ICW3 Official Map Pack Download (http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=1028)Rules and General Information (http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?topic=6931.0)
WEEK FIVE MAP WILL GO HERE[spoiler][/spoiler]
Week 4 Verdict post (includes important amendments and states who is banned from Week 5) (http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?topic=7036.msg75293#msg75293)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
Remarks1. 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.
We will give you the list by thursday. We will be attacking Mos Eisley and Coruscant, the details will be posted later.
Quote from: Oven on September 11, 2013, 01:51:29 PMI 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. :tu:
Quote from: DEAGLE on September 11, 2013, 02:16:55 PM
Sounds awesome and will probably stop the endless discussions about the number advantage of yak. :tu:
hear hear! :cheers:
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.
Quote from: Gen.Hond{snp} on September 11, 2013, 02:37:21 PM
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.
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
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:
Quote from: Shazam on September 10, 2013, 06:01:15 PM
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!
Quote from: SirPimped on October 08, 2013, 07:53:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Oven on October 08, 2013, 11:28:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Oven on September 11, 2013, 01:51:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Gen.Hond{snp} on September 30, 2013, 02:58:46 PM
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.
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
Map fix according to human error:
Quote from: Shazam on September 11, 2013, 05:31:53 PM
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.
Quote from: -=(212) Nixo=- on September 12, 2013, 08:50:52 AM
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).
At the moment I can make nearly all of them. But things will change I bet.
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.
Quote from: Oven on September 13, 2013, 02:05:36 PM
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.
Well, what do other people think about the last few posts?
--Nixo's first idea (which I gave as an amendment) boils down to: all matches are fair unless the attackers are really lacking, and then give defenders the nod.
--Hond's idea boils down to: make the matches close but always give defenders a slight advantage.
--Someone whose name escapes me's idea (which I repeated in the OP) boils down to: Just make all the matches even.
--Nixo's second idea idea boils down to: Set some maximum ratio by which attackers may be outnumbered.
I think there should be an attempt to
-include as many people as possible
so we should lean towards a policy that allow the most people to play. If that's our only criterion, then Nixo's second idea may be the best. But that needn't be our only criterion.
We still have time to discuss.
(Discussion of policy is, after all, one of the foundational ideas of the ICW).
Oven, I am now the representative for YAK.
Nixo I'll get back re: Arena.
It deoesn't matter I don't think. 5EST should work okay I just need to check but leave it at that for now :P
Battles start in a few hours; we should finalize the numbers rule. I've had a couple people mention they would prefer a 2-man advantage for defenders. Any objections? If not, this will be the new rule.
There is an ambiguity so far though: If the attacker brings 8 (say), and the defender brings 9, there are two possibilities:
A. Make an attacker leave. (So the advantage is strict)
B. Have an 8v9. (So the advantage is only available if the defenders can actually bring 2 extra players.)
I am slightly (not strongly) inclined to have option A.
So if there's over 8 people on both teams the starting numbers have to be even - If either team has less than 8 the defenders can have up to 2 more but no less. Is that right?
Good game. At least we solved the who being outnumbered problem.
[spoiler](https://www.swbfgamers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3tUlg19.png&hash=5948b610f67bf8a9bd0a58d5b0bd9ad1e3ce34bf)[/spoiler]
Quote from: SirPimped on September 14, 2013, 11:51:45 AM
Good game. At least we solved the who being outnumbered problem.
[spoiler](https://www.swbfgamers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3tUlg19.png&hash=5948b610f67bf8a9bd0a58d5b0bd9ad1e3ce34bf)[/spoiler]
Yea theres a chance that they may have had a SLIGHT advantage, just a little... in other news {212}'s merc count unexpectedly sky rocketed today.
I don't think i need to say this because oven was there, but about half of the YAK's left before game ended...
Quote from: {212}FrenchFryZ on September 14, 2013, 12:35:41 PM
I don't think i need to say this because oven was there, but about half of the YAK's left before game ended...
Correct. The match began fairly.
A couple of YAK were kicked for name faking. Some people mistake me for a fool.
A couple isn't half of the team
Rage, Majesty
I think even after you take out those who left at the end, you still can't say that's half.
Quote from: {TCE}Call-of-Duty on September 14, 2013, 12:59:21 PM
A couple isn't half of the team
Read the post I quoted. The others ragequit right before the end.
Really fun and clean game on streets.
[spoiler](https://www.swbfgamers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2213t09.png&hash=bfba7ba2c316ba59556f21c3d517344f4b75ca6b)[/spoiler]
I think harbour makes people act strangely. It must be snowblindness or something. :)
GG to everyone at Streets, it was a fun 5 on 5 that needed a lot of skill. Which explains my score.
I am going to change the numbers rule again, based on the first two battles today.
Each team may bring 8 players, regardless of anything else. If there are more than that, then the defenders get the 2 man advantage.
So if A has 7 and D has 4, it's a 7v4. If A has 10 and D has 8, it's an 8v8. If A has 12 and D has 10, it's an 8v10.
Just to be clear, only one YAK left. It was 7 v 12, but that's our fault because we just don't have enough members.
Quote from: {212}FrenchFryZ on September 14, 2013, 01:03:43 PM
Rage, Majesty
I think even after you take out those who left at the end, you still can't say that's half.
? I wasn't at any battles today ?
Quote from: OvenI never threatened him or anyone in FC; he made that up.
One more thing you made up claiming that I said you threatened me.
I said what would happen IF you were to threaten me. I'm not sure what caused you to mistranslate that as saying you did threaten me, because I never accused you of such a thing. Read again what I said carefully and you will see that i didn't accuse you of threatening me
QuoteQuote from: Phobos on September 13, 2013, 10:19:01 PM
so dont try to threaten me or anyone else in fc thanks.
Quote from: Oven on September 21, 2013, 01:42:59 PM
I agree, I've left. But they're pretty much meaningless anyway :)
not as meaningless as the failed rigged icw3 :D
I was told that you were Banned so that is what i meant, if you were not i apologize.
Quote from: {212}FrenchFryZ on September 14, 2013, 01:37:45 PM
I was told that you were Banned so that is what i meant, if you were not i apologize.
yea just for this week
Right, so the 2 people who weren't aloud to play were rage and majesty, not the half of YAK's people, now I'm done with this argument.
Elite, Unit(?) and someone else left I think. It was at least 9 at one point
Quote from: -=(212) Nixo=- on September 14, 2013, 01:44:02 PM
Elite, Unit(?) and someone else left I think.
Not the real Unit, mind you.
212 won on Yavin
Quote from: Oven on September 14, 2013, 01:19:56 PM
I am going to change the numbers rule again, based on the first two battles today.
Each team may bring 8 players, regardless of anything else. If there are more than that, then the defenders get the 2 man advantage.
So if A has 7 and D has 4, it's a 7v4. If A has 10 and D has 8, it's an 8v8. If A has 12 and D has 10, it's an 8v10.
Was this rule in effect before the matches today started?
It was in affect as of the 3rd battle yesterday.
Then I would like to know why 212 was allowed to match us in numbers. I know, I know, "why not just let everyone play" they are saying. So why do we have rules if we are just going to ignore them? This is the same problem every week.
If we had started on time it would have been 10 - 10. By the time we got going it was 14 212 and 10 YAK so 6 should have left, I don't mind that only 4 left but now they owe us a favour. ;)
I think the rule should just be equal numbers after 8 in future though.
Well, I may be wrong in thinking this, but I thought it was they COULD have the 2 player advantage I might be wrong on this, but we were cut to having 12v10
This was because on the original count a YAK was on our team, and then Birdo left so, you got the 2 player advantage.
Edit:Im confused I dont know! Listin to the smart peoples!
I ask that YAK ask their players to stay at their cps, and to not lay pre mines.
Quote from: {212}FrenchFryZ on September 15, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
Well, I may be wrong in thinking this, but I thought it was they COULD have the 2 player advantage I might be wrong on this, but we were cut to having 12v10
This was because on the original count a YAK was on our team, and then Birdo left so, you got the 2 player advantage.
Edit:Im confused I dont know! Listin to the smart peoples!
Well I think it's clear, but maybe we need another ruling from Oven.
Quote from: Oven on September 14, 2013, 01:19:56 PM
Each team may bring 8 players, regardless of anything else. If there are more than that, then the defenders get the 2 man advantage.
Quote from: Ten Numb on September 15, 2013, 12:49:43 PM
I ask that YAK ask their players to stay at their cps, and to not lay pre mines.
Sorry, we had a new player, I know she didn't come back straight away but she did tell you about the mine (I think) and you did kill her. ;)
I'm trying to get more players involved but that does have risks...
It's all fun and games! Come on guys instead of a tournment lets just call it a.....ICW 3 FunTime? i got nothing else but it is fun and a game lets all get along.
Quote from: {212}FrenchFryZ on September 15, 2013, 01:05:51 PM
It's all fun and games! Come on guys instead of a tournment lets just call it a.....ICW 3 FunTime? i got nothing else but it is fun and a game lets all get along.
i second this we need more fun time that is stress free and fun
Elite asked for me to take pic of minimap
1.0 takes Mustifar and Dust.
GG's
Quote from: Ten Numb on September 15, 2013, 03:05:53 PM
Elite asked for me to take pic of minimap
I like ur minimap with no radar, mart.
I think he wants one like that
Quote from: Kniescheibenzerschredderer on September 15, 2013, 03:22:58 PM
I like ur minimap with no radar, mart.
We've already been over this subject, okay?
Im saying nothing else than i like it lol
I thought the same as Fryz until I was shown the post again by Elite. Yes we should have had 2 less in the end. Which, we did for part of it I guess, Mat joined just over halfway through and someone lagged out for a bit. The thing I hate the most is asking players to leave because we have too many.
This rule would have also affected Streets because it could have been an 8vs5 when it was only a 5vs5 but I am not complaining since the rule was only made earlier today or yesterday night.
I would suggest setting a limit to how much the teams can be outnunbered by as the attacking team willl always struggle with a 2 man disadvantage especially if CPing is the game.
For example:
(if the difference was kept to 2 as a maximum)
Team A have 10 players, Team D have 14 players. Battle will be 10vs12
Team A have 12 players, Team D have 10 players. Battle will be 10vs10
Basically, if they can get 2 more players than the other team has then the defenders CAN have those 2 people, but the attacking team shouldn't have to compensate by getting ride of two people that were ready to have a fun time playing.
Edit:Indeed Nixo right.
Quote from: {212}FrenchFryZ on September 15, 2013, 04:46:21 PM
Basically, if they can get UP TO* 2 more players than the other team has then the defenders CAN have those 2 people, but the attacking team shouldn't have to compensate by getting ride of two people that were ready to have a fun time playing.
heres some other guys
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/128858543-3.jpg (http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/128858543-3.jpg)
The rule is what SP quoted: everyone gets 8, then after that 2-man kicks in for D.
I can't really tell based on what people have posted if there were any violations of this rule yesterday. Were there? The sooner you respond the sooner Week 6 goes up.
And yes, the rule was given on Saturday. I know this may have caused confusion, but Saturday was ridiculous. The "let's just play" reasoning is justified to an extent.
By the way, there's a million possible ways to give a rule like this. I don't know that this is the best one. It was arrived at through trial-and-error.
And nice to see Led playing.
I think, that below 8, any team can be out numbered, but above 8, the teams have to be the same. Just a suggestion.
As I quoted earlier, it stated that above 8 people, the defender gets a 2 man advantage. The admin was Scorpion and he even explained the rule to 212, but they didn't believe him. The players ended up being 11 v 11. It should have been 11 v 9. Because 212 wouldn't ask more people to leave, Scorpion just started counting down because the match was already delayed by a great amount.
The rule was in affect, and the admin of the match knew the rule. It wasn't followed. Nixo who is admin now even said the rule wasn't followed and I thank him for being honest and upfront about the rules.
Quote from: -=(212) Nixo=- on September 15, 2013, 04:42:35 PM
I thought the same as Fryz until I was shown the post again by Elite. Yes we should have had 2 less in the end.
OK, thanks.
(BTW, Scorpion did the right thing.)
Going back to old rules wasn't it allowed to have equal teams if the Attackers were able to have the same amount of Defenders. Why is that part different about having equal teams? Wouldn't you want to have equal matches? Find a new solution for an advantage for defenders?
I was mistaken by the rules then too because I thought for that 11v11 you were able to have equal teams. (because thats like a best case scenario) I thought the 2 up rule was that Defenders were able to have a limit of 2 only more players then the defense. I guess it was switched around? Where the attackers must have less then 2 when its about an 8v8.
If it was my mistake and Fry was saying the same thing as I on the server. So there were multiple things.
We were down 1 at the start of the match until I realised this and asked Mart to come back halfway through.
Defenders could always have up to 2 more players than attackers. That is what I and a feew others thought. Would that work?