibly giving a player an extra starting map, at the end after everyone has picked their four maps they could add a fifth map to begin the next campaign with.
4. Remove a map that had been originally included so that NO one can pick it for the next campaign.
5. Exclude one side from using one of the races (this would have to cost like 4-5 points or something since it's a rather massive disadvantage)

These things would reset at the start or end (however you wish to look at it) of each campaign (i've started calling each month a campaign incase you hadn't noticed by now).

And lastly.. everyone start telling people to show interest in this. I think it'd be a fun competition but we need at least 12-16 people to really get it to work I believe. So Angel/Noob/any other BR guys... talk to guys like Junior and Ricardo and other guys that don't ever or rarely visit the forums and see if they'd be willing to give this a shot.

The more the better.

If we can get a at least 12 people to say they're in we can get Sage to give us a forum for it and actually have an organized Rules page etc and begin actual organization of it. And by all means if anyone has any objections or things to add make sure you speak up. Clay and I have been making shit up as we go along basically so nothings really finalized. We're still just spitting out ideas.

NOOBHAWK wrote:

we r terror but that doesnt mean we r the bad guys... honor guys lie behind a bunch of hipocresy that is their code! opressors! we'll take the real bad guys down, they just want power and luxury but they cant control what they dont haver power to control!

we shall meet in battle

* What Noobhawk says is true, unfortunately. The side-team-fraction-kingdom of Honor has two really twisted guys, the fallen angel known as Angel3b and the paranoid I-want-to-conquer-the-galaxy guy known as Arthan. So, it is true, we are not the good guys, however the silly villagers and townsfolk of Darien will be fooled by our Honor emblem and they believe that we are the good guys. At the same time, your Terror emblem will make them to be afraid of you and it makes you look like the bad guys of Darien. Our propaganda for recruiting new troops is superb, we will have fresh meat for cannon fodder soon enough to destroy you once and for all, hahahahaha!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"For the Honor!. I can barely keep myself from laughing as I say aloud these three words in front of the citizens of East Kaluen. These Aramonian folks are so easy to be fooled. Just look at them! They already cry 'for the Honor' along with me and they are ready to join our army as poor-equipped foot soldiers who will be the first ones to fall in the upcoming war. I'm so glad I will not be along them, but I will command them from the safety of my office, sending these villagers right into their certain death! For the Honor! Just three words, giving so much hope to these desperate people and so much death to them as well. For the honor! I pay such a low price to say this phrase, but these commoners will pay such a high price in order to see that phrase coming true. For the honor! Foolish people, there is NO honor in a war..." - ARTHAN

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* So, EvilCleric is Sharman, interesting!

* I like most of the tournament rules, however they are a little unbalanced in some issues. 1v2, 2v3, 3v4 maps should be excluded, except if the extra player is a neutral AI. Defending 10 times in a row a single map in order to lock it as your own is too much. I believe 3 times in a row are enough. This is just my personal opinion, I do not want to force anyone to accept it.

Quote :

* I like most of the tournament rules, however they are a little unbalanced in some issues. 1v2, 2v3, 3v4 maps should be excluded, except if the extra player is a neutral AI. Defending 10 times in a row a single map in order to lock it as your own is too much. I believe 3 times in a row are enough. This is just my personal opinion, I do not want to force anyone to accept it.

I will agree 10 might be too high. I think it's in the ball park though. 3 is entirely too low though. Since people are going to try to be picking maps they would be best on, most players on their favorite map would be able to win 3 times in a row.. The point is to reward the extraordinary, not the expected. I could see an arguement for...7-8. Because you don't want all the maps locked up.. if all the maps get locked up quickly it's not very much fun. The locking up of a map is for someone who has far exceeded expectations and should be rewarded.

Ok...
I guess we must finish the rules first. After that then we must see who is going take part of this. And after all, we can make poll, its way better as democratic i guess it will be the most wise.

I want to know some other things.

First its about the time to challenge a map of certain player, after he hold it for a game. See lets think if i have a map, and i was challenged. I play it and i win. I know that the player who i won cant challenge me in a time of 24 hours (for what i see is that time), but others are not included in that count. I wont doubt that we will have about 7 players each side playing so, they would be able to challenge me. I guess it would be a limit per day to be challenged, one lost then come other, and other and other. It will be crazy. Idk maybe someone could just be challenge on 3 maps in a day, that means one player can have the chance of not go out in a single day, and doesnt have to fight about 7 games in a single, i guess that would be annoying.

Second i will put as an example, I just can challenge Noobhawk Sewers about 3 times. If i lose those 3 i cant challeng him in that map anymore until it change the owner. If he once be the owner again i can challenge. Would be a second way to keep a map instead 10 in a row, it open more possibilities. Or you win 10 in a row, or you win 3 challenges of everyone of other team. Its hard but why not?

Third is about when you win a map. You can have a time of about 1 day or 2 to no play in it, just like a prize, this one i dont consider too much. But isnt that bad. We could also put a limit to dont accept matches when you just win. Lets suppose its 3, you just can decide to not play in a map you just won in 3 times.

The other thing would be a limit to back down with a challenge. Then, you cant back down any time as you wish. Ffs this is a war there will be no mercy. With this you can back down with a challenge in the right time for your team.
Ex: You didnt back down once, but you do in the final of the month, when you can secure some maps for your team, that can in the end secure you a point.

I find these 3 of those 4 are very interesting in this point, for one thing. Strategy, you and your team must discuss who will attack who, have a second plan if doesnt work the first one. You can even lost a map purpose to a better player of your team have it later. That can secure at least a point of player with most maps. I really like it because it gives us so many options to do as a real war. Think, decide and act.
But most of all take a right decision, that would give even more importance to the leader of the Faction (or Fraction idk), to make decision and allow or not certains attacks, or give ups.

Maybe i trip too much to another world lol.

ARTHAN wrote:

NOOBHAWK wrote:

we r terror but that doesnt mean we r the bad guys... honor guys lie behind a bunch of hipocresy that is their code! opressors! we'll take the real bad guys down, they just want power and luxury but they cant control what they dont haver power to control!

we shall meet in battle

* What Noobhawk says is true, unfortunately. The side-team-fraction-kingdom of Honor has two really twisted guys, the fallen angel known as Angel3b and the paranoid I-want-to-conquer-the-galaxy guy known as Arthan. So, it is true, we are not the good guys, however the silly villagers and townsfolk of Darien will be fooled by our Honor emblem and they believe that we are the good guys. At the same time, your Terror emblem will make them to be afraid of you and it makes you look like the bad guys of Darien. Our propaganda for recruiting new troops is superb, we will have fresh meat for cannon fodder soon enough to destroy you once and for all, hahahahaha!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"For the Honor!. I can barely keep myself from laughing as I say aloud these three words in front of the citizens of East Kaluen. These Aramonian folks are so easy to be fooled. Just look at them! They already cry 'for the Honor' along with me and they are ready to join our army as poor-equipped foot soldiers who will be the first ones to fall in the upcoming war. I'm so glad I will not be along them, but I will command them from the safety of my office, sending these villagers right into their certain death! For the Honor! Just three words, giving so much hope to these desperate people and so much death to them as well. For the honor! I pay such a low price to say this phrase, but these commoners will pay such a high price in order to see that phrase coming true. For the honor! Foolish people, there is NO honor in a war..." - ARTHAN

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* So, EvilCleric is Sharman, interesting!

* I like most of the tournament rules, however they are a little unbalanced in some issues. 1v2, 2v3, 3v4 maps should be excluded, except if the extra player is a neutral AI. Defending 10 times in a row a single map in order to lock it as your own is too much. I believe 3 times in a row are enough. This is just my personal opinion, I do not want to force anyone to accept it.

So you guys got it. If you want be bad be the good, if you want be the good be the bad.
Btw good letter Arthan

I like how some of you guys are really getting into this, into like character.

So I'm trying to think of a ranking system, based on wins, and wins per race; involving titles/shields like how boneyards used to have. I dont recall how it worked so we will just make our own.

I'll have a jab at this later, once I get home and can look up the houses of Darien, etc.
(I still have the original book and foldout map)



We wouldn't have any Kings or Queens because those titles are reserved for the monarchs.
I'm basically thinking the feudal system. (ranking based on wins)

Lowest to Highest
Pesant = 10 wins
Knight = 25 wins
Lord (trained knights) = 50 wins
Baron = 75 wins
(then 3rd tier builder, aka Shaman, Dark Priest, etc...) = 100 wins
Khandran(requires 2 gold shields of different races). = 150 wins



Then if a player has accumulated a set amount of wins as a certain race, they can first pick a house (I will look them all up later w/ brief history), after that each time they reach a new level of wins they will gain a shield. And I was thinking we can add these things as signitures under our names on the forums.(wins per race)

Ex. I win 10 games as Zhon.
I pick the Zhon house of blah blah blah
I win 25 games as Zhon= I now have a bronze shield.
I win 50 games as Zhon= I now have a silver shield.
I win 75 games as Zhon= I now have a gold shield.

With the possibility of having multiple races.

And I like your ideas angel; maybe someone could clear it up in better english if they understand completely where your coming from.

Also we can also just make another thing to spend faction points on, declining challanges, but I think we have to be careful based on the rules of challanges.
Maybe something along the lines of, able to decline 1 challange- 2 faction points.

Definitely like the BYish shield/ranking system, just adds something else to shoot for on a personal level.

Angel, the thing that prevents you having to play the same map over and over against different challengers is the fact that you have 10 days to accept and play the challenge. So if you've won 2 games on Mithril Run, and someone else challenges you that same day, you aren't required to play them on it for another 9 days. And you can simply tell them if you'd be willing to play a different map, or you can make them wait a few days.

Which now that I'm thinking maybe the ten day period is too long. Maybe shorten it to 7 days? It's a difficult number to pin because you don't want someone to be able to just hold off playing for as long as they can, yet I understand not everyone plays at the same times every day and it may take a few days to be able to actually meet up with someone.

And we'll have to have safeguards.. for instance if someone issues a challenge, and then basically avoids the person because they know if the game isn't played in 10 days they'll receive the map. If the challenged person is active and shows that he's been trying to play the challenger then he shouldn't lose the map until they can find time to play.

Guys, I think it would be better to have a single match on each Cd/Dc map, in which match the ownership of the respective map will be considered. I am starting to think that all these rules will be much more complicated than they seem. We have to keep track of a dozen different things:

* Each player's victories in general.
* Each player's defeats in general.
* Each player's victories with Aramon.
* Each player's defeats with Aramon.
* Each player's victories with Veruna.
* Each player's defeats with Veruna.
* Each player's victories with Taros.
* Each player's defeats with Taros.
* Each player's victories with Zhon.
* Each player's defeats with Zhon.
* Each player's victories with Creon.
* Each player's defeats with Creon.
* Each player's total points.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) total points.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) victories in general.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) defeats in general.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) victories on a certain map.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) defeats on a certain map.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) number of maps it owns.
* Each player's victories on a certain map.
* Each player's defeats on a certain map.
* Each player's number of maps he/she owns.

As you can see, the whole list becomes overhelming with just a single new cool rule we add to the Honor Vs Terror tournament. Don't you think we should just stuck with rules which are more simple yet more reliable and easy to keep track with?

What about a rule where a player can only have 4 challanges going on at a time?
1) 2 incoming
2) 2 outgoing

Same goes for Faction Challanges
(Honor vs Terror)
1) 2 incoming
2) 2 outgoing

So as a single player you can make a 2 challanges, and be challanged 2 times.
The same would go for team challanges. Each team can only make 2 challanges at a time, and have 2 challanges they can accept.

With this, players won't feel as pressured having 3+ challanges against them because they are weaker links. Also with the 7 day rule to accept a challange, there will be some strategy in picking which games you should play, and prolonging others. If you prolong for anything over 7 full days past the time you were challanged, you lose the map. So you have 1 week to meet the challange. Players will also be rewarded if they meet any of the faction rewards, so playing more games will be encouraged. While sitting on your maps, will not give you any advantages in the next campaign.

As for team challanges, I think each team should be allowed 1 free decline per week.
And maybe each player should be allowed 1 free decline per month.

Individual declines would only count for 1v1's. And when challanging a team you cannot specifiy which players, just which map and number of players. I think all maps should have the common online settings. LOS/map revealed on, RSL (so no1 can know where others exactly are), 200 unit limit? or is it 500 now, cheat codes disabled, etc.

Faction point rewards could allow challanges to specify different settings. Another faction point reward could be allowing one of your teammates to defend one of your maps when you are challanged. So ex. Noob challanges me, I use the reward where I could allow Capt to replace me, to defend my map. If Capt wins, I still keep the map, if Capt loses, Noob wins the map. Again, promotes strategy. Because maybe I really like riverlook, but Noob is better than me at it, and I know Capt is better than Noob at it.

_________
Arthan makes a point, tho this is a strategy game, and we are all intelligent. I wanna know what the others think.

Im innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
bitches

ARTHAN wrote:

Guys, I think it would be better to have a single match on each Cd/Dc map, in which match the ownership of the respective map will be considered. I am starting to think that all these rules will be much more complicated than they seem. We have to keep track of a dozen different things:

* Each player's victories in general.
* Each player's defeats in general.
* Each player's victories with Aramon.
* Each player's defeats with Aramon.
* Each player's victories with Veruna.
* Each player's defeats with Veruna.
* Each player's victories with Taros.
* Each player's defeats with Taros.
* Each player's victories with Zhon.
* Each player's defeats with Zhon.
* Each player's victories with Creon.
* Each player's defeats with Creon.
* Each player's total points.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) total points.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) victories in general.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) defeats in general.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) victories on a certain map.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) defeats on a certain map.
* Each fraction's (Honor or Terror) number of maps it owns.
* Each player's victories on a certain map.
* Each player's defeats on a certain map.
* Each player's number of maps he/she owns.

As you can see, the whole list becomes overhelming with just a single new cool rule we add to the Honor Vs Terror tournament. Don't you think we should just stuck with rules which are more simple yet more reliable and easy to keep track with?

When you put it like that it seems a little much, however it really wouldn't be very difficult using a spreadsheet. Would probably take me 20 minutes to make, and we'd just need a section for screenshots and people just post their screenshots after every match and say the map name and i'd plug it in to the spreadsheet in 20 seconds. And then to figure out the faction points the spread sheet would be very simple to read. And a few of the things you listed I don't think we'd actually need to keep track of.. like losses with a certain race.. and losses on any certain map. Cause from my understanding the shield system clay posted is only based on basic amount of wins, not a winning percentage. So that cuts the list of stuff to keep track of in half.

FYI
Fraction = something in math
Faction = a group

=P

Clay4141 wrote:

What about a rule where a player can only have 4 challanges going on at a time?
1) 2 incoming
2) 2 outgoing

Same goes for Faction Challanges
(Honor vs Terror)
1) 2 incoming
2) 2 outgoing

So as a single player you can make a 2 challanges, and be challanged 2 times.
The same would go for team challanges. Each team can only make 2 challanges at a time, and have 2 challanges they can accept.

With this, players won't feel as pressured having 3+ challanges against them because they are weaker links. Also with the 7 day rule to accept a challange, there will be some strategy in picking which games you should play, and prolonging others. If you prolong for anything over 7 full days past the time you were challanged, you lose the map. So you have 1 week to meet the challange. Players will also be rewarded if they meet any of the faction rewards, so playing more games will be encouraged. While sitting on your maps, will not give you any advantages in the next campaign.

As for team challanges, I think each team should be allowed 1 free decline per week.
And maybe each player should be allowed 1 free decline per month.

Individual declines would only count for 1v1's. And when challanging a team you cannot specifiy which players, just which map and number of players. I think all maps should have the common online settings. LOS/map revealed on, RSL (so no1 can know where others exactly are), 200 unit limit? or is it 500 now, cheat codes disabled, etc.

Faction point rewards could allow challanges to specify different settings. Another faction point reward could be allowing one of your teammates to defend one of your maps when you are challanged. So ex. Noob challanges me, I use the reward where I could allow Capt to replace me, to defend my map. If Capt wins, I still keep the map, if Capt loses, Noob wins the map. Again, promotes strategy. Because maybe I really like riverlook, but Noob is better than me at it, and I know Capt is better than Noob at it.

_________
Arthan makes a point, tho this is a strategy game, and we are all intelligent. I wanna know what the others think.

I quote everything cuz im lazy to cut parts :p

But is like i said, i read it and it was horrible to understand it, sorry for that.
It was about a limit of challenges for each player, i said a good number would be 3 challenges for the player. For the team i guess isnt a big problem, we can fit about 2 or 3 games too idk.

I guess its cool the lost of points of decline challenge (if i understand right) but we could use after a certain number of declines, 3 for example. After 3 declines it start to lost points to the Faction.


I hope this time, my english is understandable lol.