i'm usually free all weekend apart from when i go out in the evening for some alcohol
| Massive Assault http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/ |
|
| Clan War! http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=473 |
Page 3 of 4 |
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Excellent ideas! Saturday would work for me too. Perhaps a couple hours earlier? Saturday late morning GMT? |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i'm usually free all weekend apart from when i go out in the evening for some alcohol
|
|
| Author: | Tiger [ Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like this idea, but I prefer couple hours earlier. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok can clan leaders/clan members that want to come please post here what times they can do on saturday for a 30-60min meeting over msn. I'm suggesting we have 1-3 poitns on the agenda for each meeting. I'm suggesting small planet attack and system invasion for this meeting, any other topics plz post here and we'll see what ppl would rather talka bout
|
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
All clan members are invited to join us at around 1300 gmt for a discussion of changes to the clan war. The agenda for tomorrows meeting will cover the following topics: 1) Whether we should move to having 2 attacks in order to take a small planet. 2) Adding a System Invasion option. 3) Making the attacker's identities a secret. |
|
| Author: | MortonHQ [ Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some thoughts for this afternoon. Once apon a time.... nah, let's go for... In the beginning......the plan was to give the defender of planets a slight advantage so that it was harder to take planets than to keep them. For this reason, we decided to only have one battle (although I agree that 2 would be fairer) and for the the defender to play as PL. Playing 2 battles on small planets kind of takes this away. However, it should really be more difficult to take the more important medium planets than the small ones. At the moment they actually produce fairer battles since the inital PL disclosure is not so important. Tough decision. System attacks could be introduced with out changing the rules much or the way the war works. We could simply offer a discount for attacking all remaining planets in a system. The alternative might be to make the systems larger, with 5 to 7 planets maybe and for the attacker being required to take 50% of the planets (by value) to conquor the system. Attacks would take place in one go and the battle would be more of a team effort. On known attacker, we suggested at the start a number of different options that could be introduced for an additional cost to the attacker. This I think was one of them. For example for an additional 5 or 10 credits the attacker could keep his identity secret or play as PL. The defending clan would also have the option to pay some credits and find out who the attacker is or to keep playing as PL. One practical problem of not knowing who the attacker is, is that NWO run the email address, so we would find out. Off couse we wouldn't use this to our advantage  . More automation would be required.
Appoligies if this is pointing out the obvious, but I thought it might save us some time later on MSN. Speak to you all soon. |
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:37 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | |||
This is the transcript of our meeting for 4/3/2004. It contains a lot of ideas that were thrown out there, which we may want to consider in the future.
|
|||
| Author: | Rocklizard [ Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here are the proposed rule changes (in bold) agreed in the meeting, please confirm if you think that I have interpreted correctly! Under "Monday morning 9am": OLD RULE: 1. Each clan is allocated credits based on the number of planets they control (contested planets are included). 10 credits for a large planet (new paradise), 3 for a medium planet (Anubis and Wasserland) and 1 for a small (Emerald, Antarticus, Noble Rust) NEW RULE: 1. Each clan is allocated credits based on the number of planets they control (contested planets are included). 20 credits for a large planet (new paradise), 3 for a medium planet (Anubis, Noble Rust and Wasserland) and 1 for a small (Emerald, Antarticus and Brimstone) Under "During the week": OLD RULE: 1. If the clan has sufficient credits they can attack an accessable planet. An accessable planet is one that is in the same system as a planet your clan owns, or in a neighbouring system providing you own at least 50% of the planets in the neighbouring system. As all armies come from the clan's capitol there must be an unbroken link of systems in which you own at least 1 planet for the invasion to be allowed. NEW RULE: 1. If the clan has sufficient credits they can attack an accessable planet. An accessable planet is one that is in the same system as a planet your clan owns, or at extra cost a neighbouring system providing you own at least 50% of the planets in the neighbouring system. As all armies come from the clan's capitol there must be an unbroken link of systems in which you own at least 1 planet for the invasion to be allowed. In addition, at further extra cost the attack may be mounted from a neighbouring system in which less than 50% of planets are owned provided the Clan can trace an unbroken chain of at least 50% controlled systems from that system back to the Clan's capitol. DELETE OLD RULE: 5. The defending player plays as Phantom League. OLD RULE: 2. 10 credits are required to mobolize the forces needed to attack a small planet, 20 for a medium and 30 for a large. Plus an additional 10 credits if the planet is in a different system to a clan owned planet. NEW RULE: 2. 10 credits are required to mobolize the forces needed to attack a small planet, 20 for a medium and 30 for a large. Plus, if the planet is in a different system to a clan owned planet, an additional 10 credits if the Clan owns 50% or more of the planets in the neighbouring system and an additional 20 credits if the clan owns less than 50% of the planets in the neighbouring system. If the attacking clan pays a further 20 credits they will play as PL otherwise the defending clan will play as PL. The option to play as PL must be selected at the same time as the attack is declared and cannot be reversed by the defending clan. Mike |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Mon Apr 05, 2004 6:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
look good apart from.. Quote: In addition, at further extra cost the attack may be mounted from a neighbouring system in which less than 50% of planets are owned provided the Clan can trace an unbroken chain of at least 50% controlled systems from that system back to the Clan's capitol.
The unbroken chain of at least 1 planet per system is same as always, but to invade from a system where you control 1 planet you must be next to a system where you control 50% OR all the planets in the system where you have 1 planet must be under attack already |
|
| Author: | Rocklizard [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes I agree that is better. |
|
| Author: | MortonHQ [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds good! |
|
| Author: | Rocklizard [ Mon May 03, 2004 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I will be on holiday for two weeks starting Saturday so should be set to sleeping for new defences until I get back (come and get us!!! ).
Only playing one clan war game at the moment  but who knows may even get that finished the way things are looking for Arkanagel 
Thanks Mike |
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Mon May 03, 2004 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey Rock, who should we go to in your clan to assign defenses in your absense? |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Sat May 08, 2004 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Had an idea of linking LCW and CW together, where for every point the clan is up in the LCW from the starting points the clan gains $1 in the CW, for every point they are down in the LCW they lose $1. This way it is fair on the clans which are not in the LCW. What u guys think? |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
can people plz not end war games when the opponent takes too long, a couple fo times now we've had the situation and it's happened because the game has got stuck in both players waiting for turn area so the person isn't aware it's his/her turn. If you have been waiting longer than 3 days plz email us and let us know the game number, we'll then monitor the game (incase it is stuck) and contact the slow clan if applicable. As any manually ended games will msot likely just be replayed once we get a replay. IF a game does reach 14days, as long as we have been contacting the offending clan then we will end the game ourselves with the offending clan losing. We are aware of who is on holidays etc and need aditional time, but make sure u do let us know! |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
atm we are aware of jocamp ahving big computer problems hopefully they'll be fixed soon or NWO will be reassinging games. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just letting everyone know taht battlecontrol and the map will be out of date for a short time due to problems with the server we are using. We'll try to keep you up2date using html. I'll knock something up later tonight and post the link here. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok site is up2date, still si broken but we've found a way around it. |
|
| Author: | Artanis [ Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Also posted in the thread about the 2nd clan war: In an internal tournament, FoR is trying out giving players the ability to reject a starting layout (idea thought up by Quitch), and I thought that that would be something that would be great in the Clan War as something clans could spend their money on. Basically, how it works is that the player looks at his layout and either accepts it or DOES NOT DO ANYTHING AT ALL PERIOD and says "I want a new one". The game would be cancelled and a new one sent, with the player being required to accept the new one, even if the layout is worse. If a player decides not to use his or her rejection, it goes to waste. For clanwar-specific mechanics, the option for this would have to be bought before knowing whether it'd be needed (like the PL option currently is), and a clan wouldn't be able to buy multiple rejections for a match. To add to this idea, I was thinking that an attacker using the PL option would have to pay extra for the rejection option, or even not be able to use it at all. This would help to offset the power of the PL option on small maps and give clans a reason (other than "we're out of money") not to use the PL option. For an example that will (hopefully) clarify things a bit: FoR spends $10 to attack GoT. Then they spend an additional $20 for the PL Option and a further $10 to buy a Rejection Option (which would normally be $5, but is more expensive due to the PL Option). GoT assigns a defender and decides to buy a rejection option for $5. GoT, having to defend a small planet as FNU, really wants a second rejection option, but can't have it and thus has to make due with only one. The game starts, and Artanis and Tiger look at their layouts. Artanis really really hates his, so he uses the Rejection Option, the game is cancelled, and a second one sent. This one is even worse for Artanis, but he has no choice but to use it. Tiger looks at his second layout and likes it, so he goes ahead and keeps it. GoT does NOT get back the $5 that the unused Rejection Option cost them. Thanks to the PL Option, a bit of luck, and all of his skill, Artanis then proceeds to last until the turn counter actually hits double digits before Tiger beats the hell out of him 
|
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm, I was considering how Quitchs suggestion could be used, but it looks like you guys have come up with a working example . I like the idea that you have to buy the option ahead of time. But I think it should ONLY apply to the person that is playing FNU, as that is the goal of this option: to give the FNU a slightly better chance of having a descent setup.
If an attacker can both have the PL option AND the rejection option, they can virtually garuntee a win! Then it contributes further to the snowball effect we already see in the clan war, that being once you lose a few battles, or you find yourself being attacked on multiple fronts, it is nigh impossible to recover completely. A clan that has huge amounts of resources can make every battle impossible to win by the defender. So my suggestion is to have it work much the same as what Artanis proposed, but then only allow the person that is playing FNU to buy the option, regardless of whether the attacker chose PL. So if the attacker chose the PL option, the targeted clan selects a defender and can choose to pay for the Rejection Option. If the attacker doesn't use the PL option, they can declare they are using the Rejection Option when the battle is declared. |
|
| Page 3 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
