Moderator: Clan Directors

That actual games that are played are poly, which requires premium. its only ever 1 game at a time, but unfortunately its premium only for the players.benbomb wrote:im a free-minion, is that a problem or will it be like the monster battle royaal?? (free games no max)





Am I reading this correctly that there will be 3 Lords guarding inactive Clans' castles? If so, that seems like inactive Clans will never be worth attacking. Active Clans would always have at least 1 Lord out exploring - maybe all but 1 or even 0. Perhaps having 1 Lord guarding the castle provides more balance - no free castles, but inactive Clans would still be weaker than active Clans.IcePack wrote:Army Unit Management Rules
An Assault against an inactive Clans Castle
- The Clan will be contacted as a last ditch effort to get them to defend their Castle. If they choose to do so, they will defend it per the standard rules.
- If the defending "inactive" clan chooses not to defend their castle, I (IcePack) will play the x3 default defense of the Clans Castle on Siege! for any clan that doesn't participate. This will provide a roughly equal challenge to all clans.
- If theres a conflict of interest (such as FALL attacking an inactive Clans Castle) I will provide an approximately like-skilled person to defend the castle in which does not have a conflict of interest. (TBD: Likely Lindax)
- Either way, there will be no "free" castles to be grabbed regardless of the level of participation.





This is part of the info packet that will be sent tomorrow, but the plan is:rockfist wrote:So participating clans would make their moves Sunday/Monday?







No problem, I'm glad there are some who are excited / looking forward to this "very weird" / unique / outside of the normal event for CC Clans.Yynatago wrote:Thanks for all the effort you are putting into this IcePack!

My only problem with this is the substituting player wanting only to be temporary becoming rooked into a permanent position. Now he's in a game he neither wants to be in nor wants to succeed (success means continued play). Which isn't fair to his teammates.catnipdreams wrote:Hmmmm.... I do not like having the possibility of a clan being penalized because a player wants to take the summer off, for instance. How about this:IcePack wrote:I suppose we could come up w some rules for it. Though 3 months does seem excessive.catnipdreams wrote:How do we deal with planned absences? Can a different player take over a "Lord" name for, say, 3 months, then switch back?
I'd envision something like:
- free: changing of a Lord from player A to player B for a duration of no longer then a month. (Lord designation stays the same)
- X gold: changing of a Lord permanently if needed for more then 1 month
I use the 1 month as a guideline from the sites general sitting guidelines. Sitting for over a month needs replacement.
Also, a condition of the temporary replacement would be that it couldn't be another Lord already within the game actively, and couldn't be permanently replaced with a Lord who has previously been executed.
Cost of gold TBD.
A player with a planned absence of more than 1 month, sends you a PM stating this, with the dates of the planned absence, and also tells you what player should be the replacement.
There is no penalty for this, but the replacement player has to be fresh to the game, as you said.
During this planned absence, the "absent" player should not be playing any other CC games, including speeders. The absence is a true absence from actively playing games on CC.
When the player returns to CC, ready to play active games again, the player can send you a PM, letting you know either of two things: the player wants back into the CR@W game, or, that the substitution should be permanent.





Actually, thinking about this even more. Castles really shouldn't be "easy" regardless. There are some clans that may not leave their clans for extra defense.nvanputten wrote:Am I reading this correctly that there will be 3 Lords guarding inactive Clans' castles? If so, that seems like inactive Clans will never be worth attacking. Active Clans would always have at least 1 Lord out exploring - maybe all but 1 or even 0. Perhaps having 1 Lord guarding the castle provides more balance - no free castles, but inactive Clans would still be weaker than active Clans.IcePack wrote:Army Unit Management Rules
An Assault against an inactive Clans Castle
- The Clan will be contacted as a last ditch effort to get them to defend their Castle. If they choose to do so, they will defend it per the standard rules.
- If the defending "inactive" clan chooses not to defend their castle, I (IcePack) will play the x3 default defense of the Clans Castle on Siege! for any clan that doesn't participate. This will provide a roughly equal challenge to all clans.
- If theres a conflict of interest (such as FALL attacking an inactive Clans Castle) I will provide an approximately like-skilled person to defend the castle in which does not have a conflict of interest. (TBD: Likely Lindax)
- Either way, there will be no "free" castles to be grabbed regardless of the level of participation.


Hey TX,TX AG 90 wrote:IcePack,
I know we have addressed what happens when an "inactive" clan castle is attacked. As of now, you or Lindax will play for the inactive game and once an active clan has defeated the castle 3 times (or less if they have been previously attacked), they will get the castle and their gold.
However, I could not find where it was addressed what happens if the active clan lord LOSES the battle.
Is the attacking Lord automatically executed like battles vs. Barbarians or is there a set ransom fee in lieu of negotiations?
Thanks,
TX













