TWC Rules, Policies, Etc.

[rzr]

I was thinking (don't flame me for this idea), when I was in a chat a few hours ago we were talking about iTWG. Well, should we try this? The lack of players could be distributed by cutting back on the amount per junior. It could be uselful, but at the same time it could be utterly retarded. Anywho, just a though, think nothing of it if your thoughts are negative (meaning not constructivly critical).

[pntballa18]

we got an issue to vote on

aTWG, yea or nay

as for me i vote nay for aTWG

[rzr]

(For those who didn't see my idea previously) aTWG- the philosophy of an alternate TWG in place of jTWG and TWG. The aTWG should only be used in the case that both TWG and jTWG should 'die out'. If there is two currently going games but neither are active, an aTWG may be proposed to start up. The aTWG is not to be used if you don't like the current games, or if you've died and still want to play. The aTWG would be there to start if the current game activity levels are close-to-none.

[thunderstrike687]

that makes no sense rzr. if jTWG and TWG were to die out, where would the players for the aTWG come from?

[rzr]

My apologies, I should have been more specific. The aTWG players would come from the players who ARE playing their games. For example, in the current jTWG myself, heavy, xception, and some others are still very active. But most of the others aren't causing the game to suck. So we would then start an aTWG. That's where I meant the players to come from.

[DarkManticoreX2]

The problem were having isn't something adding another game is going to fix. If people are going to be inactive, the game will die, and there isn't a thing we can do about it. Basically, With the aTWG, you're making another TWG game, and calling it something else. If the case comes where both games become inactive to the point of cancelation, but there are still players who are willing to be active and play, We simply cancel the current games, and host a new TWG for the players who are going to be active and play.

[rzr]

See, that's where my conflict with the original ideas came in. How is it fair to the current host to cancel the game they worked so hard to create and get the players to enjoy? And whatever happened to enforcing phantoms other than 'oh you died because you have too many'.

[DarkManticoreX2]

Phantoms are like this rzr

1 - 0.001 vote
2 - 1.001 vote
3 - game ban and replacement

[rzr]

Yes, I know this. But in my game the game banning aspect of phantoms are ineffective. Nonetheless, I would like us to decide on this soon. The games are getting boring, I'd like to have them revived.

[Makilaz]

They're not ineffective in that they prevent the inactive from playing again for a while. Eventually, most of the people who insist on being inactive get banned, and you're left with actives.

[pntballa18]

panel votes yea or nay

[thunderstrike687]

i vote lets play some ****ing normal games with less **** in them k thx

[Brilliant Dynamite Neon]

It's been agreed on that next TWG will be pretty much standard.

I say 16 players, 4 wolves with 1 MW, Seer and Guard. Nothing complicated at all.

[Makilaz]

Voting nay. To rzr's idea, to be more specific.

[roundbox]

Originally Posted by thunderstrike687

i vote lets play some ****ing normal games with less **** in them k thx

This

There's a certain level of whether the characters control the game of the gameplay elements control the game, and now that gameplay elements (items and gratuitous amounts of powers) seem to be "favorable", they're just over complicating a simple game.

Something else that can be done to this inactive issue is to host a game with smaller player amounts. For example, we ride a couple of people short nearly every signup due to our small amount of active players, so why not adapt to this? Create games oriented at a smaller group of people, rather than hitting the 17-22 zone. 14 seems ideal to me.

nay @ rzr

[thunderstrike687]

I agree 100% on smaller games. more focused, and it forces the chosen players to be active. I feel we should reduce the number of players per game, and issue game bans to any inactivity on the players in any game, because we will be forcing some to not play. This way, if you sign up and take someone elses spot and make someone else not play, you know you are going to recieve a game ban for obstructing another more deserving player from playing the game.

EDIT: oh yeah, nay at rzr.

[rzr]

Regardless of ayes and nays the problem is everyone's finding something to do i.e. Brawl and those who aren't are in here voting or dead in their own game. Mak, be more specific how? Ask me a question so it'll be easier for me to elaborate.

[rzr]

Either way I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick to jTWG for a while. I love playing with the vets but as I can't access AIM as often and the junior players seem to be more understanding.

[travman301]

Sorry rzr, I just don't like the idea. nay

[rzr]

Doesn't bother me, I just want to get a game going already ><