TW CW Discussion

[Dizzy So 1337]

Hi. I'd like to start a discussion here on the suitability of Trenchwars for CW.

On its face, Trenchwars has a lot of problems when it comes to CW. It requires a lot of people generally to be truly fun (4v4 and up), takes a long time and is low-scoring. The fact is, most TW games end 0/0 and how do you decisively declare a victor?

Trenchwars is becoming more popular every day, and clans like 101st, DO, SC and Vx are really making great strides in demonstrating what a fantastic game mode this can be when you have a good team. But I think that for TW to really take off, will require TW veterans and clan leaders to sit down and agree on a format for proper tw cw.


What I think is needed, is for the leaders of DO, 101st, Vx and SC to sit down and agree on a format.


Thoughts: A proper TW CW will probably not be played under the normal CTF rules of 'best of 3'. It is more conducive to the nature of TW that a single match be played. Example:

20 minute timelimit
no cap limit
M79 and Minigun are disallowed
2 nade limit

Now... if a single map determines the result of a cw, then map choice becomes VERY, VERY important. How should this be decided? Moreover, since there is no such thing as an 'official' TW map, it will be important for the clan leaders to agree on a set of maps that is acceptable to be chosen. I'm new to the TW scene and won't offer suggestions on these matters except to say that I think that they should be agreed upon by the major clan leaders.


BONUS - THINKING OUTSIDE THE MAP

Airstrikes
Can anyone truly believe that a cw would be valid without this f**k badass script? It is time for us to all petition Enesce to release it, if only to TW clan leaders that want to run private servers for the purpose of TWCW.

Scoring the stalemate
Lemme start with the statement that I would NOT like to see a 0/0 caps game determined by kills, because this will encourage more camping and I would rather see a TW game determined by ground won. That said, without a new script, there seems to be no way to determine a win except by kill count. Humble suggestion for this scriptless scenario:

Team A wins if both first and second place killcount are held by team A.
Team B wins if both first and second place killcount are held by team B.
Anything else is a draw in a 0/0 cap situation.

Scripts/Mods to make TW CW FTW!!!!
Now, we're talking.... this is what I would most like to see, but it would take an overwhelming majority of present TW clan leaders to agree, to make it work. Simplicity should be KEY.... anything too complicated will discourage other new TW clans, which in turn hurts the scene. What would happen if....

Scoring by Airstrike
In this example, every Airstrike grants one capture point to the winning team.

HTF
The mode was changed to Hold the Flag, with the yellow flag defaulted to middle. FURTHER - what if there was a script where if one team held the flag, they got NO SPAWNS until the flag had been recaptured! This would be hella phat TW fun I think.

Assault mode
If the flag positions were switched, then the whole point of the game would be simply to carry the enemy flag into their base. I like this one because it encourages aggression, therefore faster-paced games. Also because the FFC would stick out like a sore thumb, it would encourage massive teamwork to protect him and get him into the enemy base.

Pie in the sky
If only TW could be scored based on ground taken and held. Distance from the enemy flag giving points in an inverse ratio. Holding an enemy bunker = points. You all know you would love it if this was the case.

So, in closing, I've spent some time here musing over what it would take to make TWCW as easy and fun as CTFCW. Hoping that it makes for some good discussion. Dizzy out.

[EnEsCe]

It is time for us to all petition Enesce to release it, if only to TW clan leaders that want to run private servers for the purpose of TWCW.

I wont be releasing it. It's the only thing that keeps people coming to my TW Servers with all these other servers trying to imitate mine.

[Ervis]

You can try for winning, if the scores end 0-0 by the time limit, then add the total kill scores of each clan and whom ever has the most kill points wins?

[Espadon]

Last night, DO had a CW with _Vx_, on the classic maps GloryHill, Nomans, Verdun, with 20 minutes per match, 2 nades max, and minigun and m79 disallowed ("[eC] format"). By the end of the 3rd and final map, DO and _Vx_ were are a draw to which team won (DO-Vx: 3-0, 0-1, 1-1), but instead of deciding by kills, another 20 minute round was played on GloryHill, with DO barely squeezing out a 1-0 on the very last second.

Draws should be broken with a tiebreaker such as above, if time allows.

[Dizzy So 1337]

Last night, DO had a CW with _Vx_, on the classic maps GloryHill, Nomans, Verdun, with 20 minutes per match, 2 nades max, and minigun and m79 disallowed ("[eC] format"). By the end of the 3rd and final map, DO and _Vx_ were are a draw to which team won (DO-Vx: 3-0, 0-1, 1-1), but instead of deciding by kills, another 20 minute round was played on GloryHill, with DO barely squeezing out a 1-0 on the very last second.

Draws should be broken with a tiebreaker such as above, if time allows.

I think that's awesome that two clans can actually sit down and play for 80+ minutes !!! But I think that is probably the exception and not the rule... I have enough trouble getting people to sit down and play a coupla 10 minute ctf rounds...
 

[Avarax]

Dizzy So I think a script that calculates map domination based on the distance from your front to your flag could be a way to calculate a winner, so the basic thought of TW, "every centimeter counts" is realized in scores.

[Dizzy So 1337]

Dizzy So I think a script that calculates map domination based on the distance from your front to your flag could be a way to calculate a winner, so the basic thought of TW, "every centimeter counts" is realized in scores.

YEAH!!!!

I think that's an obvious no-brainer as far as the best of all possible solutions.  The thing is, whether the big TW clans would get onboard and help to make it a standard. 

Regardless, some thought and discussion should go into the details... is it based on the closest person to ever get to the flag?  Or do people start 'racking up points' by staying in the endzone?  Example if the map was divided into four sections, and everybody in section 1 would get -1 point for every 20 seconds they were there, no points for being in section 2, +1 point for being in section 3, and +2 for being in section 4 (closest to enemy flag)... something like that...

But the end solution should be 'new map friendly', im sure all would agree.  So a more elegant solution is called for...

Even a script where merely grabbing the flag gave a reward would be awesome and increase scoring and aggression and pace, without sacrificing the integrity of the game.  +1 for a grab, and a win for a cap?  Anyone?

[SpiltCoffee]

Maybe use zyxstand's TTO game mode mixed with infiltration scoring. For every bunker that a team holds, they get a point for, which is given at intervals of, like, 5 seconds?

Something like this would probably make TW a massive scoring game... lol.

[Iq Unlimited]

heres how I see it:

First of all NO scripts on the server, killsprees, etc. to make it fair

Timelimit 20 minutes
Caplimit 5 (I think..)
3v3 - 5v5 allowed

if its 0/0 then add up the total points for both clans and whomever has more points wins. Simple as that .

[Chakra]

Once upon a time 4 years ago around the time when I had only first started playing, or maybe before, there was a league for Soldat. The first truly recognised of its kind. It was called the SCTFL, and has just had it's 10th league end this week.

The SCTFL set a standard for people. It made rules and customs that still hold in friendly cw's to this day, right down to the little things like who decides what map and when, teams of 3v3, and other such quirks.

Rules and regulations to clan wars aren't established by discussion alone, but by all the clans getting together and establishing a code of conduct themselves, for themselves. If you want to set a standard, look towards a league. It'll require patience, but Rome wasn't built in a day, SCTFL wasn't born overnight, and Soldat still has a few bugs in it.

[SirJamesaford]

If it ends in a 0-0 tie then it shouldnt be decided by kills.  It should be decided by your k/d ratio.  If someone has 21 kills and 18 deaths then his score is +3.  Add it all up and whichever team has the best k/d ratio overall is the winner...I see no other way to decide a winner.

[Avarax]

Dizzy So I think a script that calculates map domination based on the distance from your front to your flag could be a way to calculate a winner, so the basic thought of TW, "every centimeter counts" is realized in scores.

YEAH!!!!

I think that's an obvious no-brainer as far as the best of all possible solutions. The thing is, whether the big TW clans would get onboard and help to make it a standard.

Regardless, some thought and discussion should go into the details... is it based on the closest person to ever get to the flag? Or do people start 'racking up points' by staying in the endzone? Example if the map was divided into four sections, and everybody in section 1 would get -1 point for every 20 seconds they were there, no points for being in section 2, +1 point for being in section 3, and +2 for being in section 4 (closest to enemy flag)... something like that...

I could make a totally map independant script that would calculate the map domination in percentage. It would calculate this percentage every second and show the current domination in say the usual flagscore table. The overall domination would be the average domination a team has during the whole match, and this overall domination would be what counts in the end. Scoring with the flag would of course have a powerful bonus effect on this overall domination.

[Espadon]

Hrm, in the DO-Vx 3v3 CW, the front line fluctuated extremely; there were very few "line holding" moments, as team Vx was Chete-based -- shotgun rush-or-die. Sometimes they'd punch right through all the way to the Blue flag, but without touching it, but then get repulsed way back to the base.

Anyways that script may be circumvented by a hider that's behind the lines (which also happened a lot in the CW). Lol I know because I was there XD

Chakra -- good note about Leagues; I think Dizzy's aiming for something like that.

[Avarax]

Anyways that script may be circumvented by a hider that's behind the lines (which also happened a lot in the CW). Lol I know because I was there XD

There's a solution for that.

[Espadon]

Hrm. Well, let's just put it in a test server someday and see how it works. Sounds like it should work but no telling what people could pull off and I have one of those funny feelings XD

[Dizzy So 1337]

Maybe use zyxstand's TTO game mode mixed with infiltration scoring. For every bunker that a team holds, they get a point for, which is given at intervals of, like, 5 seconds?

Something like this would probably make TW a massive scoring game... lol.

I'll check it out.  From my standpoint, the goal is to increase scoring without negatively impacting the spirit of the game as it exists now.  'A reasonably decisive TW CW should be able to be played in 20-30 minutes'; accomplish this and the scene will have broader appeal for newcomers and more TW clans.

......if its 0/0 then add up the total points for both clans and whomever has more points wins. Simple as that .

If it ends in a 0-0 tie then it shouldnt be decided by kills.  It should be decided by your k/d ratio.  If someone has 21 kills and 18 deaths then his score is +3.

Does a kill- or ratio-based victory discourage aggression and capping attempts, I wonder.  How hard would it be, and how appealing would it be, to replace the ctf scoring with tm scoring... +1 for enemy death, -1 for friendly death, +20 for cap. 

Regardless, it would be nice to be able to get a feel for the current score without having to do a lot of mid-game arithmetic.  A simple script to spit out the current overall score (whether based on kills or ratio) would be a simple and handy addition to any tw cw server, I would think.



Date Posted: July 28, 2007, 04:44:18 PM

I could make a totally map independant script that would calculate the map domination in percentage. It would calculate this percentage every second and show the current domination in say the usual flagscore table. The overall domination would be the average domination a team has during the whole match, and this overall domination would be what counts in the end. Scoring with the flag would of course have a powerful bonus effect on this overall domination.

Ha, I don't doubt you could, almight Avarax.  However, I hope we can build some consensus on what we really want before we ask you (oh so politely, with our little soldat helmets in our little soldat hands) to take any time away from working on Hexer. 

[-Major-]

what about just puting the flag closer to each others?

an example below:

current TW:


this idea TW:

this would make a lot more scoring because it takes more time to gain reinforcements.

[Maniatiko]

I think a TW CLANWAR Should be at most 20 mins EACH game and 3 maps (1 hour+ is more than enough, and its exhausting)

I find that the best way to see who is the winner is the one who gets more kills, because at some point one clan will be almost going to score, controlling most of the map, but if the other clan defends well enough they can manage to make the other team fall back and still win. Although this might help camping but nothing is perfect

also I wish it could be a 4v4 clanwar, I personally love strats, I play professionaly Call of Duty 2 and Counter Strike and LOVE to make strats, thats why I play TW, and playing 4v4 is just enough to make a good strat, with variety of weapons, and attacking methods (I have great ideas for 3v3 HEXER strats btw), and 4v4 is just good enough, NOT too crowded making it NOT to easy to cap, but fair enough for a team to catch enemy's flag


actually ATM i'm clanless but wanting to join a clan JUST for CW, cuz I find a 4v4 would be really nice, ORGANIZED strats rlz and this mod rlz

EDIT: BTW, maps should be fixed, ENESCE, when sometimes i'm running and die WTF? out of no-where and SUICIDE? WTF? >_>

EDIT 2: I think also there should be MORE maps but not to play, to test and SEE which are the most balanced and less buggy, because some maps are really unbalanced, thrown towards one team winning, so its really lame, some maps I dont play in RED team because its practically impossible to do something.

[SirJamesaford]

Hows about first to cap no time limit?  I dont know... just tryin to help.

[Iq Unlimited]

lol, easier, but no.

[Maniatiko]

it would give NO chance for the other team to win, so discarded, maybe cap limit 4 ? or no cap limit (if so, games would mostly end up in TIE or be really lame)

[-Major-]

just simply change the map layout as I demonstrated earlier. or use this distance method even though it would take unnecessary resources.

[Apocalypse]

well atm (as its always been unless a noob clan thinks different, which is wrong) its been 3 maps. 20 minutes each. cap limit 5. with a tie breaker map, if that map ended in a tie it went by pure points(if team red had 12 -3 // 14 - 6 // 23 - 12 and team blue had 3 -6 // 35 - 27 // 23 - 22 it went by pure kills I.E: team red has 49 points where team blue has 61 points (counting just kills(all points on left side))

[Dizzy So 1337]

Hows about first to cap no time limit?  I dont know... just tryin to help.

Actually I'm generally in favor of 1 cap limit for a CW round, if the match is best of 3.  No time limit, though... thats crazy talk.

well atm (as its always been unless a noob clan thinks different, which is wrong) its been 3 maps. 20 minutes each. cap limit 5. with a tie breaker map, if that map ended in a tie it went by pure points(if team red had 12 -3 // 14 - 6 // 23 - 12 and team blue had 3 -6 // 35 - 27 // 23 - 22 it went by pure kills I.E: team red has 49 points where team blue has 61 points (counting just kills(all points on left side))

Mine is a new clan (but not noob thanks).  If your clan doesn't have any problems running hour-long games with 8-10 players on a regular basis, all I can say is respect.  In my experience that's quite an accomplishment.  But don't you think that a shorter more decisive protocol would help lift TW out of its current 'niche' status?

[haha]

Scoring by Airstrike
In this example, every Airstrike grants one capture point to the winning team.

... hiding under a piece of bunker would save u from blowing up....and even if u die its only maybe a few times only..and u get a cap

[Avarax]

I think I've succesfully coded the script, also including an airstrike.

[Dizzy So 1337]

Good lord when do you sleep?  PM me with some contact details, I'd love to host it and see how it flies.

[BombSki]

The problem with current CW's is that its usually 2on2-3on3-4on4. The MINIMUM for a CW should be 4on4, where 5on5 would be the default.
At the moment its indeed like someone discribed earlier: rush and kill. this isnt the idea of TW and therefor nerfing the shotgun might actually not be such a bad idea. More players is also needed to be able to hold and take points rather than CTF-like rushing. Also i think most if not every 'position/building' should have heal polys or even packets. This is to keep rushing down and makes holding a place more important.
Also i agree there must be a list of maps for CW's.
I definately do not think there should be airstrikes in the CWs.
1st cap wins without time limit is a pretty nice idea.
As to comment on bringing the flags closer to eachother: not a good idea, changing the flags is a great idea however. play tw_marsh to get the idea.. its like bring the flag forward instead of capture it.

[Avarax]

well, check out my script, the airstrike and mine laying however requires a 2.6.2 or enesce.com server to work properly. the domination part should work on 2.6.1 aswell. note that's still an early beta.

http://home.arcor.de/avarax3/TrenchwarDomination.pas

Date Posted: July 30, 2007, 04:31:29 PMHere's a thread that allows easy installation and describes and explains the script a bit further.

http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=18136.msg206712#msg206712

[Espadon]

I loved tw_Marsh's almost football-like play concept.

[BombSki]

Yea, we definately need more  maps based on this idea :O also its more realistic than ctf, because tw is about taking ground and bringing the frontline forward rather than snitching the flag and run.

[Daimarus]

Well, you are talking about things, that are already set.

TrenchWars, is CTF, but much more realistic and action-packed. Rules of those two should be (and ARE) simmilar.

-Realistic Mode On
-10 minues
-3 rounds
-Cap limit is 3. Not too much (almost impossible to manage that. I can, even in 5vs5 though), not too few
-2 grenades
-ALL weapons allowed. What's wrong in M79 or Minigun? There aren't noobs in ClanWars (at least there shouldn't be any).
-No weapon mods, except existing one for Realistic Mode
-No scripting, except passive one, like stats, profile-saving etc. NO AirStrikes!
-Starting map always was and will be GloryHill. Prefered second one might be NoMans, and the third one - Battlefield
-Teams should be from 3vs3 up to 7vs7. Thre shouldn't be acually any border, but 7 people per one team is highest playable number
-Winner of the first match chooses the next map. NoMans and Battlefield are just good ones, but it can be ANY map that ALL PLAYERS KNOW
-If there is a Tie, the KILL count is most important. If the number of kills is the same, then DEATH count is counted. If it is still tied, leaders should decide what to do.
-Leaders of both fighting clans might change minor rules like grenade number, time per one game, slighty modificated or disallowed (M79, Minugun) weapons etc.


Those are rules of battles in TrenchWars.


Daimarus

[Espadon]

No, M79 and mini really should be disallowed, as iM79s renders hiding in trenches more like shooting fish in a bucket. And the mini is just not realistic and in the spirit of TW.

[Maniatiko]

/agree

m79 is too overpowered

maybe IF IT is allowed, it should be like in call of duty 2 that its only 1 sniper per team, therefore only 1 player can use m79 per team

[Espadon]

Agree on that if possible.

[Daimarus]

I wrote about enabling/disabling those 2 ones. I didn't notice any F11 to my rule set, so I think you like it at least a bit.

[Avarax]

I dislike the decision of the winner being based on kills if the flag score is tied. I'd really recommend my you test out my script, it solutes this problem in a TW adequate way. Landmines and Airstrikes can of course be disabled.

[Daimarus]

domination and such ARE SCRIPTING. It is not the passive one. Leaders should decide what to do is there is a tie in caps, kills and deaths

[Avarax]

it indeed is passive, it just shows how much land is dominated by the teams

[Maryleaf]

Dont listen to Daim anymore. I havnt seen him play in over 3 weeks. So nothing about TW can involve him anymore till he starts up again.

[matt]

Jesus, just play a game that has 1st cap wins and put in 3 rounds, with 3 diffrent map. TW is better if there is more people though so its only good if u play them with at least 6vs6 and more. The lower number of people the longer it will take for the game to end and I agree with -Major- it would save a lot of time if the flags were close to eachother.

[Maryleaf]

Noone has a server with over 10 man TW. Never seen it, so how do you know its good with 6 vs 6?

[matt]

Played on 6vs6 once it was good, two guys held the mid bunker, then the rest tried to get the next one and when they got it the two guys came up to the bunker, and we did the same thing over and over, untill we got the flag, the FFC ran back to our flag while the rest camped near the enemy base and as I said, the more people the better.

[Maniatiko]

I think we should discuss EACH point on a different topic, cuz there are many things to discuss on this

Date Posted: August 01, 2007, 08:33:56 PMI still disagree with the MAP CONTROL TERRITORY declaring a winner, its pure stupidity (with all respect Avarax) I personally play PROFESSIONALY Counter Strike and Call of Duty 2, and most of the times its been just ME vs the WHOLE OTHER TEAM, they may be pwning me, but TIME LIMIT declares I win since they couldnt kill me in X amount of time (ps, I dont hide or camp) its just pure strategy, based on time consuming and killing, If my team has MORE KILLS i just waste opponents time and distract them so they loose cuz of time

Now I'll move this explanation to SOLDAT, the other team MAY be controlling most of the map, MAY, but we surely DEFEND it, and their MISTAKES (they get easy to kill) but STILL they control most of the map, their bad playing still makes them DESERVERS to win?

[Dizzy So 1337]

ARR, lively debate FTW!!!

I think we should discuss EACH point on a different topic, cuz there are many things to discuss on this

Date Posted: August 01, 2007, 08:33:56 PMI still disagree with the MAP CONTROL TERRITORY declaring a winner...

Maniatiko, what do you think would be a good idea?  If you prefer not to score by Domination, the good news is that you don't have to.  Just consider it as some cool 'bonus' info.

Personally I think mines and airstrikes are cool but not for CW.  I know, I said earlier that I was in favor of Airstrikes but I've changed my mind on that point.

I don't have any problem with people holding the opinion that the 'status quo' notion that TWCW is best played along the same lines as CTFCW.  I just challenge people to use their imagination to see if there is an even better way. 

"A reasonably decisive TW CW game should be able to be played in 20-30 minutes"  That's my mission statement, nobody has to agree with it.  Maybe it's not a good goal, but I think it is.  If you did agree with that concept, what would you do to make it a reality?

[Maniatiko]

ESPADON I totally agree on you, MINES are really fun, but not for a CW

But on Airstrikes I really dont know what to think, I have thought and the Airstrikes are really what they are said to be: A possibility for one team to change the game and re-enter competition

but if we think it further, its really a BONUS that in no way makes the game ON SKILLS, but its rather NEUTRAL LUCK (because they arent fully aimed at someone, you can hide)

I dont mind them, but still, they could give a nice ADDON to a CW, removing them wont be either good or bad, neither having them


I think TWCW should be 20 mins EACH map, but still, more than 3 maps would be TOO MUCH, too heavy to play, therefore the MOST IMPORTANTE TOPIC SHOULD BE:

What to do after a tie during 3 games?

I personally think kills and deaths on one team vs Kills and deaths on the other team

Edited: Its really stupid to make notice of KILLS because one team may be PWND at kills, but still, they might have capped, so KILLS can't be an option

That's my mission statement, nobody has to agree with it.  Maybe it's not a good goal, but I think it is.  If you did agree with that concept, what would you do to make it a reality? (Spadon )

[who flung poo]

I truly love the concept of TW but i've personally never see TW clanwars but just basic 3v3 or 4v4 which end up being really fun, and all the better if aircraft is involved...

But back to the topic, I believe Clanwars should have a time limit from 20-30 minutes, the score should also depend on the number of kills and manage to defend the flag well.

If it was a CW however 4 on 4 would be best because it's not that crowded making it rather hard to cap while still being able to catch the enemies flag.
whatever though, i'm not in a clan because of my darned dial-up but i still love the concept of TW CW

[Maniatiko]

I truly love the concept of TW but i've personally never see TW clanwars but just basic 3v3 or 4v4 which end up being really fun, and all the better if aircraft is involved...

But back to the topic, I believe Clanwars should have a time limit from 20-30 minutes, the score should also depend on the number of kills and manage to defend the flag well.

If it was a CW however 4 on 4 would be best because it's not that crowded making it rather hard to cap while still being able to catch the enemies flag.
whatever though, i'm not in a clan because of my darned dial-up but i still love the concept of TW CW

YOU HAVE A NICE POINT, really nice point there,

/agree

/love u

=$

20 should be enough, 3 games = more than 1hour + 15 mins (always ppl get lost, or late) I believe playing more than 1 hour would be exhausting

[Daimarus]

Well, you are talking about things, that are already set.

TrenchWars, is CTF, but much more realistic and action-packed. Rules of those two should be (and ARE) simmilar.

-Realistic Mode On
-10 minues
-3 rounds
-Cap limit is 3. Not too much (almost impossible to manage that. I can, even in 5vs5 though), not too few
-2 grenades
-ALL weapons allowed. What's wrong in M79 or Minigun? There aren't noobs in ClanWars (at least there shouldn't be any).
-No weapon mods, except existing one for Realistic Mode
-No scripting, except passive one, like stats, profile-saving etc. NO AirStrikes!
-Starting map always was and will be GloryHill. Prefered second one might be NoMans, and the third one - Battlefield
-Teams should be from 3vs3 up to 7vs7. Thre shouldn't be acually any border, but 7 people per one team is highest playable number
-Winner of the first match chooses the next map. NoMans and Battlefield are just good ones, but it can be ANY map that ALL PLAYERS KNOW
-If there is a Tie, the KILL count is most important. If the number of kills is the same, then DEATH count is counted. If it is still tied, leaders should decide what to do.
-Leaders of both fighting clans might change minor rules like grenade number, time per one game, slighty modificated or disallowed (M79, Minugun) weapons etc.


Those are rules of battles in TrenchWars.


Daimarus

Maryleaf, stop bullshiting at me. I played Soldat. I was away, bt I didn't loose any of my abilities.

I challange you to a ClanWar, to solve our little problem...

----

I saw 14 people server for TW - Mike's TW

----

10 minutes is ENOUGH to cap at least once. 20 minutes are just fucking boring.

----

SC fought against 2 clans in 5vs5. Won both battles.

[Dizzy So 1337]

OK, let's get back here and sum up.

Forget Airstrikes and Mines.  I think everyone agrees that they are bad for CW's. 

Summarized all opinions so far in the following format
[clan leader/member] Name - best of ___ caplimit ___ timelimit ___minimum team ___tie broken by ___

 - These are apparently the most vital stats for this discussion so i propose we discard or at least 'table' everything else ie weapons allowed.
 - ? = no opinion given
 - [clan leader/member] be sure to include, since we are all probably MOST interested in weighting the opinions of current, active TW clans and most especially their leaders.
 - If I got anything wrong, please lemme know and it would be most helpful if you supplied me a full opinion line in the format i am using... will update the post.

Summary of opinions so far:
Ervis - best of ?, caplimit ?, timelimit ?, minimum team ?, tie broken by killcount
Espadon - best of 3, caplimit ?, timelimit 20, minimum team ?, tie broken by 4th round
IQUnlimited - best of ?, caplimit 5, time 20, minimum 3v3, tie broken by killcount
SirJamesford - best of ?, caplimit 1, time unlimited, minimum ?, tie broken by killratio
Maniatiko - best of 3, caplimit ?, timelimit 20, minimum ?, tie NOT broken by killcount but what, Maniatiko?
Apocalypse - best of 3, caplimit 5, timelimit 20, minimum 4v4, tie broken by 4th round
Bombski - best of ?, caplimit 1, timelimit 20, minimum 4v4, tie broken by ?
[SC Leader] Daimarus - best of 3, caplimit ?, timelimit 10, minimum 3v3, tie broken by killcount
Matt - best of 3, caplimit 1, timelimit ?, minimum 6v6, tie broken by ?
[Hunt] Dizzy - best of 1, timelimit 20, minimum 2v2, tie broken by Domination score

Date Posted: August 06, 2007, 01:40:13 AMNow that I've done that, some personal opinions:
IQ, Bombski - I have no prob with that if u mean best of 1.  Best of 3 would mean 60+ minutes for a match, I find this impractical.
SirJamesford - unlimited timelimit in TW is the worst idea I have ever heard in my life, hands down.  A tip:  if you ever try this, MAKE GODDAMNED SURE everyone has gone to the bathroom before you attempt anything like this.
Espadon, Maniatiko - 20 minute time limits with ties broken by 4th round?  A 2-hour long match, wow.  I find this impractical to say the least.
Matt - minimum 6v6?  SirJamesFord, you are off the hook.  Now I've really heard the worst TW CW idea ever.
Dizzy - good god man your a ****ing genius I love you!  Now I can finally start playing some serious TW CW matches anytime I want!  A CW that is easy as **** to arrange, can be played in 30 minutes flat, and is fun and decisive whether I play 2v2 or 7v7?  Wow.  I am gonna send you money, what's your Paypal?  Also I will be nominating you for the Nobel Prize, do you know how to get ahold of them?

[^_^]

I don't really like the m79, but I disagree with taking it out of TW. Although a sometimes annoying weapon, in real wars it was used, the Minigun however, was always stationary considering it's weight and bink. (thus making it the most unrealistic weapon in the game)

[Dizzy So 1337]

Don't call it a necro-post.  This discussion is currently alive and well at the Trenchwars forums (which are recently revived and getting very active again!) http://www.createforum.com/trenchwars/viewtopic.php?t=192&mforum=trenchwars

If you care about TW get the hell in there with us!