Draft League Rules

[MatsudaTadashi]

What do you guys think of limiting number of a unit? lets say someone spams like 8 matchlocks and box camps?

[00owl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good rules. Well done! I will def join in.

[Nigel]

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]

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.

[Cu'Roi]

very very nice

[RTKAbu]

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]

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, 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]

sad that one has to explain what honor means :(

[RTKAbu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.