PDA

View Full Version : Draft League Rules



TinCow
05-24-2011, 14:44
The discussion in the Ladder thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135652-What-do-you-want-in-a-Ladder) has shown that there is some interest in an Org-hosted TWS2 League. This thread is to discuss the precise rules of this league and explain how it would operate.

First, let me explain how this would work. Our Ladder utility is automated, just like the Tournament utility. You can see a tiny example of what an in-progress Ladder would look like here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/ladders.php?do=view&id=7). In function, this TWS2 League would work like football (soccer) leagues, where there are multiple tiers of teams and at the end of each season teams are promoted to a higher tier or relegated to a lower tier depending on their performance during the season. Each tier of the League will be represented by a single Ladder in our utility. It would work in the following manner:

The League will consist of multiple ladders (number yet to be decided). All new players will enter the League at the bottom-most ladder. The League will have 'seasons', during which play is open and players may challenge other players in the same tier to matches. When the season ends, the rankings become final. Top ranked players in lower tiers will move up to the next higher tier, and bottom ranked players in higher tiers will move down to the next lower tier. Following a short period for rest, a new season will start with reset stats.
New players can join at any time, though the season start and end dates will not change to accommodate them. No new player will be permitted to join the League until they agree to abide by all the League rules.
While a season is in session, players can challenge any other player in the same tier to a match. The utility has a built-in system for arranging match times/dates, but coordination can be done with other methods as well. After a match is completed, the result will be automatically submitted if both players confirm it within the utility (unlike in the tournament, where only the loser had to submit the result). Players can contest reported results, which would be referred to a Gamemaster for arbitration. Scores can also be submitted manually by the Gamemasters.
Rankings change during the season as games are completed, and will be based on the ELO rating, which gives points for victories and subtracts them for defeats, with the number of points varying depending on the ranks of the players. Defeating a player ranked higher than you will gain you more points than defeating a player ranked lower than you, and losing to a player ranked lower than you will lose you more points than losing to a player ranked higher than you.


Ok, now on to the specifics about the precise rules that would be in place. Here is a draft of a rule set I've been working on during the Tosa Cup. It's split into two parts. The first part, Universal Org Competition Rules, are designed to apply to ALL competitions hosted on the Org, which would include this League. The second part, Draft League Rules, are specific rules for this particular league and would not apply to other competitions on the Org. I've poached some of this from CWC (with Tomisama's blessing), as many of you appear to hold that rule set in high regard. In particular, the rules about Drops and the attacker/defender rules listed in the Matches section are designed to eliminate problems encountered multiple times in the tournament.

Please provide input on any changes/additions/deletions you think would be good. None of this is finalized, all suggestions are welcome. It is very important that we get a good rule system in place so that this league operates cleanly and efficiently.

Universal Org Competition Rules:

All players must add their Steam ID to their Org forum profile (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134807-New-Feature-Connect-your-Steam-account-to-your-Org-profile!) and join the Org Steam Group (http://steamcommunity.com/groups/TheOrg) prior to registration. No player will be permitted to play in any Org competition if they have not done this. Players must also Friend all Gamemasters who are involved in any competition they are participating in, and accept all Friend requests they receive from other competitors.
Gamemaster - All competitions must have at least one Gamemaster to supervise the competition and resolve disputes. If there is only one Gamemaster in a competition, the Gamemaster cannot play in the competition. If there are multiple Gamemasters in the competition, they can play, but they have no powers to enforce rules or resolve disputes in their own matches. If a player believes a Gamemaster is behaving improperly, the issue will be referred to the Org Staff.
Drops - The first two drops by one player or team will result in the battle being replayed. A third drop by the same player or team will result in an automatic loss for the dropper, and win for the other player or team. Extended Considerations:
Obvious Advantage: If a player drops while the other player or team has an obvious advantage (as indicated by the battle bar) then the player or team with the winning advantage can either choose to replay the Battle, or claim the win. Screenshots or replay must be submitted in order to claim the win if the dropping player does not agree.
Slight Advantage: If one player or team has only a slight advantage, the Battle is to be replayed with same factions, armies, and conditions. If this is the second try at completing the same Battle, and one player or team has dropped with a slight disadvantage in both attempts, the player or team with the slight advantage can then either choose to refight the Battle, or claim the win (as above).
Red-Line Camping - Positioning a unit to take advantage of the red-line to support its flank or rear is against the rules.
The criteria for a charge of red-line camping must include these three things:
The positioning of a body of forces to use the red-line as a tactical advantage.
The proximity of that body of forces to the red-line, inhibiting out-maneuvering on that flank or to its rear.
Maintaining that position for a period of over three minutes, without showing signs of any attempt to break the appearance of camping; that would demonstrate that this was truly of temporary intention.
Inactivity - The lack of effort to arrange and complete Battles before any assigned deadline will result in a forfeit of the Match. The competition's Gamemaster(s) will evaluate effort according to the available evidence of attempts to arrange the battle, including posts anywhere on the Org, PMs, logs of Steam chat conversations, etc. A technical victory will be awarded to the team which made a greater effort, or both teams could be forfeit, if neither is considered to have done enough. An extension will only be awarded if both teams show good efforts to arrange the battle, and it is likely to be fought in the near future.
Bugs and Exploits - It is forbidden to use known bugs or exploits in the game, regardless of whether the bug/exploit was explicitly forbidden in the Rules. Intentional use of a bug or exploit is considered dishonorable behavior, and could result in forfeit of the match, expulsion from the contest, or any other punishment the Gamemaster feels is warranted. The discovery of new bugs or exploits must be publicly communicated to the Gamemaster(s). Known exploits include, but are not limited to, the following: Repeated use of Stand and Fight to artificially inflate a General's Charge Bonus.


Draft League Rules:

Seasons - Each season of the League will last for one month. At the end of each season, the top and bottom ranked players (number to be determined based on the number of competitors) in each tier will be promoted and relegated to the proper corresponding tier. At the end of each season, there will be a one week break before the next season begins.
Completing Matches Promptly - All League players commit themselves to playing their scheduled matches before the end of the season, and will strive to complete them much earlier than that to account for scheduling difficulties with later opponents. Players that do not demonstrate sufficient commitment to completing their scheduled matches will be penalized, with possible penalties including loss of individual matches, loss of all matches in an entire season, and permanent expulsion from the League.
Conduct - All players will be expected to abide by the TW Code of Honor standards (https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/code.jpg), regardless of whether they have personally signed the CoH.
Challenges - All matches will be arranged through challenges by the players. Players may use one of two kinds of challenges (instructions on how to do this through the utility will be provided before play begins):
Open Challenges - Players may declare that they are available to fight a battle at a certain date and time against anyone who wishes to play. Any player in the same tier may accept the challenge and will be required to show up to fight the battle at the specified date and time.
Direct Challenges - Players may challenge a specific person in the same tier. The other player cannot refuse to fight the battle, though negotiations on scheduling are permitted.
Regardless of the challenge method utilized, two specific players cannot fight each other more often than once every two weeks.
Matches - All matches will be played as a best of three battles. All battles will have a designated attacker and defender, with one player defending in battles 1 and 3, and the other player defending in battle 2.
Map - All battles in each match will be fought on the same map, with the choice of map up to the players. If no agreement can be made regarding the map, the map will be Rice Fields.
Determination of Attacker/Defender - If the players have fought each other before, the player who was the attacker in battles 1 and 3 during the last encounter will be the defender in battles 1 and 3. If the players have not fought each other before and the match comes from a direct challenge, the challenger is the attacker in battles 1 and 3. If the players have not fought each other before and the match comes from an open challenge, the challenger is the defender in battles 1 and 3.
Roles of Attacker/Defender - The attacker/defender rules only exist to break stalemate situations, they are not intended to force defenders to sit still if they wish to attack. Camping is highly discouraged and ideally both players will engage each other aggressively. However, if a stalemate occurs, the designated attacker in each match will be the player who is responsible for moving forward and breaking the deadlock.
Reporting Scores - After each match, both players will report the match score in the League utility. The score will be reported as 2-0 or 2-1, depending on how many matches were played before one player won two games. If a technical victory is awarded due to inactivity, the score will be reported as 1-0. If a match is forfeited by both players due to inactivity, the score will be reported as 0-0.
Replays - All players will save replays of all matches and will post links to the replays in the comments section of the League utility for that specific match. Players can also give the replays to the Gamemasters, who can post the replays for them. Replays will be posted promptly and without complaint.
Deviation From Rules - Any of the rules listed below this rule may be changed by the players as long as both parties agree to the change prior to the match. Players are strongly encouraged to document any agreement by both sides to any rule changes via a forum post or screenshot of a chat log prior to the start of the match. If there is any dispute between the players in which the changed rules are instrumental, and the Gamemaster concludes there is insufficient evidence of the alleged rule change agreement, the battle will be discarded and re-fought with standard rules.
Battle Funds - 14k
Unit Size - Medium
Unit Restriction - No artillery (Mangonels, Fire Rockets, Cannons). No DLC units.
Season/Weather - Spring/Dry
Time Limit - None
Key Buildings - None
Battle Type - Classic Mode

Nowake
05-24-2011, 15:49
Oi TinCow
Personally, I find it all sounds about right; I've seen this type of league play out before and it worked.

However, in regards to the last rule, could we reopen the discussion?
I know Veterans have been discussed as part of the Tosa Cup and I read the arguments on both sides. It was most probably appropriate. Would it not be opportune to use Classic Battles for a League at this point in time? I understood they function correctly now and in one versus one encounters, there should be no sashimono coloring issues and other minutiae mentioned by others.
For one, no matter how you view it, Veterans require you to actively play the Avatar system beside the League to prepare. Leaving aside the debate about pre-patch Veterans and what's fair in that regard, they do skew the result in favor of the player with more games in the Avatar system, or the players who stage mock battles to level them up.
While understanding troop composition is part of the task a player must live up to, "working" for it in a league system is a bit odd. It makes it all close more to Magic: The Gathering than to Chess or Go. We want a perfect ELO-based league pitting players against eachother regardless of time spent online.
Moreover, the .Org would thus exclusively host the only pure competition around. It seems fitting considering the .Org's origins and history over time -- the "old school" syntagm comes to mind --and it would perhaps be seen as a respite from a certain type of engagement even for players advanced in the Avatar ladder.

Why link the League to the Ladder basically?

TinCow
05-24-2011, 16:07
That's a good point. Making battles Classic would level out the playing field further to make it even more of a straight skill contest, which really is the whole point of this League in the first place. Would the Classic battle setting be something that we should allow people to alter with the Deviation From Rules bit? As it stands now, that rule would allow players to override the Classic battle rule and use veterans in a battle if they both agreed to it prior to the match. That seems fair to me, but would it somehow make the results of the League as a whole less accurate?

TinCow
05-24-2011, 18:48
As per this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135652-What-do-you-want-in-a-Ladder&p=2053317783&viewfull=1#post2053317783), I've recently noted some issues with the built-in league part of the utility we use. As such, it's not really good for what we want. However, we can easily still run a League by simply using a single ladder for each tier of the League, with a little extra manual organization (to be done by me) to link them together. This actually seems like a better method, as it allows us to utilize the greater flexibility of the Ladder system while still keeping the tiers and promotion/relegation aspects of the League. I've changed the first part of the OP to account for this switch over the ladder system plus manual organization.

The benefits from using the combination system are as follows. First, we can rank players based on either ELO ratings or win/loss, instead of being restricted to only win/loss. People seemed favorable to the ELO system anyway, so that's a good thing. Second, new players can join a ladder at any time, not just in between seasons. That will make it a lot easier for new people to join in and keep the pool of active players healthy. Third, we are no longer restricted to a pre-defined set of matches. Instead, players can play anyone they want on their tier while the season is in play. However, we'll need to decide a few extra things as a result of these additional options.

1) How often do we want players to be able to challenge the same person? I'm thinking that each season should be 1 month long, so maybe no more than once every week?

2) What kind of restrictions to we want to place on how challenges are made? There are two ways for players to challenge each other in the ladder system. First, Gamemasters can specifically set up a match between two people. Second, each player can issue their own individual challenge, which is open for ANY other player to accept. Essentially, the player sets a date and time when they will be online and ready to play. Anyone can accept that challenge, and a match will then be scheduled between them accordingly. This system can be used to arrange matches between players independent of the Gamemaster, as two players can simply work out ahead of time when they want to play, then the first player creates the challenge and the second player accepts it after it's been posted. There's another cool feature about the challenges though... I can actually make the name of the challenger anonymous until after the challenge is accepted. That means players will not know who they are going to fight, just the date and time. They will only discover the identity of the challenger after they accept the match. I'm not sure whether that kind of anonymity would be desirable, but it's worth thinking about.

A hybrid system might be fun too. Maybe allow unlimited challenges using the opt-in system where opponents can pick which games to fight, with the only limitation being the frequency with which two people can fight (once a week?). Then on top of that, allow each player a set number of straight challenges (2 or 3?) which cannot be refused. Those would be PMed to the Gamemaster, who would add the specific challenge between the two players. This would allow flexibility in challenging, while still preventing players from completely avoiding someone else who really wants to fight them.

AMP
05-25-2011, 06:20
Nice work so far :)

I think ELO will be better over wins/losses since not everyone is going to be playing everyone in their tier each season, this makes more sense anyway.

I would say maybe just allow people only to play another opponent just twice a season (two times best of 3). And a month per season is good.

Allowing unlimited challenges might be fine and same with straight challenges is a good idea, no dodging forever. :)

TinCow
05-25-2011, 13:55
Ok, I've updated the OP with a few changes:

Switched it to classic battles as default, though the system allows use of veterans if both players agree in advance of the match.
Made it clear that ELO ratings will be used to rank players.
Added the Seasons rule to set out clear time limits.
Added the Challenges rule to clarify how matches are arranged and detail limits on repeated games between the same players.


I have a few more questions that I'd like some input on before I start broadcasting this rules draft for more input from the general MP community.
1) Should the corner camping rule be extended to all red line camping? This is a CWC rule, and it allows red line camping if there is only one red line involved.
2) Is there a fairer method of determining the attacker/defender in Round 3? Whoever defends there will certainly have an advantage, and I'd like to reduce that advantage as much as possible.

Also, it seems like during the first season we should just have one tier. I cannot think of any fair method of picking which players belong in which tiers at the moment. Everything I come up with is going to have some bias in it and is likely to upset some people. So, let's start everyone off at the same level. After the first season, we can use those results to add the additional tiers and allocate players to them. From season 2 onwards, all new players would start in the bottom tier.

AMP
05-25-2011, 15:43
I don't think you need red line camping as well, just adding more restrictions means more people will try and throw the flag at sometime - he did this or did that. Corner camping I would say is good enough.

Well if there is gonna be attacker/defender then the 3rd match just means both are attackers, but sadly we might need the attacker/defender rule to prevent the tag your it. Maybe who has the worst kill/loss ratio total from both matches is the defender? Not sure..

As for where everyone starts at, of course everyone should start at the same tier, that only makes sense. :)

00owl
05-25-2011, 18:29
For the attack/defend on round three how about the person with the lowest elo gets defender?

TinCow
05-25-2011, 20:25
For the attack/defend on round three how about the person with the lowest elo gets defender?

That's an interesting idea. How about doing that when there is an ELO rating difference of 20 or more between the players? A difference of less than 20 means the players are pretty close to even, so giving the advantage to one of them might be a bit skewed.

Another option just occurred to me as well: weather. In SP, the attacker gets the option to wait on the weather conditions. Why not allow the same for the attacker in Round 3? Defenders tend to benefit more than attackers from ranged units in defensive terrain, so certain weather options would reduce this advantage and perhaps encourage the defender to camp a bit less. Combined with getting to choose the map, choosing the weather as well might even things up a bit more for the attacker and provide another strategic level to the battle. Thoughts?

TinCow
05-27-2011, 13:36
I'll take the defeaning silence as pure awe at the stupefying brilliance of my suggestion. I've added the ELO and weather tweaks to the bit about who defends in battle 3.

I think we're pretty much ready to open this thing up to some broader input. I'll start advertising it and asking for input on the rules on Steam this weekend. We're going to need a name for the league, though, so suggestions are welcome. I think it would work well to name each tier of the league after a Japanese sword, with the bottom tier named after the shortest sword (Tanto), and each tier above that named after the next longest sword (Wakizashi, Katana, Nodachi). So, consider that idea in your league name suggestions.

00owl
05-27-2011, 16:58
I think the tiers should be named after modern battle tanks, that way it is in keeping with the pattern of historical accuracy.

AMP
05-27-2011, 17:11
Really though last round maybe should be both are attackers thinking about it, because it might be just me, but I kinda do think we need to evolve off this attacker/defender deal with TW in someway. So have it where both players can skirmish, but not for like 15mins without making and melee contact at all or something of the kind.

TinCow
05-27-2011, 17:41
Really though last round maybe should be both are attackers thinking about it, because it might be just me, but I kinda do think we need to evolve off this attacker/defender deal with TW in someway. So have it where both players can skirmish, but not for like 15mins without making and melee contact at all or something of the kind.

The problem with this is enforcement. Like it or not, some people are just going to camp, even in high level competitive play. For a perpetual league like this, it will be impossible to have a Gamemaster available at all times to resolve a situation where players stalemate themselves and refuse to move. We need some kind of rule that will stop those situations from occurring in the first place. So far, the only thing I've heard is the attacker/defender rule. If there are others, I would gladly welcome them, as I'd prefer something more even for battle 3.

00owl
05-27-2011, 19:44
What we could do, I guess this might work better as a league though, is to have two different best of three matches between each player in a "season" in match one player a is attacker in the first and third games and in match two player a is defender in the first and third games. Kinda make the games like "home and away" and in pro leagues they usually even out so that the teams play eachother the same amount home and away right?

AMP
05-27-2011, 19:52
And those that do play what seems to be "cowardly" will give a bad name for themselves that's for sure.

The "home and away" idea sounds good though.

TinCow
05-27-2011, 22:02
And those that do play what seems to be "cowardly" will give a bad name for themselves that's for sure.

I agree, but reputation alone hasn't been enough to deter it in the Tosa Cup.


The "home and away" idea sounds good though.

Yes, it does. I'll add that bit in.

[edit]Added. The Matches section was getting a bit too dense for my taste, so I broke it out into subsections to make it easier to understand. The Home/Away thing seems to negate any real disadvantage over the long term, so I removed the ELO difference bit as it seemed like excessive rulemaking.

OUT4BLOOD
05-27-2011, 22:33
The map/weather choice on 3rd fight could be a gateway for some massive cheese tactics. Fully wooded map + rain and just melee rush

Cu'Roi
05-28-2011, 00:28
i only skimmed it but these rules look really good. since there are going to be attackers/defenders, it would probably also be good to add a red-line rule so that people who defend twice don't have such obvious advantages. as far as maps go i believe at one point on CWC they made a list of the characteristics they look for in a map, would probably be a good thing to look at in addition to the results of the poll conducted here a couple weeks ago. I would say pick maps that don't have hills or forests near their red-lines (this is hard because CA usually puts the best terrain on the borders of the map). i can understand not making a red line rule as well due to the inherent problems with it, just make sure you have fully considered the ramifications. whatever the rules i will play by them, but their particulars are not that important to me.

00owl
05-28-2011, 00:32
How about for maps we do a random pick? I could design a web app that would do the trick pretty easily. Something simple where someone enters in the player's names and then the map is selected randomly and displayed on the web page along with the players for the next day or two.

Orda Khan
05-28-2011, 10:41
The Tosa Cup should be cancelled and started again with rules in place. Rules are essential in comp tourneys. Without them you get cheap tactics by those players who never enter into the spirit of things.

I don't want Tosa to be remembered by handing the prize to a camper. Is there an arbitrator? It seems odd that nobody has questioned tactics like those used by Sabre, I've not seen him attack once.

It has to be att/def with both attacking in 3rd game, with arbitration.

I'd argue that this tourney should have more meaning than others, I would like to see fair play and sound tactics being rewarded.

AMP
05-28-2011, 17:18
I agree, but reputation alone hasn't been enough to deter it in the Tosa Cup.

A little different since everyone against him has to play him and no one will dodge (forfiet wins) against him because it's a tourament for prizes and not just a league match. Someone who's shady in the leagues will get hate spread about him and will have to direct challenge opponents because everyone will be avoiding him like the plague.


The Matches section was getting a bit too dense for my taste, so I broke it out into subsections to make it easier to understand. The Home/Away thing seems to negate any real disadvantage over the long term, so I removed the ELO difference bit as it seemed like excessive rulemaking.

Well the 3rd match should be played on the same map and get rid of choosing weather because it's almost negating the home/away idea, seems that way anyway. Direct challenges against opponents playing each other the first time the one who challenges someone should be the away player maybe.



The Tosa Cup should be cancelled and started again with rules in place. Rules are essential in comp tourneys. Without them you get cheap tactics by those players who never enter into the spirit of things.

I don't want Tosa to be remembered by handing the prize to a camper. Is there an arbitrator? It seems odd that nobody has questioned tactics like those used by Sabre, I've not seen him attack once.

It has to be att/def with both attacking in 3rd game, with arbitration.

I'd argue that this tourney should have more meaning than others, I would like to see fair play and sound tactics being rewarded.

What is done is done, but I agree. I would've gave a hand on rules, but sadly I wasn't paying attention at the time how the Tosa Cup was being constructed.

TinCow
05-28-2011, 18:13
Well the 3rd match should be played on the same map and get rid of choosing weather because it's almost negating the home/away idea, seems that way anyway. Direct challenges against opponents playing each other the first time the one who challenges someone should be the away player maybe.

To be clear, all three battles should be fought on the same map?

I really like the your direct/open challenge distinction, as that allows us to completely remove all randomization aspects from battle 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from a direct challenge, the challenger is the attacker in battles 1 and 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from an open challenge, the challenger is the defender in battles 1 and 3. Does that sound right?

I should probably also add in a rule that says the Gamemasters can modify the rules at any point, even while play is in progress, if it is felt necessary to preserve fair and honorable play.

Hunter KIng George
05-28-2011, 18:17
Just a suggestion maybe to solve the 3rd game att/def issue...get rid of the 3rd tiebreaker game and use a point system. Have everyone play 2 games, with each taking turns att and def. If player A wins both games he gets 3 points, player B gets 0 points for losing both games. If they both win a match each, then they get awarded 1point each. You can also implement in having the challenger being the attacker in the first match...and switching sides in the second.

TinCow
05-28-2011, 18:23
Just a suggestion maybe to solve the 3rd game att/def issue...get rid of the 3rd tiebreaker game and use a point system. Have everyone play 2 games, with each taking turns att and def. If player A wins both games he gets 3 points, player B gets 0 points for losing both games. If they both win a match each, then they get awarded 1point each. You can also implement in having the challenger being the attacker in the first match...and switching sides in the second.

Hmm... that is an interesting idea. We needed a tie breaker in the Tosa Cup because you can't have draws in an elimination tournament. However, that's not true in a League, a tie could very well be an acceptable result. What do other people think of this?

[edit]Actually, using that methodology, we could even make each match 4 battles, which would give greater variety in the scoring as well. With, 4-0, 3-1, and 2-2 all possibilities.

Hunter KIng George
05-28-2011, 19:27
Another option you can do...if you do decide to use above suggestion, is assign default maps and/or settings to be played every week or month whatever. Of course you can give the flexibility to both opposing players to agree on their own map/settings to have their matches played but if an agreement cannot be made, then the matches would need to be played on that default map and/or settings.

00owl
05-28-2011, 23:22
Hmm... that is an interesting idea. We needed a tie breaker in the Tosa Cup because you can't have draws in an elimination tournament. However, that's not true in a League, a tie could very well be an acceptable result. What do other people think of this?

[edit]Actually, using that methodology, we could even make each match 4 battles, which would give greater variety in the scoring as well. With, 4-0, 3-1, and 2-2 all possibilities.

So, is this a league or a ladder? Because if we are using ELO (ala ladder) then we will need a tie breaker.

TinCow
05-29-2011, 00:22
So, is this a league or a ladder? Because if we are using ELO (ala ladder) then we will need a tie breaker.

Both. Further investigation of our league utility shows that it doesn't have the flexibility we want, so we're doing a hybrid. It's a tiered league, but each tier is run as a ladder instead of a league. That way we can provide the flexibility for people to play whoever they wish, while still providing a method for keeping competition largely focused on people of the same skill level.

Regarding ELO tie breakers, our ladder system (using ELO) allows for ties, it's just that a tie doesn't change a person's ELO ranking. Is that bad?

AMP
05-29-2011, 05:54
To be clear, all three battles should be fought on the same map?

I really like the your direct/open challenge distinction, as that allows us to completely remove all randomization aspects from battle 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from a direct challenge, the challenger is the attacker in battles 1 and 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from an open challenge, the challenger is the defender in battles 1 and 3. Does that sound right?

I should probably also add in a rule that says the Gamemasters can modify the rules at any point, even while play is in progress, if it is felt necessary to preserve fair and honorable play.

Yes all 3 battles on the same map, since we have home and away (attacker/defender). That's how I would do it anyway.

And that's right about what I mean with direct challenges, but with open challenges it could be either or, let the players decide. If they can't then the one who offered the challenge is defender. People shouldn't be to shy to accept challenges anyway because that's the only way to move up.


Both. Further investigation of our league utility shows that it doesn't have the flexibility we want, so we're doing a hybrid. It's a tiered league, but each tier is run as a ladder instead of a league. That way we can provide the flexibility for people to play whoever they wish, while still providing a method for keeping competition largely focused on people of the same skill level.

Regarding ELO tie breakers, our ladder system (using ELO) allows for ties, it's just that a tie doesn't change a person's ELO ranking. Is that bad?

And it's good that it's hybrid... I don't see anything really wrong with it right so far.

And best out of 3 is fine, but I wouldn't be to bothered with just 2 matches either, but it could take awhile to advance people up if everyone is 1-1 with all their opponents, but it's all good either way.


Another option you can do...if you do decide to use above suggestion, is assign default maps and/or settings to be played every week or month whatever. Of course you can give the flexibility to both opposing players to agree on their own map/settings to have their matches played but if an agreement cannot be made, then the matches would need to be played on that default map and/or settings.

This isn't a bad idea either.

Swoosh So
05-29-2011, 11:20
You could have the third game on a map where buildings are active and camping would put the camper at a serious disadvantage. May as well use the buildings for something.

nm dident see it was classic battles.

TinCow
05-29-2011, 14:57
Ok, I added in the choice of attacker/defender in map 3 (for players who have never fought before) via the open/direct challenge system. This is awesome, as there is now no longer any randomization left in the system. I also removed the map/weather choice for the attacker on battle 3, as that is now irrelevant due to the home/away system.

I thought about making it 2 or 4 matches and decided to just stick with 3. I think that we will have a very large number of games where the first two battles are split evenly. Since ties do not change ELO scores, that would be a lot of matches that don't effect the rankings. I think that would be bad, so let's just stick with 3 match battles.

I also added in this bit, as I think this should be explicitly stated:
Roles of Attacker/Defender - The attacker/defender rules only exist to break stalemate situations, they are not intended to force defenders to sit still if they wish to attack. Camping is highly discouraged and ideally both players will engage each other aggressively. However, if a stalemate occurs, the designated attacker in each match will be the player who is responsible for moving forward and breaking the deadlock

I'm starting to feel pretty good about this rules system. Let's keep discussing it, but I think it's getting close to usable. I'm going to set a tentative start-up date for opening this thing for sign-ups of next Friday. That's enough time to allow further discussion and give me the time I need to get everything nice and polished, as well as set up the actual ladder and create instructions on how to use it. One week of sign-ups will probably be fine if we advertise it enough once it is open, as people can join in mid-season if they wish.

We still need a name for the league!

MatsudaTadashi
05-29-2011, 18:58
What do you guys think of limiting number of a unit? lets say someone spams like 8 matchlocks and box camps?

00owl
05-29-2011, 22:58
Both. Further investigation of our league utility shows that it doesn't have the flexibility we want, so we're doing a hybrid. It's a tiered league, but each tier is run as a ladder instead of a league. That way we can provide the flexibility for people to play whoever they wish, while still providing a method for keeping competition largely focused on people of the same skill level.

Regarding ELO tie breakers, our ladder system (using ELO) allows for ties, it's just that a tie doesn't change a person's ELO ranking. Is that bad?

No I guess the tie thing should work just fine. Didn't realize it allowed for ties.

00owl
05-29-2011, 23:06
Regardless of the challenge method utilized, two specific players cannot fight each other more often than once every two weeks.

Since we are doing home/away then should we maybe make the matches between players slightly more frequent? If the season is only 1 month long this long of a period could cause problems. How about instead of "matches/week" we just do a total matches/season. Say you can't play someone more than 2 or 4 times in a season. Also, the number of matches playable depends on the playerbase. More people means less matches between two individuals whereas smaller base means more matches will be necessary.

TinCow
05-30-2011, 04:30
Since we are doing home/away then should we maybe make the matches between players slightly more frequent? If the season is only 1 month long this long of a period could cause problems. How about instead of "matches/week" we just do a total matches/season. Say you can't play someone more than 2 or 4 times in a season. Also, the number of matches playable depends on the playerbase. More people means less matches between two individuals whereas smaller base means more matches will be necessary.

It would be acceptable to allow matches more frequently than once every two weeks, but I cannot do it simply on the basis of X times per season. I want this system to be as heavily automated as possible, as that reduces the potential for problems. The automated system we use allows me to set a time limit in which players cannot re-challenge each other, but I cannot set it to a simply numerical limit on challenges between players.

I think this is a decision that will depend heavily on how many people sign up. If we have a small number of people, a reduced time limit would probably be best to increase options for battles. If we have a lot of people, a longer time limit would be better as it would encourage players to fight many different people instead of the same people over and over.

Cu'Roi
06-01-2011, 03:13
this forum ate my post. but basically i think you should update the rules to the latest version of CWC which was just updated.

TinCow
06-01-2011, 14:07
this forum ate my post. but basically i think you should update the rules to the latest version of CWC which was just updated.

Thanks, I've looked over them and a good number of the changes are irrelevant to our system, however there are some good ones. These are the ones that seem like that would apply to us:


The use of any new DLC units must be agreed to by both Teams in their Battle Assignment thread, to be allowed on the battlefield

This one makes sense, and is exactly what we have already done in the Tosa Cup (DLC units only if both players agree). This will be added.


Do not use archer Screens or matchlock Bamboo Walls.

Do not use the combination of Rapid Volley plus a General's Inspire on Matchlock Samurai.

Repeated use of Stand and Fight to artificially inflate a Generals Charge Bonus is an exploit, and is against the Rules.

I have no idea what archer screens and matchlock bamboo walls even are. Input from those knowledgable about these things is essential for all three of these CWC rules.


1. Red-Line Camping

Positioning a unit to take advantage of the red-line to support its flank or rear is against the rules.

The criteria for a charge of red-line camping must include these three things:

A. The positioning of a body of forces to use the red-line as a tactical advantage.

B. The proximity of that body of forces to the red-line, inhibiting out-maneuvering on that flank or to its rear.

C. Maintaining that position for a period of over three minutes, without showing signs of any attempt to break the appearance of camping; that would demonstrate that this was truly of temporary intention.

This is a change that shifts from a ban on only corner camping to a full ban on all red line camping. I'd like more discussion on this issue, please.

Cu'Roi
06-01-2011, 19:28
basically with the bamboo walls and other deployable defenses they just promote camping, especially for designated defenders, it's just one more disincentive to leave the deployment zone, so i think that's why they ban them.

there is no good answer for the red line, but there are 2 things to consider from my view: red line rules go hand in hand with attacker/defender designations. they are like peanut butter and jelly imo. if you give a player carte-blanche to defend, which is what attacker/defender can cause, then nothing stops defenders from going to the red line, and frankly it is smart to do and the structure of the tournament would actually encourage it. in a best of 3 that's a pretty big deal for the person who defends twice.* in a best of 3 dropping the first game really cuts your chances of winning the match.

the other thing is it puts people in an awkward position. total war mores and my own preferences for how the game should play out dictate that i should stay away from the red line, but this is a competition, and in a competition you do whatever is within the rules to win... or you don't win. this puts all on the same page; holds that aren't barred aren't barred. so to put it bluntly, if there is no red line rule i will have to camp the red line when it suits me. depending on builds doing this can drop my opponents chances of winning a whole lot. all else will have to do it to compete with me, and so we have a massive cheese fest with single games taking 2 hours that have no manuver involved and cavalry is worthless...

the fact that red line rules have serious ingrained problems and increase admin workload is not lost on me, but imo having the rule is the lesser of two evils. at times in the past i thought no rule would be good but this is what i think now.

*although it looks like u guys got a really cool idea for game 3 so maybe it isn't as big of a deal? anyway i just want to make sure all possibilities have been considered. whatever the rules i will play by them, and there is no "right" rules, you can only try to shape the game the way you want it to be...

TinCow
06-02-2011, 11:51
Well, since there haven't been any other comments I will implement what seems best to me. I will change the corner camping ban to the general red line camping ban, but I will not add the other three rules regarding walls, etc. For screens or bamboo walls, those are exclusively a defensive thing and I think our attacker/defender rules are a good start at countering this. Banning Rapid Fire + Inspire on Matchlock Samurai is an extraordinarily specific rule and I will not implement it without any input on why it needs to be there. For the repeated use of Stand & Fight thing, if it's an exploit it's already banned by #6 of the Universal Org Rules so it's unnecessary to list it specifically.

Rules discussions and changes can continue until the first season starts, so please do continue to comment if you have an opinion on any of this. Input from the MP community is is very important. FYI, I expect the League to open for sign-ups this weekend, possibly tomorrow.

AggonyKaptenFloede
06-02-2011, 15:49
Good rules. Well done! I will def join in.

Nigel
06-02-2011, 18:42
For the repeated use of Stand & Fight thing, if it's an exploit it's already banned by #6 of the Universal Org Rules so it's unnecessary to list it specifically.

You may want to add, for example, a spoiler box saying something like "Known exploits incude, but are not limited to, the following: .... "
That could avoid a lot of discussion about what is an exploit and what is not. Newly discovered exploits could be added to it as we go along.

TinCow
06-03-2011, 14:06
Many thanks to all those who helped with this discussion The Sengoku Jidai League now exists as a result of your efforts. We can move all future rules discussions over to the discussion thread for the League (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135916-The-Sengoku-Jidai-League-Discussion-Thread).

Cu'Roi
06-04-2011, 03:59
very very nice

RTKAbu
06-04-2011, 11:25
awesome now its time to beat down some loosers wit my cav spam lololol

No, it's not. This is a League for players who want to compete with others who act maturely and respectfully. We do not expect all players to like each other, and we understand that a certain amount of smacktalk is a natural part of any competitive system. However, players in the Sengoku Jidai League are expected to treat each other with respect both on and off the battlefield. We do not regulate the armies that players use, and if you want bring cav spam that's perfectly legal; you'll quickly learn that it's nowhere near as effective against veteran players anyway. However, we strongly urge you to use tactical skill and intelligence to win matches, not cheap moves and exploitation of game balance issues. While the Rules specifically ban some of the worst behavior, it is impossible to create an enumerated list of every single scenario in which a player could behave poorly. The Gamemasters will be monitoring the League and players that are found to be acting against the spirit of the League will be reprimanded, even if their actions were not specifically banned by the Rules. Gamemasters are free to take any actions they wish in response to perceived bad behavior, including (but not limited to) a simple written warning, loss of a match, relegation, expulsion from a season, and expulsion from the League.

We take the "high-quality competition" aspect of the League very seriously. Fight with honor and congratulate your opponent after the match is over, regardless of whether your won or lost. If you do that, you will be highly respected regardless of your ranking.

This is so not clear. I dont understand it, as its open for so much interpretation. Lets say i beat everyone with a matchlock box, and i can beat everyone with it, will i get reprimanded because i exploit the rules (which arent there?). If i win with balanced armies against everyone will i get reprimanded because i use the game mechanics in my advantage? So basically, whatever the 2 gamemasters dont like is forbidden, and will get repremanded. You create problems with this.

You need to make a choice here like many other tourney admins also had to make, either say everything is allowed without restrictions and dont come up with statement as 'tourney spirit' as that word dont exist in 1 form, but in the mind of the people who join with all another 'spirit' definition. Choice between no ingame rules or make solid ingame rules, i wont join a competition based by random decisions made by admins who can jugde 'as they like'. Tell me, what is the spirit of the tourney? Does someone break the spirit of the tourney when he got a winning streak of 1000 games because using the best tactics in the classic mode? Questions questions, in this form, this ladder is good as the official ladder, both got many flaws. Make it more solid, less bases on interpratations.

Honor is only a word without one solid definition, but which is made in the head of how people like to play and like to win in this situation, but if someone like to play with the game and the game mechanics gives him, a person can still find himself play with honor even with using exploits the game gives which for other woulnt be honor gameplay. Personally, my definition of honor in this game, is using all the game mechanics and flaws it got, in my advantage, if i have to spam for it, i wont regret to do it, if i have to use matchlock n00b boxes for it, ill use it to eternity.

TinCow
06-04-2011, 14:09
You need to make a choice here like many other tourney admins also had to make, either say everything is allowed without restrictions and dont come up with statement as 'tourney spirit' as that word dont exist in 1 form, but in the mind of the people who join with all another 'spirit' definition. Choice between no ingame rules or make solid ingame rules, i wont join a competition based by random decisions made by admins who can jugde 'as they like'. Tell me, what is the spirit of the tourney? Does someone break the spirit of the tourney when he got a winning streak of 1000 games because using the best tactics in the classic mode? Questions questions, in this form, this ladder is good as the official ladder, both got many flaws. Make it more solid, less bases on interpratations.

There is no way to make it solid unless we make specific rules about every possible scenario in which a player could exploit game issues. That is, frankly, impossible. There are many flaws and more are constantly being discovered. If we try and list them all, we will miss some. The best method is to have a group of players who agree not to use those flaws and supervision by Gamemasters who are honest and objective. More problems would be caused by an incredibly complex rule system that greatly regulates every aspect of every move players make. It is far easier to simply recruit a bunch of good and honorable players who seek a fair means of measuring their skill against others, and supervise them with a few people who believe the same.

For the record, King and I will not be the only Gamemasters. More will be recruited in the future, but they will all be players who display maturity and an understanding of fair and honorable play.


Personally, my definition of honor in this game, is using all the game mechanics and flaws it got, in my advantage

To be clear, there are no restriction on army construction whatsoever (barring artillery and DLC units). However, based on the section I quoted above, I do not believe this is the League for you.

This rule is relevant to you:
Conduct - All players will be expected to abide by the TW Code of Honor standards (https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/code.jpg), regardless of whether they have personally signed the CoH.

The CoH specifically says the following:

To base my strategies and tactics on applied skill, never taking advantage of weakness in the game's design or programming.

UglyJun
06-04-2011, 19:01
sad that one has to explain what honor means :(

RTKAbu
06-04-2011, 22:36
Sad that you people dont understand my post and i even have to explain further...

Tincow, above all, i dont understand what i have to make out of this sentence, can you please explain,
I do not believe this is the League for you
If you mean i am not honorable, i find it insulting, especially because you dont know me, nor played with me, and last but not least, you insult not only me but indirectly my clan if you ment it that way. The fact that youre meaning of honour is not mine shows exactly the glitch in youre tourney system, you can judge what you want as admin and if you dont like something, you can punish what you want, in that way you arent a fair admin, but in a way a 'tourney dictator', something the CWC, had always trying to avoid as they make rules more clear and less interpretational.

Honor in all games are defined on rules, for example, in soccer when kicking and slapping wouldnt be punished by the rules, we would see a game of soccer which is more focussed on kickboxing and other things then the game itself. If it isnt standing in the rules to use a maximum of 11 men on the field, i am sure mourinho would use 60 players on the field instead of the 11, and i am also sure Barca woulnt have won the champions league. Question is, would you blame mourinho for using 60 men on the soccer field, or use kickboxers as players when it isnt in the rules?

Honor in games is defined by rules, this ladder lacks in that. You dont only lack to define the word honor with more explicit rules, but you also, from what i understand, accuse me from not having honor. Well, in the avatar pre-patch battles i found it dishonorable to use inspire and rapid fire on the same time to get a reload and accury rate over 100, still many of the players who posted here found it no problem to use, while we all know this was a glitch or a 'bug' in the system, i guess even you used this, are you now gonna ban all those people who did that, will you give yourself a perm. forum ban? In the pre-patch battles everyone used to upgrade their units with special clan abilitys on level 5 while we all knew it should only be possible at level 9, i got all the replays of people on this forum using this glitch, are they dishonorable in the way you accuse me to be dishonorable now aswell?

Why do you even state the glitch of the 'stand and fight', in youre definition people shoulnt use it anyway and people should understand youre definition of honor because you are an almighty x-man with mental gift to implement youre definition of honor in our brains. Do you really think honor was ever a part of battle in the past? I begin to think you dont only understand how to create a tourney with as less flaws as possible, but you also lack knowlegde of the world. Can you imagine a samurai would ever rethink to kill a man because his enemy probably got 2 little children, a wife, a family, and proably didnt even want to be there on that same moment but would want to harvest his crops and teach his sons writing and things about nature, honor my friend, is created by the victor to inspire, nothing more, if you ever saw familys murdered before youre eyes in the name of peace probably agreed upon by youre president, you would rethink youre statements Tincow.

Anyway, i hope you get my piont, and although i am not a big fan of CWC, they are always very clear on whats allowed and not, to make sure every part of possible admin/counsil abuse is almost non-existent, and if i am not mistaken, the link you gave me is the duplicate of that on the CWC. Honor in they way you mean it can be a goal, but can never be a force to achieve something, thats why even the poster of that link made very clear rules, what is allowed and not allowed, what is tolreable, and what is not, everything to try to come as close as the honor you describe, while knowing the sentence on itself isnt worth a nickle. I give you my advice Tincow, again, be clear on the rules, make be very explicit on what is and what isnt allowed, or dont create rules and dont mention punishing, nor give yourself the right to punish.

00owl
06-05-2011, 03:16
Something which you may not know Abu is that TinCow doesn't actually play online (much). In fact he only played his first online game maybe a week and a half ago with some of us from the chat lobby and we played classic battle to accommodate his lack of veterans and low level general. With that in mind then I doubt that he is guilty of the exploits and game abuse of which he stands accused.

Second, I think there was a misunderstanding around this quote:


I do not believe this is the League for you


I think that it seems that you were trying to describe some of the abuses that would take place and TinCow thought that you had meant you would be the one perpetrating them deliberately. Given that, then yes this league would not be for you if you want to do that.

Also, the inclusion of the one specific glitch/exploit (stand and fight abuse) was added late in the discussion and almost wasn't added in.

All of the above said, I do agree with you that honor is based on a code or set of rules. Honor is usually based on traditions and culture and the rules are unwritten, but everyone knows them. For example a thief's honour would be different from the honour of a priest's. Unfortunately for us the culture and traditions of the internet are based on deceit, dishonesty, e-peens, and immaturity. Which means that the honour of the internet is hardly what we could call honour at all. TinCow is attempting to define honour by the cultures and the values of this board which I think most of us can agree on, if not explicitly, then at least we can come to a vague understanding.

What you are calling for is an explicit definition of honour so that we can remove any subjectivity from the admin. This is a difficult task, but maybe one that should be done. However, I haven't read it but apparently the .org code of conduct probably is a good start. Personally for me I think the most important thing in honour in terms of playing games is to keep the main thing the main thing, and that is having fun. I usually find that people get dishonourable when they start playing only to win. That is a discussion that will take lots of input from every angle possible and still will never be complete.

There is another way to keep the admins more objective and that is to keep them out of the game AND also create a system where they are responsible for their decisions. One where admin decisions can be disputed and argued and voted on by the players in the league.

My thoughts anyways. They aren't entirely fleshed out, but it is a start on what I'm thinking.

TinCow
06-05-2011, 04:12
Abu, I apologize if I offended you as that was not my intent. I wrote that line as I interpreted your statement to be a direct refutation of the CoH, which is specifically listed as part of the rules. If I misunderstood your intent in writing that phrase, then please accept my apology. There are many different online competitions, and none of them will have rules that make everyone happy. That does not make any single competition better than others, or make any players wrong for choosing to participate or not participate in any specific one.

Perhaps honor is not the best word. I used it because of the TW Code of Honour, which is a very old and well-regarded set of standards for the TW MP community. The Org has always been particularly fond of them, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that any official Org-hosted MP competition would use them. However, it is just a title and you are correct that the word 'honor' in the title may be misapplied. Instead of honor, a better term would instead be sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is not defined by rules, but rather by the sentiments and intentions of those who compete. Outside the sporting world, it is also known as ethics. Rules and ethics do not go hand in hand. It is entirely possible to do something unethical which is still legal, and possible to commit an illegal act which is completely ethical. I hope you can understand that difference.

I also realize that some people may be uneasy at not knowing exactly how I and the other Gamemasters will judge specific behavior under certain circumstances. However, I want to assure you that we are not tyrants. The Org has long had a reputation for having mature and effective moderation, and we value objectivity and impartiality very highly. I promise you that no person would suffer any active repercussions (such as loss of a match) due to a single incident that was not specifically prohibited by the rules. In such a situation, that person would always be given a simple notice that what they were doing was not within the spirit of the League and no actions would be taken against them unless the behavior continued after the notice had been given. In addition, it is my intention to eventually recruit several more experienced MP Gamemasters, and the entire group of players would be consulted if any issue arose, and any actions taken would be made by a consensus of this group. As for the past behavior of players, I do not care at all how players play outside of the League. As long as they abide by the rules while they are playing League games, it should not make any difference how they play elsewhere. Thus, not only are players welcome in the League who have used game flaws before, they are even welcome to use those game flaws while they are active in the League... just not in League games themselves.

On a final note, I think you are going a bit far by comparing the proper behavior in an online computer game to proper behavior during war. The two scenarios are not even remotely similar. STW2 MP is held to the same standards as playing Monopoly with your parents, not the standards that you would use when defending your family from armed invaders.

00owl
06-05-2011, 04:17
On a side note, since I probably won't have the time/energy to participate in this league as a player but would still like to be involved I would like to volunteer as a GM if you would be willing to take an inexperienced one such as myself.

Nigel
06-05-2011, 15:31
Why do you even state the glitch of the 'stand and fight',

I should probably say that I am responsible for this one.

I had thought it would be helpful to add a spoiler box listing the most common known exploits, so that the worst cases would be take care of up-front and players dont even try to start a discussion about them. I know, of course, that such a List of Known Exploits can never be complete.

I still think this could be helpful. However if a situation occurs where someone says: "well, this trick may be cheesy, but it is not included in the List of Known Exploits and therefore I am all right to use it", then the list becomes counter-productive and should better be left out.

TinCow
06-05-2011, 16:22
I still think this could be helpful. However if a situation occurs where someone says: "well, this trick may be cheesy, but it is not included in the List of Known Exploits and therefore I am all right to use it", then the list becomes counter-productive and should better be left out.

Whether specific tactics/abilities/etc. are exploits will be decided by the Gamemasters as we become aware of them. I'm trying to assemble a good group of knowledgeable people to consult with and advise on these things. I've just added 00owl and Azuretotalwar as Gamemasters, and more will probably be added as the player base grows. Thus, decisions on this will be made by consensus of a group of experienced MP vets, they will not be subject exclusively to my whims.