ICW3 Week 5

[Oven]

ICW3 Official Map Pack Download

Rules and General Information

WEEK FIVE MAP WILL GO HERE
[spoiler][/spoiler]

Week 4 Verdict post (includes important amendments and states who is banned from Week 5)

Week 4 results

• 1.0 defends Russia from YAK
  1.0 takes Kamino from YAK
• 212 takes Harbor from YAK
• En'ten drops out
• YAK takes Mos Eisley from Natives
  YAK defends Eddie's Kastel (=Docks now) from 1.0
  YAK defends Mustafar from 212

Remarks
1. Let's make this week a good week. It will be easy to beat last week, but let's try to beat all the weeks.

2. I need Hond, Nixo, Shazam to post clan lists. If you already posted in another thread, please repost here anyway. If you were in UEF or En'ten during the weeks in which those clans were active, then your name cannot appear in anyone's clan list. Of course, you can still merc.

3. Remember that Mygeeto is native held now.

4. I'll try my best to make some battles this week.

5. The replacement for Eddie's Kastel is Kashyyyk: Docks.

6. Are any of the following people willing to be added to the official admin list?

--gdh92
--Unit 33
--Dark_Phantom
--Jamman
--Snake
--Nixo
--Hond

7. Any individual who was penalized for Week 4 actions is not allowed to admin future games.

8. Recons stay.

9. If you have anything less than a perfect understanding of the tournament rules as they stand now, ask in here after reading through the rules thread and W4 verdict thread.

10. Here is an archive of the previous W5 thread, which was a mess. http://speedy.sh/der54/w5.zip

If clan reps could please repost attacks and lists in here, that would be nice.

I propose the following amendment. We throw away the current numbers rule, and replace it with the following: All battles will be evenly matched, with the battle count being the amount of players that the least numerous side has. So if YAK has 12 players on, and 212 has 10, the match is a 10v10.

Is this rule better? It's only a proposal at this stage.

[-=(212) Nixo=-]

We will give you the list by thursday. We will be attacking Mos Eisley and Coruscant, the details will be posted later.

[DEAGLE]

I propose the following amendment. We throw away the current numbers rule, and replace it with the following: All battles will be evenly matched, with the battle count being the amount of players that the least numerous side has. So if YAK has 12 players on, and 212 has 10, the match is a 10v10.

Is this rule better? It's only a proposal at this stage.

Sounds awesome and will probably stop the endless discussions about the number advantage of yak. 

[hellish hellbird]

Sounds awesome and will probably stop the endless discussions about the number advantage of yak. 

hear hear!

[Gen.Hond{snp}]

So what if players from the other team lag out or something? For example its a 10v10 that turns into a 10v8. The one team can have more still right?
Also as I said 1.0 is attacking Mustifar and Dantooine.

[Oven]

So what if players from the other team lag out or something? For example its a 10v10 that turns into a 10v8. The one team can have more still right?

Right. There would be a set battle count taken right before countdown, which would be a maximum for the rest of the game.

The rule could be a problem if one team consistently could not bring enough players -- then it would be unfair to make the other team sideline so many players. But I believe that all 3 remaining clans are numerous enough that this would not be a problem.

The merc rule stays though. As was pointed out in the old thread, UEF and Enten are not very large, so the effect of this rule should not be catastrophic for any of 1.0, 212, YAK. The benefits of keeping personnel straight and clan distinctions intact are worth it.

Note: I have regular internet access now. That means you can expect me to be more available than I was for Week 4. I'm still very busy IRL -- in fact, busier than I've ever been even ignoring the ICW3 -- but I still have the time and desire to continue running the tournament properly.

[Black Water]

Attacking clan: 212
Defending clan: YAK 
Time: 3pmest Saturday 
Planet: Crousant Streets.
Era: GCW
Side: Empire

Attacking clan: 212
Defending clan: YAK
Time: 3pmest Sunday
Planet: Mos eisley
Era: CW
Side: CIS

[Shazam]

Attacking clan: YAK
Defending clan: 212
Planet: Rhen Var: Harbour
YAK's side: Rebels
Day/time: Saturday, 2:00 PM EST

Attacking clan: YAK
Defending clan: 212
Planet: Yavin 4: Arena
YAK's side: CIS
Day/time: Saturday, 5:00 PM EST



Oven, in case you haven't read your PM lately:

I am extremely busy this time of year.  I can't admin this tournament, represent YAK, keep up with school, and my keep up with my extra-corricular activities.  I am respectfully removing myself from this tournament.  If willing, I would like UNIT 33 to fill my spot as YAK's representative.

This is probably my last post in regards to the ICW3.  Good luck to you all!

[Phobos]

Oh good, more unfair punishment for YAK. As I said in the week 7 thread, I showed up minutes before the Dagobah battle started and was trying to account for who was who on my team. The admin for the battle started to countdown before I could account for everyone on the team. Why is always being punished? Do you really have something against YAK? I didn't think so before, but now it's starting to seem so. We get punished for Majesty and for admin mistakes and I'm tired of it.

The admin is blaming YAK for his own mistakes: failure to change the server password or ban the namefakers like majesty etc.
All he needed is a cheap excuse to give Dagobah to a clan who didn't earn it because we all know YAK won on Dagobah and would most likely not have lost it in week 8 battle. Yes, he does really have something against YAK this should be crystal clear by now. Never before has a planet been given to the clan who lost the battle just because someone namefaked on the other team.

YAK, or players who pretend to be in YAK, always break the rules.

I think this lie pretty much proves it yet again. YAK does not always break the rules, players who want YAK to be penalized are allowed (by the admins who don't boot them) to namefake YAK and cause mischief. Furthermore there were weeks where YAK didn't break any rules but Oven still came up with pathetic excuses to penalize them. It's unfair to YAK who didn't cheat how Oven cheats by letting 1.0 and 212 cheat then penalizes YAK for it.

I propose the following amendment. We throw away the current numbers rule, and replace it with the following: All battles will be evenly matched, with the battle count being the amount of players that the least numerous side has. So if YAK has 12 players on, and 212 has 10, the match is a 10v10.

Is this rule better? It's only a proposal at this stage.

That rule is better it sounds like a good way to avoid more uneven battles like the 13v17 on russia.

I understand 1.0 has more planets and I can understand 212 for wanting to do more. This is their 3rd time in it? I'd say go for a tie and award both clans for even a happier ending. (Plus it be nice if some people other then FC for once to have a winning medal)(No offense to FC because there are some great members in it)

I say End the ICW3.

lol you would beg for an undeserved shared award for the two clans that were too scared to attack each other the whole tourney. always ganging up on yak and using members in both clans while namefaking... you didn't earn any winner medal you just want everyone besides fc and yak to have it. what you want is totally cheap and would not be a fair distribution. you cant just say end the tourney once you're up a few planets (due to your handicap corrupt advantage of 4 attacks per week instead of 2 rofl). yak had more planets a few weeks ago than you but you didn't see us begging the tournament to stop so we could be declared winners. lmao yak isn't even eliminated yet and you're saying you beat them dream on.

[Gen.Hond{snp}]

Attacking clan: 1.0
Defending clan: YAK 
Time: 2:00 EST Sunday
Planet: Dantooine
Era: GCW
Side: Rebels

Attacking clan: 1.0
Defending clan: YAK
Time: 4:00 Sunday
Planet: Mustifar
Era: GCW
Side: Empire

[Unit 33]

Map fix according to human error:

[-=(212) Nixo=-]

Attacking clan: YAK
Defending clan: 212
Planet: Yavin 4: Arena
YAK's side: CIS
Day/time: Saturday, 5:00 PM EST

Hey, can we make this an hour earlier? So 4EST/10berlin.

Oven for the rule, maybe there should be a minimum? Like 8 or something. So if say 1.0 attack 212 with only 6 player 212 can still have 8 players otherwise there is no advantage but for the attackers by choosing the side? Or the rule that a team can only be outnumbered by a maximum of... 2/3? Just a suggestion.

[Oven]

Oven for the rule, maybe there should be a minimum? Like 8 or something. So if say 1.0 attack 212 with only 6 player 212 can still have 8 players otherwise there is no advantage but for the attackers by choosing the side?

This seems like a reasonable balance to me.

I should make the Sat. battles, but not the Sunday ones (except maybe Dantooine).

[-=(212) Nixo=-]

At the moment I can make nearly all of them. But things will change I bet.

[Gen.Hond{snp}]

Could we get these written down on a chart? (the past ones look so pretty)
Also I do prefer the 2 man advantage if your defense. It makes more sense now for defenders to have a slight advantage in some way since attackers get to chose sides. Test the idea out this week and see if it should be placed for the following.

Amendment 3:

D is always able to use at least 8 players in a match, in accordance with the other rules, as long as they have 8 available.

So if the attackers have only 4 people (minimum) the defenders could have 8? Even though I doubt YAK will only have 4. But you never know.