Moderator: Clan Directors
Correct, so long as it is not used more than once per set.uckuki wrote:hi Ice
can you explain map usage? I'm also understanding it as we can use map once per set,
but there is no limit to how many times we can use a particular map?


You could join a different clan?Rodion wrote:Make this a non-clan tournament so I can play!
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooreptile wrote:he is a cow...
are you guys just not interested in joining the tourney or too late?


I'm guessing it's this rule that is causing the problem:reptile wrote:he is a cow...
are you guys just not interested in joining the tourney or too late?

I'm a big fan of nukes, we didn't allow it because its "standard practise" and unlike CC3 or other 1 vs 1 clan war type events, nothing can be negotiated for specific match ups as its inter mixed.Ace Rimmer wrote:I'm guessing it's this rule that is causing the problem:reptile wrote:he is a cow...
are you guys just not interested in joining the tourney or too late?
"Unlimited reinforcements are allowed on conquest maps only."
KORT likes to use unlimited, and for some reason that is not being allowed here, and was not allowed in dubs in CL4. I'm no fan of KORT but I certainly think the rule is bullshit, same with no nukes. They are part of the game, and the less restrictions we have the better.


I'll be happy to discuss next years ICL event another time. This years rules are set in place and we can review how it ended up afterwards.Ace Rimmer wrote:I think "no nukes" is a stupid standard practice. They've been out for well over a year. Flat rate is much more luck-based than unlimited or nukes but nobody has an issue with allowing it. And if a clan wants to use unlimited forts in doubles, they run the risk of not going first and losing. It's a risk some clans are willing to take.
Not attacking you IcePack, just pointing out that the standard practices are wrong.

You can blame me for the rules as I was the one who basically concepted them. The idea was to keep this more challenging and reduce the amount of luck based games. You can argue for against the ways we tried to achieve this, but from my (our) perception, not allowing unlimited forts and nukes keeps the event more competitive between all clans on the whole.Ace Rimmer wrote:I think "no nukes" is a stupid standard practice. They've been out for well over a year. Flat rate is much more luck-based than unlimited or nukes but nobody has an issue with allowing it. And if a clan wants to use unlimited forts in doubles, they run the risk of not going first and losing. It's a risk some clans are willing to take.
Not attacking you IcePack, just pointing out that the standard practices are wrong.
I know we've gone over this before a lot, but I'm struggling to get my head around how unlimited is supposed to increase the luck factor. If anything it greatly decreases it, on many maps.MNDuke wrote: You can blame me for the rules as I was the one who basically concepted them. The idea was to keep this more challenging and reduce the amount of luck based games. You can argue for against the ways we tried to achieve this, but from my (our) perception, not allowing unlimited forts and nukes keeps the event more competitive between all clans on the whole.

+1IcePack wrote:I'll be happy to discuss next years ICL event another time. This years rules are set in place and we can review how it ended up afterwards.
IcePack

Not a chance in hell!chapcrap wrote:Rodion, I will bring up your proposal with the CDs and the group and see what they think. Don't get your hopes up. Do you have another clan to play with anyway?

Unlimited forts can increase the luck factor depending on drop and turn order and quickly sway the game. Essentially they turn every map into a conquest map, much the same way manual drops can have that effect. That's my opinion or reasoning for not including them. Another was that not all clans and players are not that familiar with unlimited and nukes. Which is also why they weren't included.niMic wrote:I know we've gone over this before a lot, but I'm struggling to get my head around how unlimited is supposed to increase the luck factor. If anything it greatly decreases it, on many maps.MNDuke wrote: You can blame me for the rules as I was the one who basically concepted them. The idea was to keep this more challenging and reduce the amount of luck based games. You can argue for against the ways we tried to achieve this, but from my (our) perception, not allowing unlimited forts and nukes keeps the event more competitive between all clans on the whole.
