SWBFGamers

I meant to put this thread up a while ago; sorry for the delay.

Please use this thread to suggest ideas for the structure/rules/etc. of the ICW2, give feedback on what worked and what didn't in the ICW, and so forth.

I have a few offerings now, and will add more later (please comment or you run the risk of me dictatorially inserting these as rules regardless):

1. The map list, obviously could be improved. Coruscant: City  and Ord Mantell will not be making a reappearance, for hosting/play-ability reasons.

2. I think it might be nice to increase the role of Mercenaries in battles, by allowing 2 or even 3 per match, at least in Large battles. This allows for a greater diversity of players. We could even potentially disallow alliances, but allow mercenaries to be members of participating clans.

3. The distinction between Large and Small planets could be magnified. An example scenario is the following: Large planets would, as before, have two maps, and be a max 12v12, with the usual defender advantage that the defending clan cannot be outnumbered. Small planets would be, as has been suggested, a 5v5 "squad-based" battle. (Once again, I am rather hostile to the notion of completely changing the ICW2 into this kind of restricted gameplay, mainly for the reason that it turns me on to see large battles where a large percentage of the clan gets to play at once against a large percentage of an opponent.)

I thought of this in the first ICW. Why not have two match moderators, but ones that are clanless and do not hate 1 clan and give the non-hated clan the benifit of the doubt.

I'd like to suggest having Maze as a map. Also, Mos Eisley.

Quote from: ComSharpshot on December 10, 2012, 07:31:33 PM
I thought of this in the first ICW. Why not have two match moderators, but ones that are clanless and do not hate 1 clan and give the non-hated clan the benifit of the doubt.

didnt that pretty much happen in the first one? i was very satisfied with all the admins

Quote from: Phobos on December 10, 2012, 07:58:48 PM
I don't like the Maze map because Jets always sit on top and can easily guard the outer CPs from being captured, it seems too imbalanced IMO.

There are some cool mod maps that could be added but most important is to make sure they will work with dedicated hosting tools first.

Both coruscant maps should go, and maybe add naboo?

agree about maze, and yes we should change up the mod maps that are included

I'd vote against the maze map, my reasons

• It's a bit boring (quite infact).
• You get grenade noobed all the time.
• Jettrooper stalking all the time.
• Too many glitches.
• Too small of a map IMO.

(Yes I will be joining this ICW, if it happens. The reason I didn't last time, because I had too much to do)
@Droideka I support Mos Eisley!

I'm for including all 17 of the stock maps. Dune sea, naboo, geonosis, were excluded from the first ICW. Maybe geonosis can be a large planet if you include Plains (sleepkiller port) and Spire. Also the Wookieeland port by Rends could be added to Endor to make it a large planet.
as i said before though each map should be verified to confirm that it works with dedicated hosting tools before deciding whether or not to include it.

speculative/offtopic idea
[spoiler]I have some really far out ideas regarding an LUA based in-game ICW map render I would like to experiment with later. It would basically appear as the Galactic Conquest map does and next to the planet names it would show which clan currently occupies the map and you could click on it to select it for more details (not attack though, it would just be a visual map). I'm not sure if it would  even work but it would be cool. A sort of interactive map guide to the current tournament status. I might even be able to have arrows on the side to scroll through each week so at the end you could look through every week to see which clans had control of each planet. Updating it every week would most likely require re-compiling a new script and LVL each time though and its probably too difficult for me to script something this complex as of now. Just an idea for later ;)[/spoiler]

Quote from: Joseph on December 10, 2012, 08:01:23 PM
didnt that pretty much happen in the first one? i was very satisfied with all the admins

Oh i didnt know that lol.

I agree with Phobos all the Admins and Reps did a great job.And a maze map sounds good.Also does anyone have any new mod maps out yet.

I posted this in the other thread by accident but thought I should re-post her to keep everything simple;
It looks good and I'll take part in some form. I would however suggest scrapping the rule of the defender choosing the team and just have two games with each player having a chance at both teams. The winner would be the one with the biggest win margin. That way we can have all stock maps as phobos suggested but without having to worry about unfair sides at some of the maps. I would also like to see Dantooine dust agaain. That was a fun map. :)

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on December 11, 2012, 12:20:43 PM
I posted this in the other thread by accident but thought I should re-post her to keep everything simple;
It looks good and I'll take part in some form. I would however suggest scrapping the rule of the defender choosing the team and just have two games with each player having a chance at both teams. The winner would be the one with the biggest win margin. That way we can have all stock maps as phobos suggested but without having to worry about unfair sides at some of the maps. I would also like to see Dantooine dust agaain. That was a fun map. :)

Lol why didn't u just copy and paste or just quote yourself and not retype the whole thing lolz :slap:

From ICW, there was a concern about maps that automatically begin with bleed; I don't think it was the most critical of problems, but it was certainly a nuisance.

Quote from: BlackScorpion on December 11, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
From ICW, there was a concern about maps that automatically begin with bleed; I don't think it was the most critical of problems, but it was certainly a nuisance.

Start-up bleed is easy to remove if you change its values in the mission LUA.

Quote from: ComSharpshot on December 11, 2012, 01:03:19 PM
Lol why didn't u just copy and paste or just quote yourself and not retype the whole thing lolz :slap:

How do you know he did not. :slap:     lolz

Quote from: Phobos on December 10, 2012, 11:53:44 PM
I have some really far out ideas regarding an LUA based in-game ICW map render I would like to experiment with later. It would basically appear as the Galactic Conquest map does and next to the planet names it would show which clan currently occupies the map and you could click on it to select it for more details (not attack though, it would just be a visual map). I'm not sure if it would  even work but it would be cool. A sort of interactive map guide to the current tournament status. I might even be able to have arrows on the side to scroll through each week so at the end you could look through every week to see which clans had control of each planet. Updating it every week would most likely require re-compiling a new script and LVL each time though and its probably too difficult for me to script something this complex as of now. Just an idea for later ;)

I was going to do something like that for the GGCW1, but I didn't know anything about modding, or GameMaker for that matter.. But That is a brilliant idea, I think I have some of my own, having more to do with a separate application, that can show live feed from a website (for ICW), and have an option to view the video of the battles in it as well, I might have an example later, it's too hard to fully explain in words....

Edit: Sorry for getting off topic XD

I was extremely satisfied with the first ICW despite the problems we faced. But, now we can learn from them and this one will be twice the fun! ;)

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on December 11, 2012, 12:20:43 PM
I would however suggest scrapping the rule of the defender choosing the team and just have two games with each player having a chance at both teams. The winner would be the one with the biggest win margin. That way we can have all stock maps as phobos suggested but without having to worry about unfair sides at some of the maps.

I completely agree with gdh, this would be a doable solution to alot of argument. :)

Quote from: Agent Z on December 11, 2012, 07:43:37 PM
I was extremely satisfied with the first ICW despite the problems we faced. But, now we can learn from them and this one will be twice the fun! ;)
I completely agree with gdh, this would be a doable solution to alot of argument. :)

I don't recall there being much argument over "unfair sides"...could be wrong though. You get what you get, everyone gets defender advantage half the time, and I don't see the need to double the time commitment to add a marginal amount of fairness

Quote from: Agent Z on December 11, 2012, 07:43:37 PM
I was extremely satisfied with the first ICW despite the problems we faced. But, now we can learn from them and this one will be twice the fun! ;)

Quote from: Joseph on December 11, 2012, 08:17:13 PM
I don't recall there being much argument over "unfair sides"...could be wrong though. You get what you get, everyone gets defender advantage half the time, and I don't see the need to double the time commitment to add a marginal amount of fairness

The question is whether double the time to play will actually be double the fun or not. I really wouldn't mind it for some of the funner planets (dantooine and mos for example). But for most of the large planets that means 4 battles instead of 2, and with multiple planet battles scheduled each day, they could take several hours to play through...

Also, I think the higher risk element of only getting to play as one side per map adds more strategical dynamic by forcing you to really think about the advantages that enemy defenders will have depending on which planet you choose to attack. Remove that, and you are making the maps more bland so there really is no advantage (or it is greatly reduced) to holding certain planets over others.

I dont remember who did this, but i personally enjoyed not using the jets in the war, made for a more interesting game i thought.

A dark/jet trooper's biggest advantage is the range they can cover for taking CPs. If the ICW2 was no capture, then it wouldn't be a problem. My suggestion is no capturing CPs.

Quote from: Joseph on December 11, 2012, 08:17:13 PM
I don't recall there being much argument over "unfair sides"...could be wrong though. You get what you get, everyone gets defender advantage half the time, and I don't see the need to double the time commitment to add a marginal amount of fairness

There was a little fuss about "noobiness", nothing big.

Quote from: Phobos on December 11, 2012, 08:30:22 PM
The question is whether double the time to play will actually be double the fun or not. I really wouldn't mind it for some of the funner planets (dantooine and mos for example). But for most of the large planets that means 4 battles instead of 2, and with multiple planet battles scheduled each day, they could take several hours to play through...

Also, I think the higher risk element of only getting to play as one side per map adds more strategical dynamic by forcing you to really think about the advantages that enemy defenders will have depending on which planet you choose to attack. Remove that, and you are making the maps more bland so there really is no advantage (or it is greatly reduced) to holding certain planets over others.

Good point, I wasn't really putting time into consideration.

Maybe we could lower the reinforcement count to make up for that? Just an idea.

Quote from: sirpimped on December 11, 2012, 10:33:48 PM
A dark/jet trooper's biggest advantage is the range they can cover for taking CPs. If the ICW2 was no capture, then it wouldn't be a problem. My suggestion is no capturing CPs.

I would personally like CPs to be captured. CPs allow alot of strategy, without them this would be a completely skill-based tournament. That isn't a problem for FC, but I'll be the first to admit that there needs to be some wiggle room to give other teams a fighting chance. ;)

What if we just took away the flying capabilities for the jets or just lowered their flying distance?

Quote from: Phobos on December 11, 2012, 08:30:22 PM
The question is whether double the time to play will actually be double the fun or not. I really wouldn't mind it for some of the funner planets (dantooine and mos for example). But for most of the large planets that means 4 battles instead of 2, and with multiple planet battles scheduled each day, they could take several hours to play through...

Also, I think the higher risk element of only getting to play as one side per map adds more strategical dynamic by forcing you to really think about the advantages that enemy defenders will have depending on which planet you choose to attack. Remove that, and you are making the maps more bland so there really is no advantage (or it is greatly reduced) to holding certain planets over others.

That's a good point, maybe 'base' planets where people start off and there are two maps could have just one play through so that there's a defender advantage and it doesn't take so long. My main concern is where a clan starts with a map with a tank advantage then just picks that side evrytime and becomes almost invincible.
Also I think CPs are a must, as they add some strategy to the game rather than just spawning and shooting, the ability to save a game that you are losing by sneaking around and getting a CP behind the enemies backs is one of the main reasons I still play.

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on December 12, 2012, 09:17:07 AM
the ability to save a game that you are losing by sneaking around and getting a CP behind the enemies backs is one of the main reasons I still play.

good luck with that!

I think tanks can be just as unfair as jets it all depends on the maps and how they're used.

I wouldn't mind specials being allowed, but the Droideka would need at least a little buff to compensate.

Would there be mod maps involved? They are fun but reduce the number of people that play :(

Quote from: sirpimped on December 11, 2012, 10:33:48 PM
My suggestion is no capturing CPs.

I really enjoyed the different cp wars, for the stratigies like Z said.
I just didnt like how much of an advantage jets gave, and how over used they were, instead of using ground strategies.

Quote from: {212} Nixo on December 12, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
Would there be mod maps involved? They are fun but reduce the number of people that play :(

Surely they don't reduce the number of players anymore than installing tunngle/GR does.

Nope they do not but we need all the players we can get so this wouldnt exactly help that :(

Mod maps are a MUST. They spice the tournament up. I get tired of the old stock maps at times.

If we made a map pack and detailed instructions to install them, I'm sure it wouldn't effect the participant numbers. :)

Status update

Epifire will be returning as an admin
Agent Z has been made an admin (and consequently, cannot Rep YAK or Admin non-neutral battles)

Apparently there can only be 1 poll question per topic, so I will make a topic soon that has a "ballot" template where you can vote on certain potential changes to the ICW2.

For planning purposes:
The ICW2 will consist of 4 weeks, with battle announcements taking place during the week as usual. Battles will take place on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays; here is the list of weekends:

• Dec. 21-23
• Dec. 28-30
• Jan. 4-6
• Jan. 11-13

All of this and more will be more officially written up in an ICW2 Rules thread this weekend.

Phobos, your idea is very interesting.

Also, unless there's a huge outcry resulting from this post, I'm going to veto the play-each-map-twice idea.

Quote from: Agent Z on December 12, 2012, 02:55:19 PM
Mod maps are a MUST. They spice the tournament up. I get tired of the old stock maps at times.

If we made a map pack and detailed instructions to install them, I'm sure it wouldn't effect the participant numbers. :)

Agreed. Also, I would like to change up the map rotation considerably this time around.

Quote from: Oven on December 12, 2012, 04:52:36 PM
Agent Z has been made an admin (and consequently, cannot Rep YAK or Admin non-neutral battles)

Just to clarify, I planned on participating in YAK despite being an admin. I will not be allowed to admin any battles involving YAK (or our ally/allies?) so that there is no possibility of bias towards one team. If anyone disagrees with this I will choose between the two roles, but I would like to do both if possible.

@Oven:  Would I be allowed to admin any battles involving YAK's allies? I can understand if I would not be allowed to, but that would limit the battles I could admin a lot.

-edit:  Are we allowing allies this go-around? Probably should've asked that first. :P

You wouldn't be able to admin battles involving YAK's allies, but right now it is an open question whether or not alliances will be allowed. We'll see soon; it will be on the ballot.

Potential Modifications Ballot Template

These seem to be the main issues that have been brought up in this thread; fortunately, there aren't many of them. Please copy and paste the text below, modifying the ballot as needed. Everyone can vote, including admins. You can edit your ballot as many times as you like, and you're particularly encouraged to change your suggested maps if someone else makes a suggestion that you left out. Please vote by Saturday at midnight EST.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Ingame Clan Assistance:
A. Exactly as in the ICW -- Alliances allowed, with the 2:1 rule.
B. Alliances not permitted, but Mercenary limit increased to 3.
C. Other -- please specify

Special Units:
A. Allow
B. Disallow

Small Planets:
A. 8v8
B. 5v5
C. Other, please specify

Map List (please be very liberal here; we are starting over, so even standbys like CC must be renominated. I reserve the right to veto certain choices for practical/hosting reasons):
Add: Planet 1, Planet 2, ..., Planet N

Well glad to pitch in if you need me to admin at all. Just to busy in mods and work to really be doing much else in BF these days. Doesn't help that you can't really munge to well on a Windows 7 rig, but that's a whole other story.  :XD: Would be pretty cool to be able to make a solid map for the community but I just don't see that happening with all the comparability issues in the way.

Anywho, just stopping in and making an appearance so people know I will show up for this.

Well I have somethings to say...

Ingame Clan Assistance:
A. Exactly as in the ICW -- Alliances allowed, with the 2:1 rule.


Special Units:
B. Disallow

Small Planets:
C. Other, please specify - Why not make it 6vs6?

Thanks guys, please make (mod and stock) map suggestions too, otherwise I'll be forced to take on a dictatorial role...which, of course, I can do!

Ingame Clan Assistance:
C. Other -- depends on how many teams get involved, if we get a good turnout then I'm all for alliances (and 2:1 rule)

Special Units:
B. Disallow

Small Planets:
A. 8v8

Map List:
Add: All stock maps, including Jabba's Palace. All of the mod maps that were in the last ICW. (I can make a list if needed, but that would take forever)

*I plan on editing this later with mod maps that I find

I am all for Mod maps so long as we get rid of Ord Mantell. We had about a 1.5 hour match with Yak and it was fun but too wayy to long. I also support the idea of more mercenaries as clans have been scattered and have less members. Disallow special units for sure and keep it to one round/side per team per map.

All stock maps
tech center
dantooine
hoth caves
mustafar
utapau NO TANKS hex them out
wookieeland
geonosis plains

remove coruscant and ord mantell

Quote from: Phobos on December 12, 2012, 07:56:48 PM
...
utapau NO TANKS hex them out
wookieeland
...

How do you hex edit the vehicles out? Is there a tutorial for that?
Does anyone have a link to "WookieeLand" modmap?

Quote from: -RepublicCommando- on December 12, 2012, 08:49:27 PM
How do you hex edit the vehicles out? Is there a tutorial for that?
Does anyone have a link to "WookieeLand" modmap?

there's a tutorial somewhere on the board, idk exactly where but you will find it.

in summary all you have to do is open the world LVL with a hex editor and search for "vehicle_spawn" you will see references to com_inf_vehicle_spawn which you simply null out and save. takes only half a minute.

http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=213

Ingame Clan Assistance:
C. As long as half the team is from the clan the other members can come from anywhere (mercs/allies) but nothing formal.

Special Units:
B. Disallow,  I would also like no tanks if we are only doing maps once.

Small Planets:
B. 5v5

Map list:
CC
Mos
Dantooine
Jabbas palace
Eddies italia (singleplayer version)
Nar shadaa: roof
Citadel
Mustafar

Edit: If we're not playing maps twice I would suggest a limit on how many times a team can play one side, I would say that's a fair compromise. Whatever you choose though I don't mind. :)

After someone spammed our guestbook trying to scare us not to be in the ICW2, lololol (someone can't count), we have decided to be in the ICW2 :D

We should also vote on whether this tournament will take place using Tunngle or Game Ranger. I'd prefer Tunngle, but some people can't get it to work. :(

We could alternate between the 2. I can probably host but the pings would be 200+ on the U.S. West coast.

Haha its interesting that noone has voted for the secound one (off topic sorry) 5vs5-6vs6 is fine by me. Mos Eisley, CC, Kasyekk Docks (correct my spelling) Jabba, Yavin 4 is fun even better without tanks because they camp outside cps... Most stock maps. Tech centre is a must, had some great battles on there :) Will there be an Elk?

Quote from: {212} Nixo on December 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM
Will there be an Elk?

If YAK gets enough support we will split it into the two teams like we did in the first ICW.
(Help spread the news!! ;) )

Quote from: {212} Nixo on December 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM
Kasyekk Docks (correct my spelling)

Kashyyyk. :)

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on December 13, 2012, 01:45:58 PM
We could alternate between the 2. I can probably host but the pings would be 200+ on the U.S. West coast.

Alternating sounds good to me because GR doesn't work on my Pc but tunngle does if I turn X-Fire off

Is it just me, or do we just vote for "." ?  :confused: , here's a pic.

Ingame Clan Assistance:
C. As long as half the team is from the clan the other members can come from anywhere (mercs/allies) but nothing formal.

I actually don't mind this idea, the clan would have to give permission of course. This would make the idea of an alliance more informal and subject to change based on strategic reasons, which is more exciting.

Special Units:
B. Disallow

Small Planets:
6v6

Map List:
CC
Platforms
Arena
Mos
Jabba
Citadel
Harbor
Islands
Kamino

Dantooine
Tranquaan
Coruscant Streets
Hoth Caves (recommend making Hoth into a small planet and using this as the sole map)
Wookieland

I have an exotic idea regarding the tournament map, you could have a basic layout with edges and nodes like before, but randomly (or using some predetermined rule) assign small planet maps to the small planet nodes each week instead of them being fixed. the pool could be larger than the actual number of nodes. That way we could increase the map diversity without actually making the tournament map unreasonably large; the large planets would remain constant

Is this idea too weird and idiotic?

Quote from: {212}MartyClaus on December 13, 2012, 05:50:46 PM
Is it just me, or do we just vote for "." ?  :confused: , here's a pic.

it's not just you, it is a test poll

Oh Oven told me to vote... he sounded really serious lol

Quote from: {212}MartyClaus on December 13, 2012, 06:00:11 PM
Oh Oven told me to vote... he sounded really serious lol

he must have meant the ballot

oh yeah, what about the earth maps (egypt and russia)?

and wasn't there a good christmas mod map? I'm 95% sure I've played one before

dang..this is going to kill me. it had snowballs sort of like the paintballs in froggy paintball arena

My recommendations

9 Large Planets:
Bespin - Cloud City and Platforms
Endor - Bunker and Wookieeland
Geonosis - Spire and Plains
Kashyyyk - Docks and Islands
Naboo - Theed and Plains
Rhen Var - Citadel and Harbor
Tatooine - Mos Eisley and Jabba
Yavin IV - Temple and Arena
Earth - Russia and Egypt

9 Small Planets:
Kamino - Tipoca City
Dantooine - Dust
Tranquaan - Tech Center
Hoth - Caves
Utapau - Sinkhole (no tanks is more fun here IMO)
Mustafar - Refinery
Eddie's Kastel http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=27
Onderon - Dxun Moon http://www.swbfgamers.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=293
Coruscant - Streets

The only excluded stock maps under this format would be Echo Base and Dune Sea.

I really like Eddie's Kastel and think it's a well balanced, underplayed map. Onderun Dxun Moon is also very balanced and great scenery. I haven't tested either of these maps with dedicated hosting tools yet.

Quote from: Agent Z on December 13, 2012, 01:36:30 PM
We should also vote on whether this tournament will take place using Tunngle or Game Ranger. I'd prefer Tunngle, but some people can't get it to work. :(

I prefer tunngle: Because GameRanger always spazzes out, with crazy lag blizzards, random newbys, and poor ingame status connection.
And because, On tunngle, you don't have to join any specific server, you can just run the program, and go into lan, and choose a server.    Barely any lag, and much easier to maneuver and communicate with a community or group, such as that would be in ICW2 competition.

I personally prefer gdh's idea. I think we should use Tunngle primarily, but if a certain team has a lot of members that can't get it to work properly, we can resort to GR for those battles.

\

Quote from: {212}MartyClaus on December 13, 2012, 05:50:46 PM
Is it just me, or do we just vote for "." ?  :confused: , here's a pic.

Samehere Vixo.

Quote from: {212}MartyClaus on December 13, 2012, 12:28:36 PM
After someone spammed our guestbook trying to scare us not to be in the ICW2, lololol (someone can't count), we have decided to be in the ICW2 :D

Excellent. GDH informs me that 2 or even 3 YAK teams are possible; that's good news. We may need another 3-letter name for a Ruminant; might I suggest COW?

As for the issue of Tunngle vs. GR, I see no reason not to use both, and plenty of reasons not to use just one. We'll deal with that later.

It looks like the small planet battles will be 6v6s, based on the average of the responses so far. Special units will continue to be disallowed. I think the most agreeable option re: clan alliances may actually be the one proposed by gdh here, with a ratio amendment (in line with our precedent) by me:

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on December 13, 2012, 10:36:44 AM
C. As long as 2/3 the team is from the clan the other members can come from anywhere, as long as the clan gives permission.

However, if there are going to be 2 or 3 YAK-clans, I don't want them to turn into one big faction. Perhaps we should take that into consideration.

I (and others) would like for the ICW2 to be even more diverse than ever in terms of playing environments, and dense in terms of matches. Let's discuss these in order.

Diversity. The tournament map layout (the picture with dots and lines) simply cannot be very much larger than in the ICW; in fact, if anything, it should be smaller (due to the slightly decreased number of factions and number of weeks). However, there are no reasons why this should decrease the diversity of environments we play in. This, after all, is a large part of the fun of a clan tournament!

There are a couple of ways to improve the situation, and one has been suggested already:

1.

Quote from: Joseph on December 13, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
I have an exotic idea regarding the tournament map, you could have a basic layout with edges and nodes like before, but randomly (or using some predetermined rule) assign small planet maps to the small planet nodes each week instead of them being fixed. the pool could be larger than the actual number of nodes. That way we could increase the map diversity without actually making the tournament map unreasonably large; the large planets would remain constant

It's not as exotic as you make it sound; simply put, this means swapping out and shuffling the small planets every week. This is a possibility, however it probably is better to have a fixed background for planning purposes, as well as simplicity.

2. The layout of the tournament map could be changed so that every planet connects to significantly more planets than in the ICW, meaning the galaxy is more easily traversed. It's a simple thing to do and I will work on it.

Density. The more matches the better, as long as it doesn't become inconvenient for participants. On the whole, it seems better to fit more matches into our 4 week span than to increase the number of weeks; it seems that for most people (including myself), an abbreviated (in time) tournament would be more doable than another 8-week affair. Less time is no obstacle if we increase the action!

There are a few things that can be done to improve the situation:

1. No natives. Suppose there are 5 clans participating. We could have 5 large planets and 10 small planets; each clan would "spawn" with 1 large and 2 small planets. The assignments could be done randomly, but perhaps an "evenly spaced" policy would be more fair.

2. Increased battle limit per week. Some people suggested playing each battle twice; why not play each battle once and increase the battle limit from 2 to 3?

Quote from: Oven on December 14, 2012, 12:12:10 PM
Excellent. GDH informs me that 2 or even 3 YAK teams are possible; that's good news. We may need another 3-letter name for a Ruminant; might I suggest COW?

Sorry, I meant with YAK we would have 3 teams (212, FC and YAK). Two YAKs could be possible though depending on how many of the smaller clans want to join.

Quote from: {PLA}gdh92 on December 14, 2012, 12:30:17 PM
Sorry, I meant with YAK we would have 3 teams (212, FC and YAK). Two YAKs could be possible though depending on how many of the smaller clans want to join.

With some hardcore recruiting we could get 3 teams. :D The more clans for this tournament, the better.

Quote from: Oven on December 14, 2012, 12:12:10 PM
Excellent. GDH informs me that 2 or even 3 YAK teams are possible; that's good news. We may need another 3-letter name for a Ruminant; might I suggest COW?

If we get 3, I think COW would be a great name. :P It fits right in.

No Sha-zam it should be : Bison or Water Buffalo :tu: so WBF or BSN.

Quote from: JohnisofLU on December 15, 2012, 06:50:18 PM
No Sha-zam it should be : Bison or Water Buffalo :tu: so WBF or BSN.

I actually saw a clan called {COW} and another called {PIG} on SWBF once. They apparently fought TcF and TcF lost to them (shockingly). Keeping with the theme of three-lettered animals that live in the wilderness, how about... EMU? :)

Quote from: {Alpha}Gold Man on December 15, 2012, 07:29:23 PM
I actually saw a clan called {COW} and another called {PIG} on SWBF once. They apparently fought TcF and TcF lost to them (shockingly). Keeping with the theme of three-lettered animals that live in the wilderness, how about... EMU? :)

Lol I remember , they were not clan, just a team made by Arrow.
Me , Arrow , Fate and some other guy played TcF on a 4vs4 and won by a lot ;)
I was {PIG}iWillPwN!

Oh yea, I came in at the end to help  PIG,  I had no idea what was going on xD