TWBoards.com

I liked the rules, but honestly... I dont think its going to work. Not all clan leaders will agree. You probably talked about it already, I didn't read all posts... Anyway, as a clan leader myself, there are two points that I wouldn't agree.

(1) Each player of the clan being challenged has the option to choose the side of the battlefield he or she wishes to be on.

I have a personal rule for that. Just switch sides after the first match, and if a third match is necessary, the one who won his match with more players (sticks) left alive chooses the side for the 3rd match. If both players won their match with 2 players left alive, for example, then we see who had better health overall. I know it's a little confusing, but I think it's fair.

Anyway, I think that switching sides at least once is important. So, the players of the clan being challenged should chose the side of the battlefield for the first match. Then switch sides for the second match, and if a tiebreaker is needed, switch again. I'd be ok with that.

(2) Each clan must have 3 or more participating members.

When we had a good number of active clans, I used to deny 2v2 wars. But things have changed. 2v2 wars are necessary now.

Sulli, picaxe doesn't help in some situations, either it takes to long or you can't remove enough of the platforms.

I think trapping should be defined as either you can't move or attack without damaging your own players due to walls and platforms. A common example would be in the pit when they trap your player on the spike with a platform.

I wonder if the people who love trapping have ever been trapped themselves?

I've seen quite a few 2 v 2 wars at their end in TA. Most times they end in a draw and the players go looking for a tiebreaker.

It pushes it to 3 v 3 anyway, except the tiebreaker is usually someone who was in one of the other two matches.

i think tiebreakers should have to be between two players who were not in the original war though, so you don't have the same two people playing again. doesn't really reflect which clan is better. if both or one does not have a 3rd member on, how about a 24 hour rule to resolve a tiebreaker before it becomes a loss. and both clans should have to agree to a tiebreaker, some may want to accept the tie although i generally wouldn't, i've seen clans that passively refuse tiebreakers so the other clans (generally the ones that think they should have won in the first place) get mad leave and call it as a win. or just no tiebreakers.

Yes they all have different rules. That creates problems, because they cannot always agree on things.

My guess would be around 1/3 of people actually have to worry about a disconnection frequently.

I d/c about once every 6 matches

Twinfan wrote:

2-2 wars suck, but again, with the number of people still playing the game and caring about warring, 2-2 wars are necessary to keep clans activeness up. And a tiebreaker would just make it all the better for the few people warring.

I think requiring a 3 person minimum would increase the activeness on clans, you would need more people to get on. The activity on clans isn't as low as we think, but it's not at the level it once was. Even so, I believe we have enough people to require this rule. Tiebreakers seem to be a huge problem, and I mentioned this earlier, usually someone feels like they have been matched up with either a super difficult opponent or they have an easy win. So, instead of having people bitch about their opponent, I think we should rule out tiebreakers, unless it's within the 60 minute war period. And Twin, I used your quote because it was the best written, and easiest to jump off of.

As for the clan leaders agreeing on these rules, I believe if we get half the leaders to accept the majority of these rules, we can tell the other half to suck it up, or risk being cut off from warring. If the clan leaders want to change a rule during a war, thats up to them. If you both agree on something, its a rule in that war. Like SEP said, he doesn't agree with Rule 1, so if he and Clan A's leader agree to not follow Rule 1, that's fine. These aren't impenetrable rules, there are ways around them.

D/c's: Random problems may occur, but that's life. This might be some whacked out shitty comparison, but say you get drunk one night. You and your girl (or guy) are out drinking at a bar. You get plastered, and start grinding with someone other than your mate. Your girl (or guy) is displeased with this, and leaves you. Do you get a second chance? Eh... not usually.

I used to get d/c'd a lot, but I fixed my router, and now I've gotten d/c'd twice in about 150 games. Really, d/c's are your problem, so why would you make it someone's liability to play you again?

yeah but negative, in your analogy, you choose to get piss drunk and then go crazy, nobody wants and chooses their connection to suck. the only reason d/c's are liabilities are because some people intentionally close or refresh their games when they are losing in war, and claim it was a d/c...it's just more about trusting and knowing who people are. I know it may be inconvienent to play again, but if the game is close or the person who d/c's is winning, why should they get a loss for something they have little to no control of? Just like Alchemist said above, i think that is just summing our side up short and sweet.

Are you sure it's really something you have no control over?  Maybe it's not your internet connection, but your computer.  TWO isn't exactly resource-friendly, so maybe it's because you have too many background processes or something.  It just doesn't make sense to me that a third of people have such bad internet connections.  Are a third of people really on satellite internet or dialup or something?