Massive Assault
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/

2nd Clan War
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1167		 Page 2 of 5
Author:  mwigor [ Mon May 31, 2004 6:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like the star format suggested for a future clan map.

One thing I would like to suggest as a possibility before the “2nd clan war” is a “1st clan tournament”.

Here is a possible ruleset.

Each clan can enter as many teams as they like.

Each team must consist of precisely 4 players each round however it may have a larger playing roster – but only four play in any given round.

A random all play all draw will be made, with a new round starting every 2 weeks.

A match will consist of 12 battles – 3 for each player – on six different planets (each team will play PL and FNU once each on each of the planets).

First captains will announce their roster for the match – if necessary to a neutral moderator/umpire to make this declaration simultaneous.

Then each captain will submit to the umpire a list of planets on which they would like to play/like not to play. The list will consist of all planets in any order with each being either a request to play on or not play on a specific planet.

These will then be processed in order to select the six maps for the match – with a NOT request taking preference over a request.

(eg Team A Team B
NOT Brimstone Brimstone
Emerald NOT New Paradise
New June Map Wasserland
NOT Wasserland Noble Rust
Bizzaria Anubis
NOT Crateus Crateus
Antarcitus NOT Antarcticus
Noble Rust Bizzaria
NOT Anubis New June Map
New Paradise Emerald

The maps for the match would be Emerald, New June Map, Wasserland, Noble Rust, Bizzaria and Anubis – There may be some problems with this process – I haven’t thought it out in great detail)

Each captain must then assign his players (again by submission to the umpire) for the 12 battles.

So - What do people think of . . .

The basic idea?
The specific rules?
Author:  mwigor [ Mon May 31, 2004 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Regards the neutral territory idea - I like the spirit of it - I just don't think it would work - Enforcer raises just a few of the immediately obvious problems.

Incidentally although the current map is possibly unfair to GoT/FoR - it took the form it did in a random fashion - the original 3 (GoT/FoR/NWO) were joined by us (RN) and then 7th W - with the joining positions being random out of the possible positions.

The one thing I don't like about any map (wormholes might solve this) is that you will spend your whole time fighting the same people. Hence my suggestions above.

Just quickly on the issues of which maps to include - I think it would be a shame to exclude any. Although I personally don't like New Paradise/Wasserland - as they are huge time commitments.
Author:  Quitch [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:45 am ]
Post subject: 
A three day time limit on moves would be essential IMO. This should prevent games getting bogged down. If someone can't keep up with that, tough. One move per three days is hardly a tough schedule, and we should question if people who can't keep up with that should really be taking part.
Author:  mwigor [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:19 am ]
Post subject: 
In an ideal world turns would be played in less than 3 days - however in practice some people have other commitments - or go on holidays - so play at irregular intervals.
Author:  troxburgh! [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:16 am ]
Post subject:  Neutral Countries
In terms of Neutral countries I think these should remain neutral unless a sucessful attack has been made. The Defender is selected from a rotation in the clans.

The other option for neutral systems is that they are like Switzerland, ie no one is allowed in and they can not be attacked. Similar to blank systems.

This would allow greater flexibility in the game for placement of clans and less chance of having an unfair position. A donut shaped map with a black hole in the middle would be another solution. This black hole could be a worm hole which links with another worm hole at the other side of the black hole. This would mean everyone could attack 3 other clans at all times.

Everyone understand the ideas? Let me know if you want an expansion on an idea.

Toby
Author:  Enforcer [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:49 am ]
Post subject: 
i understand the diea, however would be better if all clans could reach eachother. so maybe more than 1 worm hole across the "blackhole"
Author:  mwigor [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:36 am ]
Post subject: 
One problem with all clans being in contact is that if one clan is perceived to be weaker than the others - then the risk is that all clans might gang up on it - this is one advantage of the current system with new clans (which tend to be slightly less battle hardened) joining on the outside - the more I think about it the more I like the idea of continuing the current map and readding clans in one of the available positions when they are destroyed.
Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:24 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree that its nice to limit access as well. If you have your enemies specified from the very start, you can plan your strategy around it. If anyone can attack anywhere, its going to be a crazy war, and take some of the strategy out of it. One clan might be fighting one front, while another clan might be fighting 3.

I would be okay with a wormhole that could reach one planet of each clan, but I would hope it would be expensive to use. Perhaps if we use the star configuration, the wormhole would connect to the system farthest from other clans (one arm not connected to other clans)
Author:  Enforcer [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:00 am ]
Post subject: 
well the clans endxt to each otehr would ahve aobut 3-4 systems they could invade of neighbouring clans, where as if we place the "wormholes" in systems with planets, an invading clan using the wormhole would need to capture planets in that 1 system before they could progress.

The clan league could be a good idea, didn't quite understand ur not map/map could u give me a longer explination of it?

also any idea i;'ve done before is where the winning "clan" is the 1st one to capture the capitols of his 2 neighbouring clans. This would keep the fights mainly on the long borders, but other clans might decide a clan is doing to well and sue the wormhole to try adn weaken them.
Author:  Quitch [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:20 am ]
Post subject: 
mwigor wrote:
In an ideal world turns would be played in less than 3 days - however in practice some people have other commitments - or go on holidays - so play at irregular intervals.


In which case they shouldn't be taking part. Either you can play every three days or you can't. Having people take part in a tournament and playing once every couple of weeks, is ridiculous. A tournament and a clan are commitments too, and if people haven't the time to honour those commitments, then they should be re-evaluating their position within said clan.
Author:  Quitch [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:22 am ]
Post subject: 
mwigor wrote:
One problem with all clans being in contact is that if one clan is perceived to be weaker than the others - then the risk is that all clans might gang up on it - this is one advantage of the current system with new clans (which tend to be slightly less battle hardened) joining on the outside - the more I think about it the more I like the idea of continuing the current map and readding clans in one of the available positions when they are destroyed.


Only if the clan leader is inept at strategy. A weak clan makes for a good ally. They're safe to ignore, no threat to you, but can pose a thorn in the side of the enemy. Why would you want to waste time crushing the weak clan when the strong enemy on your other flank is probably just getting stronger?
Author:  Artanis [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Quitch wrote:
Why would you want to waste time crushing the weak clan when the strong enemy on your other flank is probably just getting stronger?

Two words: "Free Planets"

Also, in case it wasn't clear (or rather, "in the incredibly likely case that it wasn't clear"), my idea for "hub" planets would work with a wormhole-like system (I prefer the term "jump lines", but that's neither here nor there). I'll draw up a quick picture to help make sense of it, you'll see that it'll be less complex that the current system, not more so.

Attachments:
File comment: Green can attack blue's ANU or Wass and red's ANU. Red can attack green's Wass and blue's Wass. Blue can attack green's Wass and Red's Biz or ANU
pic.jpg
pic.jpg [ 23.68 KiB | Viewed 41576 times ]
Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 
The one problem I see with the Hub approach is that then there is no variety. Your choices are limited. Right now, you can try to get the large planet because you want the additional resources, or you can go for a small planet as quick way to get a foothold in an enemy system. With the Hub system, there is one and only one way to attack a system, so it takes some variety and strategy out of the clan war.
Author:  Artanis [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:30 am ]
Post subject: 
That's the point of the hub system, to counter the strategic importance of small planets so that they don't have to be removed from the map.

A slightly more complex way of doing it would to keep the jump-line approach, but make it so that certain planets can be attacked from certain angles, so that a small-planet toehold is still possible.
Author:  mwigor [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Going back to my earlier suggestion of a league - here is an attempt to clarify the bit about planets and NOT planets.

Basically each team captain sends to the neutral match umpire a list giving an order of preferences or vetos of the various planets.

These are then applied to the possible list of planets until 6 planets are selected for the match.

Each clans first preference is applied - and then their second - etc the rule about vetos applying before preferences applies in the case where team A's first preference is planet x and team a's first preference is not planet X - the veto takes precedence.

The ruleset was in no way intended to be complete - and needs to be thought out - the main idea was that of a league rather than a map.

Each match (consisting of 12 battles) would score your team a win/loss/draw with For and against (Battles won - battles lost) splitting ties.
Author:  Enforcer [ Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:15 am ]
Post subject: 
a league would prob b good to do after this war, as it'll give us a chance to really work on the 2nd war before we use it.

So if a clan's 1st 2 choises were..

Not Brimstone, Emerald

And for other clan..

Anubis, Brimstone

would the brimstone be veto'd by the 1st no brimstone? leaving Anubis and Emerald as 1st 2 maps?
Author:  mwigor [ Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes
Author:  mwigor [ Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes
Author:  Enforcer [ Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 
so each round starts 2 weeks apart, do they play a different clan each round?

can u vote for the same map twice, eg..

emerald, emerald

and assuming no not emeralds in 1st 2 from otehr clan. would u play on emerald twice (so 4 games on emerald?)

when assigning players to games can the same person play the same map from each team.

I think that complete team entrants should be announced about a 2 weeks before the 1st matches start as well as who plays which clan when (assumign that's how it works), then they have a week to enter their not map/map as well as whihc 4 players are playing. Then the maps to be played on are announched and clans have a week to assign players to each game (which are sent secretly to where-ever)
Author:  Quitch [ Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:26 am ]
Post subject: 
An idea I haven't seen yet would be that on small planets the attacker gets to reject the initial deployment (assuming they're always FNU). This would avoid people being stomped because their SA layout blows.
Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/