Huge Multi-Clan-Team Tournament: Schedule. Tournament completed.

[Tristan]

The more I think about the new rule, the better I like it.

1) Common sense doesn't work for rules. We can't start handing out moral victories.

2) twice as many players +1 as the enemy is quite a lot. You can't save the worst part of your army when you need that superior a number.

3) People delaying going for draw can still be deemed a loss as the referees can warn people NOT to delay.  Beware cav.

4) With this we will still have draws, but some more obvious and sad ones would be removed.

[Overdriven]

Also, that round we charged the highest hill in the map with our horses, took us like 2 mins to get up there, only to figure out they fled down the other side of the mountain. 

It was only their infantry and cavalry that fled. Oddly enough their archers stayed to fight and got slaughtered before we moved on to the infantry and cav

no you didn't address me specific, you said we should leave if we disagree

I don't want to encourage grudges...but you are right Okin did say that as a general comment towards the entire team following the uproar of the decision. But then if someone says something like that, then you should just ignore them. Equally referees ect shouldn't say stuff like that. You don't goad the players, you make the decision and then get on with it.

[okiN]

Sorry, but you're both completely mistaken. I checked the footage, and the only comment I made was that if the teams were worried about draws, they should engage faster. I think this was a fair comment to make, because in the early rounds both teams had been quite cagey and spent over half the round time just skirmishing.

Again, I'll have to ask you both to stop making stuff up.

[Overdriven]

Sorry, but you're both completely mistaken. I checked the footage, and the only comment I made was that if the teams wore worried about draws, they should engage faster. I think this was a fair comment to make, because in the early rounds both teams had been quite cagey and spent over half the round time just skirmishing.

Again, I'll have to ask you both to stop making stuff up.

Well if it wasn't you then one of the admins/refs definitely did.

I think your comment there also supports longer than 10min round times. Whilst 10 mins is ok, I think a proper battle should have time to skirmish and then fight. There is no real rush, why force there to be one? No one here is impatient and the point of this is to do it properly. So time limit should really not come into it.

[okiN]

I think the general sentiment there was that ten minutes is more than enough unless both teams spend most of it camping. More round time is less rounds played.

[Tears of Destiny]

Hmm, not me, I was only yelling things out in the first Match. The second match I was a side referee and only yelling for people to "form up" and such.

I slightly remember someone saying something along the lines of leaving, but I don't really remember who (Though I don't think it was OkiN) or what it was directed at, though I dimly think it was in reference to someone complaining using the "I" admin text chat about how much time there was per round.

[Overdriven]

I think the general sentiment there was that ten minutes is more than enough unless both teams spend most of it camping. More round time is less rounds played.

Why is less rounds played a bad thing? It shouldn't matter if the rounds are fun. And I honestly don't think putting on a time limit makes it so. I think things should be allowed to play out naturally and properly. Not forced and rushed because we only have 10 mins. Otherwise it's more hectic and less organised.

[Tears of Destiny]

Why is less rounds played a bad thing? It shouldn't matter if the rounds are fun. And I honestly don't think putting on a time limit makes it so. I think things should be allowed to play out naturally.

We tried that during the first round of the first match. Campfest was unbearable for both teams and spectators as well.

Besides, both commanders agreed that you would be playing with less rounds anyways, and using only 1 hour instead of the original hour and a half. They finalized the decision for rounds and time at the start of the engagement.

[Overdriven]

We tried that during the first game of the first match. Campfest was unbearable.

Besides, both commanders agreed that you would be playing with less rounds anyways, and using only 1 hour instead of the original hour and a half. They finalized the decision for rounds and time at the start of the engagement.

I know that. But it was at the start of the engagement. It was the first battle. You can't really predict how it will play out. So whilst that was fine for the first battle, I'm just wondering whether it should be revised for the future.

And maybe the camping was more down to the teams commanders than the time limit?

[Beauchamp]

how will the final standings be counted? each win is 1 point? or winning the session against the other team is 1 point?

[okiN]

I don't think counting rounds is really feasible anymore, because times and rounds played haven't been standard as originally planned. Counting overall wins might work, but it'll be problematic if two teams end up with two wins. Maybe in the event of a draw, the two tied teams could play a rematch.

[Overdriven]

I don't think counting rounds is really feasible anymore, because times and rounds played haven't been standard as originally planned. Counting overall wins might work, but it'll be problematic if two teams end up with two wins. Maybe in the event of a draw, the two tied teams could play a rematch.

That sounds like the best system. The round time difference between the two battles means that counting rounds really won't work. A rematch would be no bad thing if it was needed

[justme]

tor rulz

[Osiris]

You guys are giving me way too much credit for the victory. This is the achievement and the victory of a whole team. Not a single man, and not a single clan, but truly a team! "Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them. " Napoleon Bonaparte



lets hope if you fight team 3 that we give you your waterloo sir

[22nd_King_Plazek]

I see some point against this: What if it is 1 vs 2? that is 100 % more and could end either way. 2 vs 5 might be more obvious so if it is to be implemented a win will only be awarded if the team has MORE than 100% of the opposing team.

In such a situation or a similar one with such a low number of players who are actively fighting one another.

Will it really be that bad of a delay to add 30 seconds so they can finish each other off?