SWBFGamers

Greetings, players of SWBF!

There might be an ICW4 this summer. If so, the first battles would begin July 18 (over a month away). Community approval is necessary but not sufficient for a yes decision.

We should sort some things out now, though, like the rules. In this thread, vote on the following items:

1. Tournament / No tournament
2. Galactic conquest style layout (like before, with home planets etc.) / Led's non-clan-based idea  (http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?topic=7901.msg84867#msg84867) / some other style (e.g. bracket; make suggestions)
3. CP / No CP / some mixture
4. always evenly matched battles / possible defender advantage on home planet / possible defender advantage on all planets / evenly matched after a certain minimum guarantee / .... etc.

Everything is up for discussion, but these are critical.

Clans who are interested should post here. Clans that are interested but too small to compete on their own should still post; multiple small clans could enter as single factions.

People interested in helping as an admin should PM me if I haven't already talked to you (you can be in a clan). I will not be the only leader of the tournament, there will be one or two co-leaders, having equal authority (in addition to standard admins). These folks will be announced fairly soon so they can also have a large formative influence.

Quote from: Oven on June 13, 2014, 05:54:50 PM
1. Tournament / No tournament
2. Galactic conquest style layout (like before, with home planets etc.) / some other style (e.g. bracket; make suggestions)
3. CP / No CP / some mixture
4. evenly matched battles / possible defender advantage on home planet / possible defender advantage on all planets

1. Tournament
2. Like before l
3. CP
4. I do not really care about this lol

If i manage to get ill jets playing (and furian) then we'd like to play

Given the size of our player base, I would suggest that you consider the following option:

-have players auto-assigned to a faction based team (CIS/REP) or (ALL/IMP) the day of the battle and have the two sides fight it out and see what faction will rule the known universe.

Although this takes away the clan aspect of the tournament, upside is:
-no clan drama
-no bail outs of clans that do not show up
-no severely lopsided matches
-no need for YAK teams, etc
-no worries about multiclanners/multi-game Mercs
-and it may allow the more casual players to play in a large game, assuming they get the map pack

Quote from: Led on June 13, 2014, 07:34:19 PM
Given the size of our player base, I would suggest that you consider the following option:

-have players auto-assigned to a faction based team (CIS/REP) or (ALL/IMP) the day of the battle and have the two sides fight it out and see what faction will rule the known universe.

Although this takes away the clan aspect of the tournament, upside is:
-no clan drama
-no bail outs of clans that do not show up
-no severely lopsided matches
-no need for YAK teams, etc
-no worries about multiclanners/multi-game Mercs
-and it may allow the more casual players to play in a large game, assuming they get the map pack

That's a very good idea. The main downside I can think of is that removing the clan aspect also overly diminishes motivation and competitiveness. (I say overly because too much can be bad, as we've seen.) However, the benefits could outweigh this. Folks, please take this suggestion into account.

(There are ways of balancing the two goals of having a clan tournament but still including as many players as possible on game day. Such as: no mercenary restrictions. Casuals could join and fill in holes. This might be preferable to YAK.)

From Kishan:

If I personally wasn't competing for my clan to win there would be no point. Competition is about winning or showing skill and you would be surprised how many members from FC and other clans still play and feel this way.

If there are more than two clans that actually participate (not just sign up), I would be surprised.  The last time it very quickly devolved into FC as YAK and everyone else as mercs against them.

Another ICW would probably do more bad than good considering how stubborn and persistent some of the clans can be.  Led's suggestion would settle some of the problems, but I'm mostly worried about what would be decided about radar.  We all know what happened last time we had to decide—I would hate for another huge argument to break out.

With that said, if there is an ICW4, I will not pass up on the chance to play in the packed servers, and I would be willing to be an admin again if I am needed.

BTW, if there is an ICW4, I suggest strict rules about how people should settle arguments are put in place so we don't have another 'Week 4 Fiasco'.

I would really like to see big battles and the last ICW's were, when everyone got along, brilliant fun but I don't think it's worth the arguments. I agree that it's more fun fighting with a clan as it gives everyone a purpose but it also puts people against each other outside of the matches. Even now there are people who won't play with each other and it only takes a few to start off a big argument and ruin it again.
The only solution I can think of is to have random teams but even then there is issues like radar, other mods and namefakers. I don't want to be too negative though and as usual I'll join in battles and appreciate that people are trying to organise these

My hope with auto assigned teams would be that the radar users would be randomly assigned and would balance each other out.

BTW, I support clan vs clan battles--I just don't think this format is well suited to that these days.

Quote from: Shazam on June 13, 2014, 10:04:29 PM
Another ICW would probably do more bad than good considering how stubborn and persistent some of the clans can be.  Led's suggestion would settle some of the problems, but I'm mostly worried about what would be decided about radar.  We all know what happened last time we had to decide—I would hate for another huge argument to break out.

I won't go through the effort again of taking time to mod another anti-radar map pack for this ICW. Dark Phantom is probably willing to help with this again but I'm not, and I wouldn't support such a decision again anyway.

- Quoting Led but mostly responding to Oven

Quote from: Led on June 13, 2014, 08:54:08 PM
If there are more than two clans that actually participate (not just sign up), I would be surprised.  The last time it very quickly devolved into FC as YAK and everyone else as mercs against them.

If [FC] were to play we would sign up as [FC] not join YAK since our clan is more active now than ever before. Like the previous ICWs though, it would be all other clans vs us as you said, with one 'side' getting more attacks per week than the other. Instead of removing clan vs clan battles, another idea could be to have the planetary battles randomly chosen by admins, and not allow the clans to choose who to attack (to prevent 'ganging up' alliance loopholes). Several clans were taken out in the early weeks because of this and I think it's one of the main flaws in the ICW design, since it diminishes the importance of each week by eliminating clans too early and forcing them to merc/namefake for other clans if they want to keep playing. The tournament rules should be firmly decided on by the community before the ICW4 takes place. Another idea is not to eliminate clans but give them points for each victory, by making their homeplanets uncapturable until the last 2-4 weeks or something. If you were to take away clans, perhaps having player chosen teams (between 6-12 players) would work.

Quote from: Led on June 13, 2014, 07:34:19 PM
Given the size of our player base, I would suggest that you consider the following option:

-have players auto-assigned to a faction based team (CIS/REP) or (ALL/IMP) the day of the battle and have the two sides fight it out and see what faction will rule the known universe.

The main downside to this idea is that planet ownership and strategic decisions become meaningless since you can't even prepare for the battle as a team, because you're simply assigned to a random side every round. It becomes less of a competitive traditional tournament, and more like a series of mod map nights. This may or may not be a better direction to take now, considering the unneeded flaming and drama from previous ICWs. Several players would be for/against this so I would suggest making a poll or something once you have more ideas to consider.

The past 3 ICW were mostly FC/YAK vs everyone else as you said, and various loopholes from before which gave one side more players and more attacks per week than the other would need to be addressed, and rules completely rewritten and more heavily enforced to prevent repeats of past incidents from occurring. I think the mercenary rule has many loopholes and also needs revision. Now that gamemaster works it would be easier for the admins to confirm identity of players and catch namefakers since that wasn't really possible with tunngle. Troublemakers can now be banned more effectively. If you want to ban jets they must be modded out, even from a stock map server mission.lvl. I don't think disabling jets is going to make it balanced though, I'd rather give jets to both sides or make the units fair sided.

My main complaint from the ICW3 was the continual insulting and harassment that went without consequence, which I attribute mainly to the admins not being present enough to do their job effectively. If such levels of hostility and drama are present again then [FC] most likely won't participate. We also will probably not play if there are complicated restrictions against radar because our clan has never considered OC mods/radar to be an issue (though some others disagree). The [FC] clan will vote and decide later once more details of the possible ICW4 are known. Whether it is clan vs. clan, mixed sides, or some other format will also be discussed. I think if the key faults from last time were addressed properly, ICW4 might have the potential to go much more smoothly than previous ICWs.

Quote from: Led on June 14, 2014, 04:59:13 AM
BTW, I support clan vs clan battles--I just don't think this format is well suited to that these days.

I am inclined to agree with you here.

Everyone, thanks for the quality feedback so far. Please post more opinions.

Quote from: Phobos on June 14, 2014, 07:23:56 AM

Quote from: Led on June 14, 2014, 04:59:13 AM
BTW, I support clan vs clan battles--I just don't think this format is well suited to that these days.

I am inclined to agree with you here.

Me too. What if individual players signed up for the ICW4 and then were randomly assigned to equally sized teams (which last for the duration of the tournament)? This combines Led's idea of randomly mixing people with the fun of strategizing and playing for a team.

Dark Phantom is a co-leader of this tournament, whatever it ends up being. Syrion and Norwood have volunteered admin help (along with Shazam). What do you guys think?

Quote from: Phobos on June 14, 2014, 07:23:56 AM
Instead of removing clan vs clan battles, another idea could be to have the planetary battles randomly chosen by admins, and not allow the clans to choose who to attack (to prevent 'ganging up' alliance loopholes).

I like this idea, if enough clans are interested. No planetary map system. No home planets.
2 clan would be predetermined to battle each week. Say, for instance...

Week 1
YAK vs CAT on Tatooine
DKY vs MSE on Rhen Var
LTH vs LOU on Ord Mantell

...and then...

Week 2
MSE vs LOU on TBA
CAT vs LTH on TBA
YAK vs DKY on TBA

...so that no clan will face off against the same clan two weeks in a row. The Battles schedule could be drawn up in advance however many weeks the ICW lasts. Whichever clan has the most victories by the end of X number of weeks wins the ICW.

After reading what other people have said I would say;
1. Random teams that stay together for the duration of the tournament, with a 1:1 merc rule or similar to let more people join in. Hopefully if there was 4 teams of random players the tournament could go for a few weeks with fairly even fights. I would rather have a close fun game than win easily (not that I know that feeling very well :) ).
Of course random sometimes ends up making one strong team but that can't be helped.

2.

Quote from: Kelle on June 14, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
I like this idea, if enough clans are interested. No planetary map system. No home planets.
2 clan would be predetermined to battle each week.

That could be a good idea. How about a mix of that and the old one so instead of random battles if there were only 3 or 4 clans each clan could attack choose one planet from each of the other clans - this would keep some strategy but stop anyone being ganged up on.

3. I would have CPs capturable as they focus the fighting and add some strategy.

4. Instead of the attacker/defender rules maybe just a simple no more than a 2 person advantage rule. It's annoying when the other team only turns up with 3 or 4 players but if you have 8 the games over in 5 minutes anyway.

If we're going to have random teams compete, why don't we just bring back the ICA?   

Rep/CIS/Emp/Reb assignment seems to be a good idea. You get to create relatively fair teams ( due to the randomness of players ) and use the possibilities of the game to its full potential. Since each teams are assigned to one side, they will probably use different units ( depending on the rules ).

Also, if you want to organize this as a galactic conquest ( like before? ), each side already has a homeplanet : Rebels play on Hoth, Empire on Endor, CIS on Geonosis, and Republc on Kamino.

You can also push it as far as copying the game mode : give some advantages for defending, or having control over one planet.

I like the idea of randomizing who plays who and where. How to best do this depends on how many battles per week we can handle. If people are up to play each other team/clan every weekend, then gdh's idea is probably best. If people only want one battle per weekend, then Kelle/Phobos' idea of randomized choice is better.

This would mitigate clan drama a lot, I think, though not as much as if it were combined with randomized team assignments.

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on June 14, 2014, 01:28:33 PM
4. Instead of the attacker/defender rules maybe just a simple no more than a 2 person advantage rule.

Strongly agree.

Quote from: Shazam on June 14, 2014, 03:30:34 PM
If we're going to have random teams compete, why don't we just bring back the ICA?

I don't follow; there are lots of differences.

Quote from: Oven on June 14, 2014, 06:25:49 PM
I don't follow; there are lots of differences.

In my opinion, an ICW4 should be clans competing for planetary control, like it has been in the other three wars.  Without the consistency, it wouldn't feel the same.  Call me a stickler for tradition, but it is called the Intergalactic Clan War, after all. 

If the main goal here is to get some organized battles going, I don't see why we can't start up a variant of the ICA.  It was working well, from what I saw.

-edit:  I apologize...that may have come across a little rude.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for any type of organized competition that we can get going.  I just-so-happen to be a fan of what we had going in the previous ICW's.

The biggest issue I've seen is that although on some points people agree, for the most part they aren't sticking with the original problem.

Quote from: OvenWe should sort some things out now, though, like the rules. In this thread, vote on the following items:

1. Tournament / No tournament
2. Galactic conquest style layout (like before, with home planets etc.) / Led's non-clan-based idea  (http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?topic=7901.msg84867#msg84867) / some other style (e.g. bracket; make suggestions)
3. CP / No CP / some mixture
4. always evenly matched battles / possible defender advantage on home planet / possible defender advantage on all planets / evenly matched after a certain minimum guarantee / .... etc.

Everything is up for discussion, but these are critical.

Instead of voting in a way that would be most productive, we discuss (in circles) before we know what the most popular opinion is! If we could vote then discuss what is left once we vote, I think this would run much more smoothly.


I think ~PFA~ may be interested in competing. I will hopefully have a discussion with Majesty on monday to be sure.

1.Tournament
2.Bracket
3. No CP for the final brackets, the team with the last renforcements should win
4. Even matches throughout

Quote from: Syyy on June 14, 2014, 04:50:11 PM
Rep/CIS/Emp/Reb assignment seems to be a good idea. You get to create relatively fair teams ( due to the randomness of players ) and use the possibilities of the game to its full potential. Since each teams are assigned to one side, they will probably use different units ( depending on the rules ).

Yeah, but it also introduces built-in inequality to the tournament, which I think it's better to minimize as much as possible.

Quote from: Shazam on June 14, 2014, 06:41:11 PM
In my opinion, an ICW4 should be clans competing for planetary control, like it has been in the other three wars.  Without the consistency, it wouldn't feel the same.  Call me a stickler for tradition, but it is called the Intergalactic Clan War, after all. 

If the main goal here is to get some organized battles going, I don't see why we can't start up a variant of the ICA.  It was working well, from what I saw.

-edit:  I apologize...that may have come across a little rude.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for any type of organized competition that we can get going.  I just-so-happen to be a fan of what we had going in the previous ICW's.

I understand and sympathize. I wish a clan tourney could work, and mentally I can imagine  a clan tourney working like a well-oiled machine. However, the odds of this seem low. Our goal is to create the most fun tournament possible. But I'm absolutely not ruling out clans. We have weeks to spread the word, and decide.

I think there are important differences between what's been discussed so far and the ICA, for example, a focused tournament with a definite start, end, and winner arrests attention in a way that the ICA can't. But again, not ruling it out. For those who don't know, the ICA was a very laissez-faire system where any clan or group of players could challenge any other clan/group to a battle, and pick their own conditions, rules, maps, etc.

I'm going to stay officially neutral about clans vs random teams for now. There's more controversy than is revealed by the postings in this thread alone, so I guess I need to talk to people individually.

But unofficially, I am really skeptical that a clan tournament can work.

Gdh's suggestion that sides be equal up to a 2-person difference seems best.

--Galactic conquest vs bracket seems to be worth polling for, so please vote (top of page).

If we do galactic conquest, there will be a fairly large map list as before, with carefully chosen maps.
If we do bracket, the map list will be smaller, and maybe not even containing mod maps.

What should the merc rules be? My vote is: 2-to-1 ratio, with no other restrictions, assuming random teams. If we do clans, we'll probably have to keep a list which tracks the history of each player, like after week 4.

Quote from: Oven on June 20, 2014, 08:08:40 PM
I'm going to stay officially neutral about clans vs random teams for now. There's more controversy than is revealed by the postings in this thread alone, so I guess I need to talk to people individually.

But unofficially, I am really skeptical that a clan tournament can work.

Gdh's suggestion that sides be equal up to a 2-person difference seems best.

--Galactic conquest vs bracket seems to be worth polling for, so please vote (top of page).

If we do galactic conquest, there will be a fairly large map list as before, with carefully chosen maps.
If we do bracket, the map list will be smaller, and maybe not even containing mod maps.

What should the merc rules be? My vote is: 2-to-1 ratio, with no other restrictions. The randomized teams means that "ganging up" should not be an issue.

Doesn't "[t]he randomized teams means that 'ganging up' should not be an issue" assume randomized teams rather than clan versus clan?  Would mercs be necessary in a randomized team scenario?  What happens if someone wants in after the teams have been randomly assigned?

Quote from: BlackScorpion on June 20, 2014, 09:46:36 PM
Doesn't "[t]he randomized teams means that 'ganging up' should not be an issue" assume randomized teams rather than clan versus clan?  Would mercs be necessary in a randomized team scenario?  What happens if someone wants in after the teams have been randomly assigned?

Sorry, that's an artifact of my editing, I changed it. Mercs would still be desirable, I think, to let the most people play. When, not if, people want in after it starts, they can be distributed among the teams, with priority going to any teams having activity problems.

Interesting... Clans sound much more fun. It increases competition, and the agruments add to the excitement of winning, in my opinion. Don't know if there are enough active clans, though. I think you guys should follow a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on radar. Almost no way to enforce it anyway, players usually use the mods they desire, so it's pretty pointless to make rules on radar. All teams should be fair in my opinion, a 10vs2 battle is pointless, and no fun, unless you just want to win the whole tournament, but; oh wow you won by outnumbering... Haha. Not really any fun in that.

I'd want to be sure that enough clans could even participate. I'm pretty sure BoB and PFA would join. FC I think needs more specific info about rules before deciding. Are there any other possibilities?

Would 212 play? If not, would 212 consider joining together with snp?

The ICW4 will be a clan tournament. I'll make a rough draft of rules sometime in the next few days. And a reminder: Week 1 begins July 13th, with the first battles on July 18th. I anticipate 6 weeks.

Obviously, there should be a YAK clan. There needs to be solid leadership for YAK - any volunteers?

Quote from: Oven on June 23, 2014, 06:13:26 PM
Obviously, there should be a YAK clan. There needs to be solid leadership for YAK - any volunteers?

I will most likely be the head representative for YAK, and gdh92 has agreed to help me organize things.  We're looking for at least one more person to help us organize, because I may not be able to attend very many battles.  I will be able to check SWBFgamers every day regularly, though.

I'll make a YAK recruitment thread sometime today.