CC Clan League 5 - Question going here

[peanutsdad]

Ok, Major changes . I apply that every clan have chance to play in Premier League, so Clan League will have two stage
1-Qualification Stage
2-League Stage


All are explane in page 1. Also these become one of format proposition for Clan League 5 (official competition)

Personally, i love the changes you have made and fully support your ideas on how this should go. Great job qwert.

[sempaispellcheck]

Minor question: if this is based on Premier League football, why not 3 points for a win?

[MudPuppy]

Looks great, qwert. I love the 2 phase format and while I'm sure the setting selections may not satisfy everyone, I think they are a good compromise between the camps that favor widespread limitatons (no nuclear, no unlimited) and those that want everything available.

The one minor adjustment I would recommend is for medal qualification to be based on the number of participating clan members rather than clan size. The reason for this is that the number of "inactive" members on clan rosters varies widely from clan to clan. We don't have too many on ours but I don't really want to have to boot currently inactive members off our roster just to give our active members a better chance at a medal.

Clan size, Number of games required by player to qualify for medal.

10 to 14 players - 20 games
15 to 19 players - 17 games
20 to 24 players - 13 games
25 to 29 players - 10 games
30 plus players - 7 games

[josko.ri]

I very like your format qwert. This is now much better than previous solution, obviously you were considered a lot of opinion, as contrast to the leader of CL4 who just did what he had in mind.

Some points I would like to adress:

1. Does clans play in the same week vs different clans, ie home set vs TOFU and away set vs PACK in the same week? if yes, I think that is great idea.

2. If you get 42 sign ups instead of 36, which is more likely as clan area is growing and CL4 had 39 entries, how it will apply in the format? will it be qualification tournaments with 7 clans in 6 groups, so then you make League 4, or you will make 7 groups of 6 clans, in which case every League will extend from 12 to 14 clans?

3. "If the tie is between more than two clans, then the tie is broken, using the games the clans have played against each other:
a) head-to-head points
b) head-to-head game difference
c)head-to-head away game wins
d)Most away wins for the entire season"
so, if 3 or more clans are tied, there is not Game difference for the entire season the first tie breaker? I think you made typo here.

4. I think maximum allowed games per player should be 4 (2 home 2 away), not 6. with 4 it is 25% of total games, and with 6 it is 37,5% of total games in the round. Previous clan competitions had maximum allowed number of games per player between 30% and 33% of total games. As clan area is growing, clans in average get more members, so there is more chance to have more players be involved in clan war, so then it is no need that one player plays 37,5% of all games. The trend of maximum % of games allowed per player needs to go down as clan area is growing, not up.

5. About the schedule, I think you can afford some free weeks otherwise this may be too hard to be on the date for all clans. I suggest have 2 week break (instead of one week break) after 3rd 6th and 9th, or after 4th and 8th round to be it easier to catch the schedule for everyone. this will make the whole league just 2 or 3 weeks longer, it is really not so much.

6. I suggest you use F400 ranking, and use pools for placing clans into seedings. for example, pool 1 are clans 1-6, pool 2 clans 7-12 etc adn then random draw decides which clan will be placed into which Division.

Those are just minor change suggestions, in total this sounds very nice format

[qwert]

Minor question: if this is based on Premier League football, why not 3 points for a win?

Hmm, i look on CL4 and see that win are awarded with 2 points. I dont have nothing against to be 3 points, but i dont know what community think abouth that.

mudpuppy
The one minor adjustment I would recommend is for medal qualification to be based on the number of participating clan members rather than clan size. The reason for this is that the number of "inactive" members on clan rosters varies widely from clan to clan. We don't have too many on ours but I don't really want to have to boot currently inactive members off our roster just to give our active members a better chance at a medal.

well, you think some universal medal qualification, who will be equal for everybody?
well then need to calculate some average game number ? something like

-12 games its need for player to qualify for medal-

are these something what you talk?

josko.ri
Some points I would like to adress:

1. Does clans play in the same week vs different clans, ie home set vs TOFU and away set vs PACK in the same week? if yes, I think that is great idea.

2. If you get 42 sign ups instead of 36, which is more likely as clan area is growing and CL4 had 39 entries, how it will apply in the format? will it be qualification tournaments with 7 clans in 6 groups, so then you make League 4, or you will make 7 groups of 6 clans, in which case every League will extend from 12 to 14 clans?

3. "If the tie is between more than two clans, then the tie is broken, using the games the clans have played against each other:
a) head-to-head points
b) head-to-head game difference
c)head-to-head away game wins
d)Most away wins for the entire season"
so, if 3 or more clans are tied, there is not Game difference for the entire season the first tie breaker? I think you made typo here.

4. I think maximum allowed games per player should be 4 (2 home 2 away), not 6. with 4 it is 25% of total games, and with 6 it is 37,5% of total games in the round. Previous clan competitions had maximum allowed number of games per player between 30% and 33% of total games. As clan area is growing, clans in average get more members, so there is more chance to have more players be involved in clan war, so then it is no need that one player plays 37,5% of all games. The trend of maximum % of games allowed per player needs to go down as clan area is growing, not up.

5. About the schedule, I think you can afford some free weeks otherwise this may be too hard to be on the date for all clans. I suggest have 2 week break (instead of one week break) after 3rd 6th and 9th, or after 4th and 8th round to be it easier to catch the schedule for everyone. this will make the whole league just 2 or 3 weeks longer, it is really not so much.

6. I suggest you use F400 ranking, and use pools for placing clans into seedings. for example, pool 1 are clans 1-6, pool 2 clans 7-12 etc adn then random draw decides which clan will be placed into which Division.

Those are just minor change suggestions, in total this sounds very nice format

1.yes

2.If we get 42, then i think its better to not ruin format,and will go with 6 groups of 7 teams, and creating 4th league with 7 bottom ranked teams from each group. If we go with 3 league,then last league will have 18 teams, and this could last to long.
42 clans:
1.Premier -12
2.Second-12
3.Third-12
4 Fourth- 6

3.Well these make confusion,because i dont add ranking league criteria, now i change these,i hope that now are much clear

Qualification and League competition Ranking
In bout stages Clans are ranked by this criteria
1.Total points
2.Game Difference

TIEBREAK
If points and game difference are equal between two or more Clans, the rules are:

1.tiebreakers between two clan are applied in the following order:

a)Head-to-head results.
b)Most away wins for the entire season
c)Most away game wins for the entire season

2.If the tie is between more than two clans, tiebreake are applied in the following order:
a) head-to-head points
b) head-to-head game difference
c)head-to-head away game wins
d)Most away wins for the entire season
e)Most away games wins for the entire season

Now i remove b) from tiebreak between two clan because these option are pointless.

4.3 are minimum what are possible, consider that you have 50 slots in one week, and small clans will be in trouble to apply ( 10 players cover 4 slots each=40 slots--10 slots left) also they need to cover second rule-minimum 10 diferent player need per round. So 3 are maximum,and minimum per round, so that all rules be applied.I need to cover all clans from big to small, so 3+3 are maximum and minimum what its for now possibile.

5. hmm, this could be apply for second stage, and first stage to stay to go in schedule order. Its better that first stage finish att soon its possibile, so that League have more time for adjustment.

6. Well i will give these to everybody for thinking, some people think that its better to make some ranking from previously results in CL3 and Cl4. Several options are open, and i will take what people think its most suitabile.

[eddie2]

on the format side i am not really bothered but i do think there needs to be some major changes to the rules...

1) sign up rules must be followed (no offense to 1 or 2 clans) but they did not meet the sign up conditions in cl4 and were added after the deadline when clans who did meet it asked for extra time were not allowed this.

2) not mentioning any clans but there was some fishy games in certain match ups that looked like certain clans were helping others 2 qualify.

3) since 2 contacts are required both contacts get pms when stages of this start just in case 1 is away. because there was a couple of clans who were penalized between phases because pms went to the wrong clan reps who were not present in the time for games to be made.

4) experienced tournament organisers are used to run cl5 especially ones who can calm a situation down instead of igniting it.

5) if there are any changes to rules signups they are voted for in a public thread by all clans with a 50 or 60 percent win needed for the change 2 happen. because if we all sign up to a set of rules they should be kept like that until there is agreement to change them from the participants..

6) if a organizers responses are out of order towards clans reps they are replaced as the organizer.

i could go more in depth for some of these issues but hey new year and all let old dogs lie.

[qwert]

on the format side i am not really bothered but i do think there needs to be some major changes to the rules...

1) sign up rules must be followed (no offense to 1 or 2 clans) but they did not meet the sign up conditions in cl4 and were added after the deadline when clans who did meet it asked for extra time were not allowed this.

2) not mentioning any clans but there was some fishy games in certain match ups that looked like certain clans were helping others 2 qualify.

3) since 2 contacts are required both contacts get pms when stages of this start just in case 1 is away. because there was a couple of clans who were penalized between phases because pms went to the wrong clan reps who were not present in the time for games to be made.

4) experienced tournament organizers are used to run cl5 especially ones who can calm a situation down instead of igniting it.

5) if there are any changes to rules signups they are voted for in a public thread by all clans with a 50 or 60 percent win needed for the change 2 happen. because if we all sign up to a set of rules they should be kept like that until there is agreement to change them from the participants..

6) if a organizers responses are out of order towards clans reps they are replaced as the organizer.

i could go more in depth for some of these issues but hey new year and all let old dogs lie.

1.Well i hope that these format with all rules will be build at least 1 month before beginning, these mean that people will have a loth time to prepare to fulfill all sign up proposition.

2.I dont know nothing about that, and i dont know what got to do with these topic? I think that these its wrong address for answer.

3.These rule are still under construction, for now only format working.

4. These its not job for one person,of course that more people will be drafted for organization of CL5

5.I dont know anything about voting, but i know that sigh up are in stage of proposition.

6.These is about what? I try to recognize on what issue you address ? rules about what?

[eddie2]

on the format side i am not really bothered but i do think there needs to be some major changes to the rules...

1) sign up rules must be followed (no offense to 1 or 2 clans) but they did not meet the sign up conditions in cl4 and were added after the deadline when clans who did meet it asked for extra time were not allowed this.

2) not mentioning any clans but there was some fishy games in certain match ups that looked like certain clans were helping others 2 qualify.

3) since 2 contacts are required both contacts get pms when stages of this start just in case 1 is away. because there was a couple of clans who were penalized between phases because pms went to the wrong clan reps who were not present in the time for games to be made.

4) experienced tournament organizers are used to run cl5 especially ones who can calm a situation down instead of igniting it.

5) if there are any changes to rules signups they are voted for in a public thread by all clans with a 50 or 60 percent win needed for the change 2 happen. because if we all sign up to a set of rules they should be kept like that until there is agreement to change them from the participants..

6) if a organizers responses are out of order towards clans reps they are replaced as the organizer.

i could go more in depth for some of these issues but hey new year and all let old dogs lie.

1.Well i hope that these format with all rules will be build at least 1 month before beginning, these mean that people will have a loth time to prepare to fulfill all sign up proposition.

2.I dont know nothing about that, and i dont know what got to do with these topic? I think that these its wrong address for answer.

3.These rule are still under construction, for now only format working.

4. These its not job for one person,of course that more people will be drafted for organization of CL5

5.I dont know anything about voting, but i know that sigh up are in stage of proposition.

6.These is about what? I try to recognize on what issue you address ? rules about what?

2) qwert i brought to the attention some games that looked like they had been thrown to advance another clan into 2nd place of phase 1 of cl4. and fair be it that organiser looked into it and although agreed that it looked suspicious also said there was no rule to prevent this in the cl4.

Also you are saying the rules organization do not really matter at the moment, but i hate to say it yes they matter more than the format at preset. there was some good things that came out of cl4 but also some bad things which several clans are seriously thinking about not joining the next event.

so like i said i would love to get involved in the discussions about formats of play but if certain things are not added or sorted out about rules and the voted organizers behavior then there will be no point.

[qwert]

eddie all rules will be on display, but first to develop format of competition. Its much better to build one thing and then another thing. Jump from one side to another will not bring us to nowhere . If you have suspicious that some things are not been good in CL4, here you can provide suggestion to improve these . Im not been organizer, or creator of any rules in CL4, so discussion with me about what hepend to CL4, will not be productive. Lets try to stay CL4 on hes own topic,and try to build new rules.
Of course im not against rules who whas good in CL4, and i will gladly implement here these rules.

[MudPuppy]

mudpuppy
The one minor adjustment I would recommend is for medal qualification to be based on the number of participating clan members rather than clan size. The reason for this is that the number of "inactive" members on clan rosters varies widely from clan to clan. We don't have too many on ours but I don't really want to have to boot currently inactive members off our roster just to give our active members a better chance at a medal.

well, you think some universal medal qualification, who will be equal for everybody?
well then need to calculate some average game number ? something like

-12 games its need for player to qualify for medal-

are these something what you talk?

No, I have no problem with your breakout of games needed to qualify (nor am I opposed to tweaking the numbers)... I like your tiered approach to make it fair for clans of different sizes. I would just like to see the basis be participating players rather than overall clan size (which may include players who will not be participating in the tournament who, in my view, shouldn't be counted)... Something like below in order to take inactive clan members out of the equation:

Number of games required by player to qualify for medal.

10 to 14 clan participants - 20 games
15 to 19 clan participants - 17 games
20 to 24 clan participants - 13 games
25 to 29 clan participants - 10 games
30 plus clan participants - 7 games

It's not a perfect solution but it doesn't seem fair to penalize clans for keeping their rosters clean. For example, clan A and clan B both have 24 active players who will be participating in this tourney. However, Clan A also has 6 inactive players on their clan roster (30 total). Based on clan size in this scenario, Clan A players need only complete 7 games in order to qualify for a medal while Clan B players need to complete 13 games (nearly double). Just trying to come up with a more meaningful basis for the minimum game count... otherwise it is an incentive (medal-wise) for clans to keep non-players on their roster to keep the medal game requirements low.

[qwert]

mudpuppy
The one minor adjustment I would recommend is for medal qualification to be based on the number of participating clan members rather than clan size. The reason for this is that the number of "inactive" members on clan rosters varies widely from clan to clan. We don't have too many on ours but I don't really want to have to boot currently inactive members off our roster just to give our active members a better chance at a medal.

well, you think some universal medal qualification, who will be equal for everybody?
well then need to calculate some average game number ? something like

-12 games its need for player to qualify for medal-

are these something what you talk?

No, I have no problem with your breakout of games needed to qualify (nor am I opposed to tweaking the numbers)... I like your tiered approach to make it fair for clans of different sizes. I would just like to see the basis be participating players rather than overall clan size (which may include players who will not be participating in the tournament who, in my view, shouldn't be counted)... Something like below in order to take inactive clan members out of the equation:

Number of games required by player to qualify for medal.

10 to 14 clan participants - 20 games
15 to 19 clan participants - 17 games
20 to 24 clan participants - 13 games
25 to 29 clan participants - 10 games
30 plus clan participants - 7 games

It's not a perfect solution but it doesn't seem fair to penalize clans for keeping their rosters clean. For example, clan A and clan B both have 24 active players who will be participating in this tourney. However, Clan A also has 6 inactive players on their clan roster (30 total). Based on clan size in this scenario, Clan A players need only complete 7 games in order to qualify for a medal while Clan B players need to complete 13 games (nearly double). Just trying to come up with a more meaningful basis for the minimum game count... otherwise it is an incentive (medal-wise) for clans to keep non-players on their roster to keep the medal game requirements low.

now i understand. but i see some problems with these. If we take that one clan have 30 members, but for competition they registered 24 players, are these mean that all 24 need to play, and second ,are we going to have some penalties if they dont use all players who are registered for competition? Add more penalties rules could be counterproductive , i think?
Then its better to find some average number of games, who will be universal for all players in entire competition?
In bouth stages you will have 800 slots so these need to be calculated.

I conclude that 14 games are minimum what every player need to play to be eligible for medal, and these cover from 55 player to 10 player. So in bouth cases(like you present Clan A and Clan B) bouth clan have same qualification for medal. I think that these its fair option

Player Qualifications for Medals

Each player must have at least 1 win to qualify for a medal.

Each player must play a minimum of 14 games to qualify for a medal.

[benga]

Why not just count the players that actually played in games rhater then speculate who will or will not play.

[qwert]

Why not just count the players that actually played in games rhater then speculate who will or will not play.

no speculation,, 14 game played -1 win-qualify for medal,, plain and simple.

[sempaispellcheck]

Why not just count the players that actually played in games rhater then speculate who will or will not play.

no speculation,, 14 game played -1 win-qualify for medal,, plain and simple.

The thing is, if you have a clan with a lot of players, there's a chance that not all of them will get to play 14 games.
I think your original suggestion:

Number of games required by player to qualify for medal.

10 to 14 clan participants - 20 games
15 to 19 clan participants - 17 games
20 to 24 clan participants - 13 games
25 to 29 clan participants - 10 games
30 plus clan participants - 7 games

is much better and much fairer.
What (I think) MudPuppy was saying is that players who don't play in Clan League games should not be considered "clan participants." For example, by the time this starts, SoH will have (I think) 25-30 players on its roster, but only 15 or so of those will actually play in the Clan League. So, each of those 15 players would have to play 17 games, not just 10, to qualify for a medal.

If we take that one clan have 30 members, but for competition they registered 24 players, are these mean that all 24 need to play, and second ,are we going to have some penalties if they dont use all players who are registered for competition?

Not at all. There's no reason to penalize clans for keeping inactive players on their roster.

To be clear, I'm OK with the universal 14-game qualification, but I think your original suggestion was much better.

[Vid_FISO]

New to this so apologies to all, but what is the purpose of all 15 pages (so far) of this?

I get a league format comp, what I don't get is why 2-3-3 home games as opposed to any other numbers, 4 doubles slots, 9 triples, 12 quads, seems top heavy to me. Why not include singles matches?

Settings, why just about everything unlimited but no trench? Why is team manual so disliked?

The last few posts discussing player appearances, what's it based on? The answer may well be hidden somewhere within 15 pages but is unclear to me.

Medals for what exactly? - we aren't going to be winning anything any time soon so is this part of the discussion totally immaterial to the weaker players/ clans?