Council for WB clan match rules NEW VOTE ON ROUND TIME 23 FEB

[Plazek]

That is correct Madnes5.

However as we have played quite few matches going over all of the rules and agreeing what is what becomes quite tiresome. That is why we think it is a good idea to come up with a set that most clans agree on so when you organise a match and discussion of rules comes up all you have to do is say "look at this" and your done.

Also this is just a thread to see who is interested.

I suppose the first thing we do can be to decide who is in control of the offical thread!

 

[Gabeed]

hey after seeing how plazek handled that last thread the first vote i give towards this council is that the 22nd not control the thread. i vote my self or hoboknights to have the "edit" button

I, and the rest of the HOBOKNIGHTS, have no problem with the 22nd leading/having edit privileges over this council.  However, given that 1) this is the result of another silly and embarrassing nK/22nd forum *****fest, 2) my feelings are of revulsion towards the excessive bureaucratic rulemaking surrounding "competitive matches," 3) I am uncomfortable with the notion of a forum-wide standard for clan matches, and 4) I deem it folly to make such an aggressively competitive atmosphere in a BETA of a game . . . I shall have to mull over to what extent I want the HOBOKNIGHTS to play a role in this council.  I'll give you my answer soonish.

HOBOEDIT: Bah, partially HOBONINJA'd by Okin. 

 

[Tibertus]

I'd like to propose to amendments two the rules. The first being in regards to factions and map selection, the second being about ghosting. (please, do not start a flame war like in the previous thread.)

1. Team A picks faction
2. Team A picks map
3. Team B picks faction
4. Team B picks spawn

1. Team B picks faction
2. Team B picks map
3. Team A picks faction
4. Team A picks spawn

Hopefully, what this change would do is allow a team to pick the faction and map they think work the best together to give them an advantage, and then allow the second team to pick a faction and starting location that would best counter what team A chooses. Hopefully this would prevent either team getting a huge advantage, while still allowing each team an upper hand to play towards their strength in one of the rounds.

Second: Just fix spectator view to teammates only and fixed in the direction of the person you're following. Simple enough, some clans do not have enough people to spare to put them on police duty on another team's chat.

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

Thank you for your reply gabeed.
Anybody can join-leave-rejoin at any time, and it is the majority that will decide on the rules, if anybody comes up with better rules after some have been set, i see no problem with putting them befoure the council and changing them how ever many times the council needs.

 

[Arcas Nebun]

/signed Zendar Hunters Guild

 

[Elric_de_Melnibone]

I don't see any issues with setting up a pair of generally accepted rules.
It doesn't have to make things more complicated or competitive - I myself am against a too 'competitive' enviroment as well.


But since nobody is -forced- to use these rules, once the council is formed and rules are agreed on, it wouldn't make people unable to play warband scrims with their own set of rules.

I would like to see these rules as a guideline, which people can use to get a general idea of how good rules -might- look, and what they -could- base their rules on.
And remember, maybe not everybody wants to make up rules for every scrim they have, since making rules both warbands agree on can be quite a task. Warbands that don't want to bother with making up their own rules for each scrims could just direct the other clan to this - "Look, check those rules out, they are generally accepted, no need for making up our own rules, let's just use these and start the fun/scrim."

 

[sadnhappy]

My suggestion is as follows but it would require an automatic 'spawn-switch' mode which would automaticly swap the spawnpoints of the teams when Round 5 (or any number of rounds, could be anything from 4-10 for example, depending on how long match the partys want) has ended. The points could be scored by Rounds or Map wins, haven't decided yet which would be better but I'm leaning on Round wins since time wouldn't matter in this rule set as it's contested purely on Rounds (5min long).

The spawn switch would automaticly balance the whole system in my opinion, leaving no doubts which team would be the best as the better team would score most round victories no matter where the spawn would be. Money and stats would remain the same, only thing which would be altered would be the spawnpoint.

20 Rounds all together.

Map #1
1. Team A picks map
2. Team A picks spawn
3. Team A picks faction
4. Team B picks faction

Five (5) Rounds this way, Five (5) Rounds mirrored (Teams switch places). Scoring done by round victories so the map could end in anything between 0-10 to 10-0.

Map #2
1. Team B picks map
2. Team B picks spawn
3. Team B picks faction
4. Team A picks faction

Five (5) Rounds this way, Five (5) Rounds mirrored (Teams switch places). Scoring done by round victories so the map could end in anything between 0-10 to 10-0.

The result would range from 0-20 to 20-0 or even end in a 10-10 tie. Should a tie occur then the Team with more 'bad spawn' victories would win the match. If still then a tie, then officially a tie.

For example:

1. Team A picks map (Ruins)
2. Team A picks spawn (The village in Ruins)
3. Team A picks faction (Nords)
4. Team B picks faction (Vaegirs)

This goes on for 5 Rounds. The game then switches the spawn places automaticly so that Vaegirs now start in the Village while the Nords are on the hill across the Ruins. No need to explain the second map, hopefully you got the idea.

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

There is now well over 50% of clans in the council.
Let us commence discussing the rules.

Just a suggestion for the plan: we all put up our prefered rules until friday.
From friday morning to saturday night we vote for which one we would like best.

Perhaps each clan gets 1 vote point to use ?
Or
1 vote point for the small clans and 2 vote points for the bigger clans ?

Up to you guys to decide, im just giving suggestions.

 

[Plazek]

For reference this is what I came up with so far. It includes two systems:

Warband Clan Match Rules:

Choosing map and factions:

隐藏

Original:
Round 1:
1)Team A – Chooses faction.
2)Team B – Chooses faction.
3)Team A – Chooses map.
4)Team B – Chooses start position.
Round 2:
1)Team B – Chooses faction.
2)Team A – Chooses faction.
3)Team B – Chooses map.
4)Team A – Chooses start position.

Alternate:
Round 1:
1)Team A – Chooses map.
2)Team A – Chooses start position.
3)Team A – Chooses faction.
4)Team B – Chooses faction.
Round 2:
1)Team B – Chooses map.
2)Team B – Chooses start position.
3)Team B – Chooses faction.
4)Team A – Chooses faction.

Once teams and maps have been agreed. Which is done officially in game over chat whilst in spectator mode, you cannot go back on what you have said. No matter what map/faction/starting position is chosen by your opponent you have to stand by your original choices.

The rounds:

隐藏

Common Method:
You play a 30 minute time limit game as one half of the match using the map team A chose.
Then you have round two, another 30 minute game on the map of team B's choice.
This is normally battle mode, though I see no reason why another mode could not be played if both teams agree.

Alternate Method:
You play 10 rounds a half. This proves advantageous when your playing with particularly unstable patches. There is no in game timer so if the server crashes or a mass of players it can lead to problems on timed games. Playing by round however allows you to declare that round null and void so you can continue on. 20 rounds in total, however you have less choice for game modes. TDM, conquest and CTF are not round based so they would be unplayable without time limits.

Point allocation:

隐藏

Common:
For winning more rounds than your opponent you get one point per half.
If you win at both your map and your opponents map then you win 2-0.
Lose both you lose 2-0.
Of course this system is very open to draws.

Alternate:
1 point per round victory(Battle). 1 point per flag cap(CTF). 1 point per kill(TDM). I have not played enough conquest to be able to offer an option for that but I am sure an equivalent could easily be worked out. Maybe 1 point per flag held at end of game?

Which server?

隐藏

If the game is a challenge then the receiver of the challengee gets to pick the server, ie probably play on their own. However in the current situation without many servers it is probably a good idea to make sure you can get a spot on the server yourself before challenging anyone! If it is an intercontinental match it means the challenged gets to pick to play home or away first or second. If it is just a regular friendly then who cares? Especially as there is no choice of servers right now anyway.

Friendly Fire:

隐藏

Ranged:
Set to normal.

Melee:
Should be used as it is a more skillful and challenging game.
The % damage done is currently a matter of dispute so I feel that currently the % should be established by agreement between the clans involved. Proper testing will enable us to find out which % is best.

General Rules:

隐藏

1)No hacking/use of modified game files except for the custom banner pack. Default loss.
2)No exploiting of glitches*. A team found to exploit a glitch will lose that round by default. To clarify a round is the 5 minute or so part of a 30 minute half.
3)The winning team must provide screen shots to show their victory. As the winners it is their responsibility. They ought be posted up somewhere both teams and interested people can see.
4)Mercenaries/allies can only be used with the agreement of the opposing team and if it really is impossible for you to use your regular players(not to say that you cannot have alliance vs alliance matches which I should imagine would be great fun).

*argueably super jumping is not not a glitch but a result of the somewhat odd physics system, sometimes I think it actually adds to the game and Arch3r agrees. I think this is one "glitch" that the use of is up for discussion. However with Havok most jump which necessitated a super jump are now possible anyway as you can jump marginally higher. I am yet to find a jump that requires a super jump under the new physics system.

Perhaps we want to start afresh perhaps we can simply make adjustments to these. I do not care.

I brought back the origonal map/faction selection due to popular demand. However I am of the opinion that there are merits and demerits to both methods, I did think up both of them after all. There is the origonal and an alternate option for almost every variable. For friendly matches I do not think that these rules should really be more than a guideline you do not have to obey them to the letter. They are a matter of utility so that when you organise a match you can say "were following these rules" which saves a lot of time as you no longer have to go through the whole thing yourselves.

I would suggest that someone who is not actually affiliated with any clan be the "thread commander" it would be best. That way no one could say that this council is biased in any direction, or that any clan is trying to control it.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm just posing this to get this in my "New Replies" page.

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

Fair enough.

 

[HULKSMASH]

/signed by XIII

 

[Dimez]

Signed by Dimez

i know i just wanted to sign it to be special. i knew it was clan leaders/co -leaders

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

Added to the list.
Good to have you in the council hulk.

 

[Orion]

nK expresses no interest in your proposed council.

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

Fair enough.

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

There is now well over 50% of clans in the council.
Let us commence discussing the rules.

Just a suggestion for the plan: we all put up our prefered rules until friday.
From friday morning to saturday night we vote for which one we would like best.

Perhaps each clan gets 1 vote point to use ?
Or
1 vote point for the small clans and 2 vote points for the bigger clans ?

Up to you guys to decide, im just giving suggestions.

bump, agree's/disagree's please ?

 

[Reapy]

I think the selection process should simply be:

A - MAP
B - SPAWN
A - FACTION
B - FACTION

Seems like that still gives A the driving control of the match but at the same time gives B plenty of chances to counter and level the playing field, ending up with a reasonably equal match...which is what you ideally want in competition. Being able to set up holes for team B to climb out of is not fun for anybody.

Ghosting - I think everyone mostly has it figured out. Though really, in a game like mount and blade I can hardly ever see what ghosting would do to provide an advantage. In the village you can get up on a building and see where they are coming from, and nobody is dead at that point anyway. On the other maps, you can pretty much see the entire map at all times anyway.  This is not like a shooting game where someone is going to hit you in the back and kill your entire team.

Besides that, the server has a strict setting which only lets you spec your team. Now, the only advantage in m&b I can see in ghosting is the ghost can watch your back. If there was a 'face forward' follow mode, which I think would make spectating more fun in general so you can see what a player is specifically doing, you would take away this advantage. At that point you can only see what your team sees, which they can just as well report say it anyway.

Anyway, I mean pretty much for a clan match you just put on strict spec mode and don't worry about it, that's about all you can do about it.

Also, I would think that just having a play tested league format would be great, because I really assume in the future we will see some leagues created for m&b. Already the battle for Calradia is getting made, and could benefit from any experience here with organized matches. I fully expect to see a league with all sorts of formats, 1v1 2v2 3v3, 5v5, 10v10 etc.

One other key thing which will have to happen in release is there should be EU, US, Oceanic, China etc game leagues, because lets face it, competition with huge ping is just not ever going to be fair, or even fun. Let a clan decide they want to play at a severe ping disadvantage by joining an opposite continent league/ladder.

I often dislike very competitive gaming because you tend to draw in people who will do anything and everything to win, which can really take the fun out of something that is supposed to be your entertainment at the end of the day. On the flip side, every game needs that kind of competition though to help expose balance and design flaws.

While most of us can work out 1v1 melee problems, (and I still do believe that they scale up very well, ie when the duel works the game works just a well in big groups), 1v1 balance can not cover every possible thing that could go wrong. We need to see threads like "XXX clan loaded all vaegir archers and we found no way to beat them on any map setting ever, to fix it we should YYYY".

If people don't get off the ground playing matches somewhat competitively we only have random pub matches to go on for balance tweaking. Anyway, fully support the intention of this thread, and coming to a semi popular conclusion for server/game settings and format that is most fun and competitive among the community is a good thing.

 

[Plazek]

Personally I think that we can take a bit longer to make the rules Chuck there is no rush.

PS Which clan are you representing Reapy? I think none but that was a pretty well reasoned post

 

[Reapy]

Beta Clan!