General Mac did something similar to this (remember F1 league anyone) but it never got past Beta. If I put this on the clans wiki or something I'll give him credit - and I want it to be clear this wasn't my own idea (thanks Mac :D)

First off, this will only be open to clans for the moment so if you aren't in a clan, don't sign up.

Basically, this will be a few Team FFAs (3v3v3 or 3v3v3v3) between some clans. It won't be open to more then four clans because the games get more messy and less enjoyable.

Each team will decide on their settings, for their 'home' game. The map they use must have a minimum of 150 territories, and no more then 1000. Deployment must be a maximum of 5 territories per player. Kill rates must be on their default settings. Booted players can be made into AIs (but not surrendered players) and AIs must 'surrender when only one human remains'. Everything else is up to them (if they want member settings I can help if they aren't a member).

One game will be played at a time, and each team will get a single home game. The idea is to last longer then the others, so surrendering is never normally in your favour - you may be able to outlast another losing team, and get more points from that game.

Points are decided per game as follows:

1st - 10
2nd - 7
3rd - 3
4th - 1

In the unlikely event of a tie, the teams move up to the highest rank possible (making those below them move up too).

If you have any questions about this, then please ask them here (as others may have the same question).

The Clan of Warlighters signs up to this.

The {TJC} is signed up.

Team [16] will gladly compete in your league.

I have already set the wheels in motion to make sure we can come up with a great home game.

{TJC} would also like to be credited for his small part in this :P

Three out of four places have been filled. If nobody joins after a couple of days, we'll start. First home game will be drawn randomly so I don't know who it will be yet....

Before we make any commitment to joining I still have various questions with regards to the ruling you've stated.

1) How does it make sense that it is based on who survives the longest ?? Does that even have anything to do with warlight in a FFA ?? If one clan at one time would be leading so all people gang up on them, would they have played worse then the midget no one cares about who gets overrun in the end after being the sniffling lap dog of the other team the whole game ?
2) If people get a higher rank from a tie, who is to prevent them from both voting to end to garner the much needed 10 points for both of them. I mean apart from voting to end...what other means would merit a tie, I don't see them.
3) 150 territories minimally and 5 armies per player. That already boils down to 3x5x4 = 60 territories occupied. Almost half the map is darned occupied at the start! Wouldn't it make more sense to base the amount of territories each player gets towards the amount of territories so you would get like a 20% filling of the map and not just such a random arbitrary criteria ?

i think "who survives the longest" means the winner
as for the rest i agree entirely

The minimum territory thing is something I put in place to prevent people using truel and other tiny maps. I'm sure people who use a small map won't put so many start territories - they aren't stupid.

There is nothing stopping teams from voting to end, but why do it? The teams with an advantage could gain an extra 3 net points.

PMs are disabled, so there is an element of trust that the teams won't make another game and cheat. It is only a small competition between 3 or 4 clans, so cheating doesn't really do much for them. In history, it will be obvious whether somebody has been cheating and the cheaters will be penalised.

PMs are disabled, so there is an element of trust that the teams won't make another game and cheat. It is only a small competition between 3 or 4 clans, so cheating doesn't really do much for them. In history, it will be obvious whether somebody has been cheating and the cheaters will be penalised.

I wasn't even making any claims towards cheating. That issue is beside the point.
It's not so terribly hard to conceive temporary alliances occuring in the course of a game based on the way it develops along.
Like a cornered team saying something in the line of "DAMN...team B already has 3x20 income per turn" to which team C and D decide to join in to prevent team B from getting too far ahead of them.
Personally I would opt for the division of points to give team B the 2nd place instead of the one who happens to be the second longest to survive.

I see what you mean, but I could say at the beginning that nobody is to mention anything about others teams in the game: failure to adhere to this rule will result in a points docking.

1) How does it make sense that it is based on who survives the longest ?

You shouldn't see it as a part of Warlight or Warlight FFA, you should see it as something that is a property. Sure, it can be gamed, but that becomes part of the game. As you suggested you can "bait" the other players to gang up (which another team may or may not believe - and even if you do believe them ganging up on this opponent may open up a win for a team that doesn't really care as much about taking that team down), you'll generally spend more resources on finishing teams off, because it will mean assurance of extra points, you could try and keep a weak team alive as there is another team that is ranking well you want to kill first, if your rank is good, you'll have to do better because people will be more aggressive towards you.

2) If people get a higher rank from a tie, who is to prevent them from both voting to end to garner the much needed 10 points for both of them. I mean apart from voting to end...what other means would merit a tie, I don't see them.

I agree. I would suggest (1) defining a tie as being killed in the same turn (you could look to move order, but that makes little sense to me), (2) having teams below the tied teams not get extra points (i.e. when team alpha destroys teams beta and gamma in the same turn, while team delta was already out of the game, teams beta and gamma get 7 points, while delta only gets 1` point. Basically, it makes little sense to reward gamma for beta and gamma having tied - the only time I have seen it done as you described was when the organizers had accidentally twice the amount of medals then would normally be needed) and finally (3) when the game is ended through voting, the remaining teams get the points the team to be taken out of the game would (i.e. When no team has been defeated at this point, all teams get 1 point - if nothing else this should prevent strategical voting to end).

What I will do is change the system so drawn teams get the lower rank points, but higher rank itself (so Team A & B could get 2nd, but only 3 points each).

You shouldn't see it as a part of Warlight or Warlight FFA, you should see it as something that is a property.

Wow... I can be really good at writing sentences that make no sense. It should be "a property of this competition".

tbh i think in ffas second spot or less doesn't mean anything, i've seen some people *cough* stall a clearly lost game they don't stand a chance in for dozens of turns just to be able to say they survived longer, it's possible in an ffa to lose first turn because you're in contact with opponents everywhere, or at least to lose after 3-4 turns, no point in forcing people to keep playing when they've clearly lost.
i'd give the rank 1 team a point and the others get nothing

I'm going to stick with the current system, because otherwise there is less competition - it would take lots of games to get anything interesting.

Are we still gonna do this?

I'm too busy to organise this at the moment. We would still play though.

If you wanted a more fair competition; perhaps a round robin on some 'fair' team FFA settings.