Ghost Recon Clan Battle Rules.

[Cossack]

Well it is less then a month away, when the new season stats and when Ghost Recon becomes a game where we do recorded clan battles, the lack of rules and preperation concerns me. When January first comes about how are we supposed to condut clan battles? It is obvious the same conduct rules should stay, but how many spawns, threat indicator yes, no, maybe so? How will we deal with spawn camping, will we let it slide or will we say that it is part of the game. What about hosting rights? Are we gonna do it like RS where it is one host or will it be where one person hosts for 20 mins. I personally think we should keep it close to  RS style where the team that is not hosting chooses the map. That is my main want in this. I also support no threat indicator, and a small amount of respawns.

[Typhy]

Well, as I said before, I think that to have it best, there should be about 4 sets of rules, using respawn, not using respaw, Siege, etc. I would also sugest a defult setting, so avoid arguments. - More coming later.

[†FiRE Infection]

I still think being able to work as teams would be really cool, I did suggest a set up point system for that in another post.

[Cossack]

I personally like the multiple rules. Recon could be where it gets as real as it gets (no respawns no threat indicator) and war could be as many respawns as you want with threat indicator and all that shit.

[Typhy]

Exactly, Cossack. And clans who chose to play "war" would have to be prepared to put up with cheap little things like spawn camping.

While I personaly hate respawn, I would think that the default game woudl have to be something like:

Gamelength devided by 3 = Number of respawns. For 5 minute games, you would get 2. 10 minute games, you get 3, 20 minute games you get 6.

Woot! I've been working for four hours, and I've finally finished problem #3! Only 12 more to go...

Added later: Also, there will need to be settings for what sort of Gametype it is, Hamburgerhill, Last Man Standing, Domination, or Siege. - More later.

Woot! I've been working for five hours now, and I've finally finished problem 5! Only 10 more to go...

[*DAMN Mauti]

Hi Cossak I can understand your concern. Well at the moment I only would support two game types: Realistic one with no respawns and no thread indicator and a more UT style type with 5 respawns and threat indicator. Game time would be 10minutes in both cases.

About hosting: maybe we should try something new - I would say by default the clan that invites you for a cb can chose  to host or to select maps. So you would play on their battlefields or viceversa.

Also I am thinking about to add a new map system: you can only play a map twice than you have to chose another map. So you have to play at least on 3 maps until you can win.

You have to play at least a best of ten cb with 2 won game differences.

The game mode would be last man standing(team survival) as we did in R6 and RS.

The only real question I still have is if a tactical cb should count more than a UT like cb?(lets say 5 points difference per cb) or should they be equal!?

About cbs with  more than 2 clans: I would say there can only be one winner the other clans lose 10% as usual but the winner gets 10 additional points per additional clan(at max 20 points more than a 2 clan cb) and if more clans play you play on one host at least 15 games with 3 won games difference between 1st and 2nd. I would also suggest that we have a fix number of maps you play so you don't have to decide about this.

Bye,

Mauti

[Cossack]

Well I think it is right to be able to choose your map. It only makes it more fair, but if you decide otherwise, then I can adapt.

[Mr.Mellow]

I think if there's 3 clans participating in the clan battle, 2nd place shouldn't lose any points, 3rd place would lose the normal amount. If there was 4 clans, 4th place would lose an extra 5 points, or something like that. Also, realistic games should definately be worth more points, since we play R6 and RS cuz we love the realism. It would make everyone want to play the more realistic games if they were worth more points, which is a good thing, because we all strive for realism. There's a reason we don't have an MoH and a UT ladder on *DAMN. Anyhoo, just my 2 cents.

[*DAMN Mauti]

About the cbs: I would say only for cb with more clans we should make a fix map selection because imagine 4 clans have to decide the map lol.

Also Cossak these are only suggestions nothing has been decided yet my post only reflects how I could imagine a Ghost Recon ladder. So every opinion counts

Mauti

[Typhy]

(at max 20 points more than a 2 clan cb)

I disagree with capping the points at 20 extra for a 4 clan CB. I think that would take away form the point of 4 clan CBs. The more clans involved in it, the lower your chances of winning are. I don't expect that we will see very many 4 clan CBs anyways, and considering how hard they are to win, I don't think that capping at 20 is the best idea. I'd think that 15 points per oponent would be a lot more fair, so as winner of a 4 way CB, you would get 45 additional points, since they're so much harder to win.

[Cossack]

Now I see where you are getting at Mauti. So how would this "fixed" map be decided though?

I think if you are doing a 2 clan cb it should be the RS standard where you do choose a map if you are not hosting. 4 clan cbs may be like mod cbs, in RS, no matter how much I wanted to do it, never had a Counterstrike or WWII cb. I think 4 clan cbs will be rather rare. I think there should be a default two clan cb rules and then special rules for cbs with more than two clans.

Modified to make single post.

[BTs_Colin]

Bah. I know it seems nessecary but I don't think having 2 kinds of CBs will help anything. This will split the BL into clans that play realistic and clans that play UT style. I think that a common ground needs to be found for all clans to play for max GGs. Also I think maybe a team pooling their respawns could be considered.

Another thing is I don't have a problem with the threat indicator. You have to assume a decent level of common sense that a green beret would have and GhR's sound is definetly less then realistic. It's a shame you cannot simply disable the red dot in the center when an enemy is close as this is my only problem. The lack of realistic sound and assumption of a high standard of training is why the TI exists. I would be sweet if the TI would sometimes indicate the enemy being ina direction they are not (to simulate a soldier thinking they are a certain direction for whatever reason).

Another thing is I think that the engine is to laggy to have reasonable close combat and having 2 players firing at the same time causes it to lag so having 4 clans battling is going to be Lag/bs fest 2003. Plus I know of very few people who could actually host a decent 36 player game. Maybe the 1.3 patch will allieviate lag problems but it didn't on the PC side so I'm not too optimistic. Ghost Recon is by nature a very laggy engine in CQB. If you've ever played Sum of All Fears (it's like RS maps with GhR engine) you'll see why I think this will be a problem. With 24+ players CQB will happen and it is always BS!!!

Well anyway I will be CBing in GhR regardless of how it's set up but I will follow this thread and try to contribute in hopes that we will end up with a better ladder because of it.

[kos.viper]

http://www.clanladder.com/ladder/rules.asp?game=grteam#gamerules

There are some good idea's at the link above, and PCs have been playing the game longer then us so I would assume many changes have occured in the development of the above rules. Read through them..

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I have a suggestion for Clan Battles for GhR.

BTW Viper, that is a good link.

Since GhR can use dedicated servers, I think it's a good idea.  That way there will not be any of the feuding that goes on about laggy hosts.  This is also a really good idea right now while GhR isn't stable in GR.

It would be best if there were 2-4 different servers that could be used, in different places and on different networks.  Just to find one that's somewhat fair in pings.

Playing SOF2 in a PC clan, we do this all the time.  On the PC side of things, CB's are often scheduled, not just pick up's like they usually are on GR.  Scheduling makes it real easy, because the password is set for the CB, and changes with each CB.

I'd be willing to set up one of our servers as a dedicated machine for it running a few hours each day/evening if people are interested in this idea.  Get three more and work out a schedule and I think it would work out great.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Very nice point Bucc. A dedicated server would be nice for cbs but about sheduling I always hesitated and still hesitate to introduce a shedule system simply because if you have to cb it isn't as fun  as if you are just in the mood to cb and do so. However of course we could add a sticky thread here where clans arrange cbs (1 - 2 days before) and then we set up your server(and probably will find some others as well) with a password(clan leaders should make it in a private chat in GR. For this I could add a rule.

Bye,

Mauti

[Night Hawk]

So wait mauti, how long is a cb gonna be. I mean i guess im a little confused but, are u saying we would do best of 10 games 10:00 long?

[AK_Rap1d]

Here's my suggestion on how it should kind of go:[/size][/b]

5 games on each Team's Host
Game Type:   Last Man Standing
Time Limit:   None
Threat Indicator:   OFF
Respawn:    No Respawns
Map Choice: Visitor's Choice
Observer Mode:   OFF
Friend or Foe Indicator (IFF):   ON - (NAMES)
Insertions:   Random
Allow Remote Acess:   Unchecked

I don't think it would be a good idea to have dedicated servers(for one, my team would be "banned" from buccaneer's servers, so that doesn't work).  And it gives both teams equal chance on their host. which has worked just fine in the past in the RS Tournaments/Leagues.[/size][/b]

[|MP|Buccaneer]

No Rapid, only you are banned, not your clan.  But leave it to you to whine, and lie about it.

For everyone else, I am suggesting a number of servers that could be used.  That way nobody has to settle for a laggy host at all.  I said I'd be willing to do one part time, but there needs to be others.

As for how well the current swapping of hosts has done, I leave it to all of you to look through the posts and how much BS goes on regarding hosting CB's.  It's why in the PC world, they do CB on thrid party servers often.  You didn't do it in RS or R6 because you couldn't.

[Jeb]

What about the abliity to watch CBs as a spectator?

[Mr. Lothario]

     For my part, I prefer the idea of CBs with respawns enabled, and playing for points. GhR is a game of sniping, where the person who has reached a sniper perch and is sitting still has every conceivable advantage. I personally have sat perfectly still in maps such as Wilderness and had enemies walk past me at a distance of less than six feet. Spotting a stationary and reasonably well-concealed enemy at a distance is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Additionally, the human eye is drawn to movement, so once you start moving, you might as well be carrying a twenty-foot-high neon sign and blowing an air horn, considering what an easy target you are for any nearby sniper.

     My point is that in a game played without respawns, anyone who moves would simply be killed by someone who wasn't moving. Generally speaking, the main focus of CBs would consist of outwaiting your foes, never moving a muscle, and hoping that one or two of the other guys move so that your team can kill them and win.

     Respawns penalize snipers. Once you take someone out, anyone who looks at their map and notes the location of the dead man's body can make an educated guess as to the sniper's probable location. More importantly, if the man you killed saw it coming, then he may be back, and this time he'll have the upper hand in knowledge.

     Also, on a more self-serving tack, I'm an unlucky bastard. I almost always get shot within five seconds of even the slightest movement. Respawns allow me to try to get to a relatively safe place so that I can play. CBs without respawns would be about 30 seconds long from my perspective. No fun at all.