1v1 Clan Challenge {winners: Empire}

[ljex]

I have a suggestion.
I suppose some players with high rank are maybe not be in this competition (not speaking about me, it is just supposing that it can happen) because they not want to loose their points in some 1v1's which is often based on luck.
so, maybe good suggestion would be to ornagize matches like in chess competition. #1 ranked player from clan A plays home and away vs #1 ranked fom clan B, #2 ranked plays vs #2 etc.

if #1 ranked from clan A wants to play 5 games, then he used the first 5 tables, so if the first 5 ranked from clan B wants to play 1 game each, they will each face one game vs #1 from clan A.

so, just fill the tables according to player rank, I think it would add some new level of competition to this challenge.

in that case, you would maybe not need for tie breaker game, the winner of the first table (where plays both clan's #1 seeds) can be tie breaker, like in chess.

there is one board on chess, 150+ maps on cc there is no way it would work for this.

[josko.ri]

I have a suggestion.
I suppose some players with high rank are maybe not be in this competition (not speaking about me, it is just supposing that it can happen) because they not want to loose their points in some 1v1's which is often based on luck.
so, maybe good suggestion would be to ornagize matches like in chess competition. #1 ranked player from clan A plays home and away vs #1 ranked fom clan B, #2 ranked plays vs #2 etc.

if #1 ranked from clan A wants to play 5 games, then he used the first 5 tables, so if the first 5 ranked from clan B wants to play 1 game each, they will each face one game vs #1 from clan A.

so, just fill the tables according to player rank, I think it would add some new level of competition to this challenge.

in that case, you would maybe not need for tie breaker game, the winner of the first table (where plays both clan's #1 seeds) can be tie breaker, like in chess.

there is one board on chess, 150+ maps on cc there is no way it would work for this.

nope. when play for example russia vs america, then #1 player from russia face #1 player from america etc. how many players each team get, so mayn tables. it is just that who will play vs who is not random, it is based by their score on chess' scoreboard.

why it shouldnt work that #1 seed picks his map and plays vs #1 seed from other clan, and viceversa? no matter of map, both has the same chance to pick his own home map, just pairings would be made accorind to rank.

[ljex]

I have a suggestion.
I suppose some players with high rank are maybe not be in this competition (not speaking about me, it is just supposing that it can happen) because they not want to loose their points in some 1v1's which is often based on luck.
so, maybe good suggestion would be to ornagize matches like in chess competition. #1 ranked player from clan A plays home and away vs #1 ranked fom clan B, #2 ranked plays vs #2 etc.

if #1 ranked from clan A wants to play 5 games, then he used the first 5 tables, so if the first 5 ranked from clan B wants to play 1 game each, they will each face one game vs #1 from clan A.

so, just fill the tables according to player rank, I think it would add some new level of competition to this challenge.

in that case, you would maybe not need for tie breaker game, the winner of the first table (where plays both clan's #1 seeds) can be tie breaker, like in chess.

there is one board on chess, 150+ maps on cc there is no way it would work for this.

nope. when play for example russia vs america, then #1 player from russia face #1 player from america etc. how many players each team get, so mayn tables. it is just that who will play vs who is not random, it is based by their score on chess' scoreboard.

why it shouldnt work that #1 seed picks his map and plays vs #1 seed from other clan, and viceversa? no matter of map, both has the same chance to pick his own home map, just pairings would be made accorind to rank.

that makes no sense, you want to throw out your best player on each map and throw maps that the other clan will not have good players on. I would hate the event this way and i can only assume most other people would view it the same. Why have you never suggested this for team games? you can lose a lot of points in those too...this suggestion makes no sense and would in no way make this event better. In fact it would just make it worse and not fun, if this were the way it were i would not be participating in this event. I would rather play maps i know vs all sorts of competition than maps i dont know vs other high rankers

[josko.ri]

that makes no sense, you want to throw out your best player on each map and throw maps that the other clan will not have good players on.

also would happen in other way... clan will both send and receive best player on each map, so no advantage that someone would take from that (advantage would be equal, as both clans send equal home games).

Why have you never suggested this for team games? you can lose a lot of points in those too...this suggestion makes no sense and would in no way make this event better. In fact it would just make it worse and not fun

for team games luck factor is less, so you can be more sure that you will not loose points due to bad luck/drop in 1st turn.

I would rather play maps i know vs all sorts of competition than maps i dont know vs other high rankers

not everyone like you I think (and like me, as I personally agree with your statement above). I just think some players maybe dont want to be part of this due to lot of points they can loose. the fact that very low of high ranked players joins 1v1 tournaments while they often join team tournaments, convinces me it is because of affraid for point loose.


also for unlimited forts, I think it should be allowed. I understand argument that it is settings which are the most connected with luck, but home team risk that they will loose their home game due to bad luck if they choose unlimited, so whoever choose it settings, he decreases possible home advantage that he would have if chose some other map/settings where he is specialist.

[benga]

Those who are afraid of losing points should stop playing
so they never lose a point again.

Anyone who in advance thinks he is going to lose on their home map should change home map.

All settings are up to organizer of this event and should stay that way, unlimited can be advantage for the home map,
but can go either way.

[jefjef]

Here are the posted intended rules of this challenge:

For purposes of this event there will be no freestyle, or manual settings. Unlimited forts will be allowed on certain (primarily single start) maps only (Feudal War, Feudal Epic, AOR1, AOR2, AOR3, Galapagos, Jamaica, New World, Lunar War, Poker Club, Monsters, Arms Race, City Mogul, Peloponnesian War, Das Schloss, Route 66, Treasures of Galapagos, WWII Poland, Clandemonium, King's Court) (please let me know if I've missed any) Beta maps will not be allowed

We all can choose to sign up or not participate but to muck this up with several pages of "Well why don't we do this or that cuz I feel it would give me a better advantage crap" is bull shit.

Sign up or walk away. If you want something different then go start another challenge.

Good luck and fun everyone!

[josko.ri]

We all can choose to sign up or not participate but to muck this up with several pages of "Well why don't we do this or that cuz I feel it would give me a better advantage crap" is bull shit.

Sign up or walk away. If you want something different then go start another challenge.

well, if others can say their suggestions before, then why should I not say mine. and I am not like someone here who put ultimatum "if it would be/not be implemented, I would not play". my playing/not playing in any way do not depends if my suggestions will be accepted or not. no matter of my (not) participating, I wanted to give some feeback how it can be better IMO, which doesnt really have to be better than the ones written before, it is just my opinion

[jeraado]

well, if others can say their suggestions before, then why should I not say mine. and I am not like someone here who put ultimatum "if it would be/not be implemented, I would not play". my playing/not playing in any way do not depends if my suggestions will be accepted or not. no matter of my (not) participating, I wanted to give some feeback how it can be better IMO, which doesnt really have to be better than the ones written before, it is just my opinion

Josko, I'm pretty sure this wasn't aimed at you specifically, more at the idea of changing the restrictions after some clans have signed up. Personally I'd love to see manual be allowed on some maps (mainly the ones which have limited start points), but I also think it wouldn't be right to allow the restrictictions to be changed so late in the piece. Hopefully this tournament is a big success and next time it is run there might be an opportunity to have a good discussion about acceptable settings in advance.

In the meantime the restrictions seem fair and in keeping with most clan wars, so I'd suggest we stick with them as is for this competition, and look to give our thoughts about changes closer to the next edition.

[josko.ri]

For purposes of this event there will be no freestyle, or manual settings. Unlimited forts will be allowed on certain (primarily single start) maps only (Feudal War, Feudal Epic, AOR1, AOR2, AOR3, Galapagos, Jamaica, New World, Lunar War, Poker Club, Monsters, Arms Race, City Mogul, Peloponnesian War, Das Schloss, Route 66, Treasures of Galapagos, WWII Poland, Clandemonium, King's Court) (please let me know if I've missed any) Beta maps will not be allowed

about maps listed above, I dont see how arms race is primarily single start map? arms race is normal map, troops are placed random, not on several fixed regions. if arms race fit with the definition, then poison rome also have to. these maps are the same style, several territories with a bunch of weak neutrals which are worth bonus. but IMO arms race definitely doesnt fit with the rule of primarily single start.

The purpose here is to show the depth of a clan rather than merely that there are 1 or 2 stud 1v1 players in it. With this in mind, each clan must provide at least 12 different participants with each participant taking a maximum of 5 series out of the 41.

I think this rule causes not a lot of clans participate. 12 is nice, but without this I think you wuld have 16 for sure. it is not hard for Genration1 to have 12 players for every round as you have 37 players, but lot of clans have less than 20 players (not every of them active), so having 12 of them for this can be a factor why some didnt sign up. in team clan tournaments (CCup), one player can play 33% of all games, while here one player can play only 12% (5/41) clan games. isnt it enough to show that a clan has good depth if one player can get only 12% of points? so, other one rule about at least 12 different players didnt need to be declared IMO, as some clans maybe are not sure that can have in any time 12 players ready for 1v1 challenge, so rather do not sign up than come in some round and then cannot afford enough players in games.
the least number of players from the clans who signed up is 22 (legion). so that fact convinces me more that 12 different players are too strong restriction. I think that restriction is the main reason for KORT to not sign up. some players showed interest for this, but I am not sure we would have 12 different players ready for this everytime. just think about that for next edition.

[Leehar]

For purposes of this event there will be no freestyle, or manual settings. Unlimited forts will be allowed on certain (primarily single start) maps only (Feudal War, Feudal Epic, AOR1, AOR2, AOR3, Galapagos, Jamaica, New World, Lunar War, Poker Club, Monsters, Arms Race, City Mogul, Peloponnesian War, Das Schloss, Route 66, Treasures of Galapagos, WWII Poland, Clandemonium, King's Court) (please let me know if I've missed any) Beta maps will not be allowed

about maps listed above, I dont see how arms race is primarily single start map? arms race is normal map, troops are placed random, not on several fixed regions. if arms race fit with the definition, then poison rome also have to. these maps are the same style, several territories with a bunch of weak neutrals which are worth bonus. but IMO arms race definitely doesnt fit with the rule of primarily single start.

Benga you are correct (I cut and pasted the list) so maps like clandamonium aren't available at the moment (although its possible they will be out of beta for later rounds)

Actually, I didn't really see any restriction with regards to Beta on the OP. I wouldn't be against seeing them in play.

With regards to the unlimited forts, most of them look okay, but I don't really agree with the inclusion of Poker Club and Route 66 (among others) in that list. It doesn't really tie up with the others, except perhaps that it starts with a lot of neutrals in 1v1? Thats not enough to join the others in my book tho...

And josko, I really don't understand why you're getting in with your issues at this stage in time. The sign-ups are over and we're preparing to start, so I don't see any benefit in raising all these things that, if implemented change the whole ball-game, and if not doesn't matter. I don''t feel your hypothesizing is really useful.
Same with the earlier mention regarding maps (boards) etc You really do look to be jumping on the bandwagon pretty late

[ljex]

We all can choose to sign up or not participate but to muck this up with several pages of "Well why don't we do this or that cuz I feel it would give me a better advantage crap" is bull shit.

Sign up or walk away. If you want something different then go start another challenge.

well, if others can say their suggestions before, then why should I not say mine. and I am not like someone here who put ultimatum "if it would be/not be implemented, I would not play". my playing/not playing in any way do not depends if my suggestions will be accepted or not. no matter of my (not) participating, I wanted to give some feeback how it can be better IMO, which doesnt really have to be better than the ones written before, it is just my opinion

because you arent even in the event

[shocked439]

Point of the 12 player rule was to show the depth of a clan. Almost every clan has a good 4-5 players but what about when you get down to players 10-12 or beyond. The deeper a clans bench the better they should do. Deeper does not mean just having more players, it means having quality players all the way down your line up.

[ljex]

For purposes of this event there will be no freestyle, or manual settings. Unlimited forts will be allowed on certain (primarily single start) maps only (Feudal War, Feudal Epic, AOR1, AOR2, AOR3, Galapagos, Jamaica, New World, Lunar War, Poker Club, Monsters, Arms Race, City Mogul, Peloponnesian War, Das Schloss, Route 66, Treasures of Galapagos, WWII Poland, Clandemonium, King's Court) (please let me know if I've missed any) Beta maps will not be allowed

about maps listed above, I dont see how arms race is primarily single start map? arms race is normal map, troops are placed random, not on several fixed regions. if arms race fit with the definition, then poison rome also have to. these maps are the same style, several territories with a bunch of weak neutrals which are worth bonus. but IMO arms race definitely doesnt fit with the rule of primarily single start.

The purpose here is to show the depth of a clan rather than merely that there are 1 or 2 stud 1v1 players in it. With this in mind, each clan must provide at least 12 different participants with each participant taking a maximum of 5 series out of the 41.

I think this rule causes not a lot of clans participate. 12 is nice, but without this I think you wuld have 16 for sure. it is not hard for Genration1 to have 12 players for every round as you have 37 players, but lot of clans have less than 20 players (not every of them active), so having 12 of them for this can be a factor why some didnt sign up. in team clan tournaments (CCup), one player can play 33% of all games, while here one player can play only 12% (5/41) clan games. isnt it enough to show that a clan has good depth if one player can get only 12% of points? so, other one rule about at least 12 different players didnt need to be declared IMO, as some clans maybe are not sure that can have in any time 12 players ready for 1v1 challenge, so rather do not sign up than come in some round and then cannot afford enough players in games.
the least number of players from the clans who signed up is 22 (legion). so that fact convinces me more that 12 different players are too strong restriction. I think that restriction is the main reason for KORT to not sign up. some players showed interest for this, but I am not sure we would have 12 different players ready for this everytime. just think about that for next edition.

yay for awful logic, you do realize there are way more spots to fill in a standard 41 game war right? Lets just go with 12 doubles, 14 triples, 14 quads...which makes the spots you need to fill 122. So one player can play in 15/122 (6.8%) or 5/41 (12%) meaning a player can play in a bigger percentage of games in this. Can you please stop posting nonsense in a event you aren't even in? Like seriously, you have made on of the worst suggestions i have ever heard and now you are trying to imply that people should be able to play in more games when your "proof" behind it suggests the opposite should be true...

ps: i got class in about 30 minutes so i will address how you are completely wrong about the chess idea later.

[josko.ri]

And josko, I really don't understand why you're getting in with your issues at this stage in time. The sign-ups are over and we're preparing to start, so I don't see any benefit in raising all these things that, if implemented change the whole ball-game, and if not doesn't matter. I don''t feel your hypothesizing is really useful.
Same with the earlier mention regarding maps (boards) etc You really do look to be jumping on the bandwagon pretty late

well, my last sentence shows my motivation:

just think about that for next edition.

sorry for trying to give some ideas. too late? ok, so how could I know that clan with the least number of players of 22 will sign up in this event in the beginning? this information was useful in writing my post and making my conclusions and I didnt have that information before sing ups were over.

Can you please stop posting nonsense in a event you aren't even in?

the fact that of top 8 clans, only THOTA has more than 20 active players, and the fact that not all of members in some clan are interested for playing 1v1 games, convinced me that using 12 players minimal could cause some of them to not sign up. very awful and nonsense logic indeed.

sorry all for trying to be constructive and give some ideas. obviously my ideas are not welcome so I will step away from any discussion. with the fact that 67% of all my ever played games are 1v1 sequential, I am the one who dont have clue about that gametype and possible improvements that could be made so will rather not write nonsenses here.

good luck to all clans involved, it should be fun competition

[Leehar]

Lol, sorry for seemingly attacking you josko. I guess your comments recommending unlimited weren't even that much worse than others propagating manual/freestyle, me wondering about the possible inclusion of medals and the like
If it's constructive, then there's no harm in spreading your views, I just didn't feel it was useful when starting an event which you're not participating in, and that we hope to finish before the main edition of the cup. I wasn't even certain if there will be another edition yet, and I was just looking at this as a fun feeder event.
Bart looks to be the final organizing body, so we can leave him to put the opinions into consideration