Moderator: Clan Directors
Chuuuuck wrote:Wow. I am impressed. 6 hours after the tournament was posted and we have a full tournament with 16 clans (assuming all of the RESERVED clans come through). Don't let it deter you from signing up though. Depending on how many more we get we will set up play-in games for those ranked at the bottom (not necessarily those that sign up after 16).
This is awesome!! I am excited. I can't wait for EMPIRE to win it all!!!
Bruceswar wrote:Chuuuuck wrote:Wow. I am impressed. 6 hours after the tournament was posted and we have a full tournament with 16 clans (assuming all of the RESERVED clans come through). Don't let it deter you from signing up though. Depending on how many more we get we will set up play-in games for those ranked at the bottom (not necessarily those that sign up after 16).
This is awesome!! I am excited. I can't wait for EMPIRE to win it all!!!
If this goes anything like the CLA league... then Empire might be a first round and out?
Chuuuuck wrote:Wow. I am impressed. 6 hours after the tournament was posted and we have a full tournament with 16 clans (assuming all of the RESERVED clans come through). Don't let it deter you from signing up though. Depending on how many more we get we will set up play-in games for those ranked at the bottom (not necessarily those that sign up after 16).
This is awesome!! I am excited. I can't wait for EMPIRE to win it all!!!
Frederik Hendrik wrote:Great tournament!!!
If there is any space left, please reserve a spot for Veroveraars der Lage Landen. We have it under consideration, but I can't see why we wouldn't enter this great tournament if it is stil possible.
FH
Bruceswar wrote:If this goes anything like the CLA league... then Empire might be a first round and out?
Chuuuuck wrote:
The semi-finals and finals of the Conqueror's Cup will use the following format:
[list][b]- 60 total games
- 4 1v1 matchups (best of 5)
- 18 doubles
- 20 triples
- 28 quads
kratos644 wrote:Chuuuuck wrote:
The semi-finals and finals of the Conqueror's Cup will use the following format:
[list][b]- 60 total games
- 4 1v1 matchups (best of 5)
- 18 doubles
- 20 triples
- 28 quads
Kinda surprised I'm the first to notice but 4+18+20+28=70 and not 60
Lubawski wrote:Bruceswar wrote:If this goes anything like the CLA league... then Empire might be a first round and out?
This tourney isn't doubles heavy. We'll be fine. And this we aren't taking as "practice" to try out new teams and maps as we did the CLA league. With that said, it's foolish to talk trash before your clan commits. KORT may spill more milk than us, but we'll spill more bovine blood...assuming you step up to the challenge.
Chariot of Fire wrote:I think the number of games (and the ratio chosen) is just perfect. There are sufficient for each tie to classify as a challenge and thus be incorporated in the ladder. This is important as inevitably the routine challenges will diminish once this tourney gets underway. It's only 48 games, in batches of 14, 14, 10, 10 (I presume) and with no time constraints. I pity any clan who make the final 16 that doesn't have the resources to meet such demands.
This tourney also provides better variety than we might ordinarily see from regular challenges, as clans get pitted against each other who would not otherwise necessarily meet.
For these reasons I think the tourney format and concept is simply marvellous, well done.
One question: if we end up with more clans than the 16 that will start in the grid, what will the format be for the preliminary round(s) that would be played by the lesser-ranked clans? If they too are going to be 48 games then this may take some time to get underway as the lesser lights are not renowned for their organisational skills (refer CLA Div.B for example).
One suggestion: make all the singles 'random' maps purely for variety. That way you can discount the conundrum of whether 5 of the same map (singles) = 1 map selection. In similar vein may I ask if one player plays 5 singles, does that only count as 1 game towards his 15 maximum?
I had originally thought they would play the 48 games like the other rounds. But I may consider lowering this to 24. Any other suggestions of how many games the play-ins should play?
Chariot of Fire wrote:I had originally thought they would play the 48 games like the other rounds. But I may consider lowering this to 24. Any other suggestions of how many games the play-ins should play?
You may want to go even lower than 24 as it's just a qualifier. Nothing worse than winning something substantial (such as a 24 game series) only to get dumped out in the 1st Round.
I'd suggest 12 games, each team selects 2 x doubs, 2 x trips, 2 x quads, any maps they like. If an exciting 13th game decider is needed then quads, random, esc, chained, sun (which you can set-up and invite the 8 participants to. It'll give you something to do).
p.s. I agree with the inclusion of singles best-of-5 in the main tournament (I wasn't suggesting otherwise). Just wanted clarification on the player's game count coz of the 15 max quota, plus I just threw the idea of 'all random' out there as it helps appease those who don't like best-of-5 singles, or singles at all, in the knowledge someone's going to put up 5 x AoR1, 5 x AoR2 etc. Just seemed to help avoid such a banal scenario.
waseemalim wrote:umm, is it 48 games or is it 200 games in total per clan (assuming the clan goes all the way)? Also, I would rather have less games with a time constraint, rather than more games without one -- because it would be much more organized that way in my opinion.
If its 200 games, then a 12-15 member clan would have an average of 30+ games per player. Compare that to the clan league where the max number for games for any player in LoW is 18.
I dont know why people get so pumped up about whether these challenge will count towards the ladder (which I have given up hopes on) or not. The ladder does not matter. This challenge result should be able to stand independently of the ladder.
waseemalim wrote:umm, is it 48 games or is it 200 games in total per clan (assuming the clan goes all the way)? Also, I would rather have less games with a time constraint, rather than more games without one -- because it would be much more organized that way in my opinion.
If its 200 games, then a 12-15 member clan would have an average of 30+ games per player. Compare that to the clan league where the max number for games for any player in LoW is 18.
I dont know why people get so pumped up about whether these challenge will count towards the ladder (which I have given up hopes on) or not. The ladder does not matter. This challenge result should be able to stand independently of the ladder.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for the idea of these not counting towards the ladder - why ever not? It would be a gross oversight not to include these results as each encounter meets all the criteria for it to be a valid challenge. Not many challenges would take place while this is on (if any at all) so this would be a way of keeping the ladder contemporary.
I'd like to keep the game count high enough so that it counts as an official challenge for those guys. They are the ones that probably need it the most so they can realize how the challenges work and improve their play. But I also don't want to hold the rest of us up too long. Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter?
Chariot of Fire wrote:Actually I feel quite strongly about inclusion of these results in the Challenge Ladder. Say for instance your clan makes the final and loses, but on the way it defeated IA & TSM to get there. Are you telling me that would count for naught? Of course those performances should be reflected in whatever gauge we use to measure a clan's ability, and right now that is the ladder.
This needs clarifying/confirming before TOFU commits. Thanks
Users browsing this forum: No registered users