Conquer Club

Ace Rimmer wrote:Double post!

Qwert wants feedback on the penalties for breaking the rules.

Violations to be penalized for:
1.Use same map more then once
2.In one round play more then 3 game
3.Use nuclear settings more than limit
4.Use trench settings more than limit
5.Use Unlimited fort more than limit

I don't think there should be separate penalties for each separate violation. I think it should be a sliding scale, taking into account all violations. I also think it should be clear that it is not up to the organizer(s) to watch for violations, but they will address them if they are brought to the organizer's attention.
First violation: warning
Second violation: remake of game
Third violation: forfeit of game
Fourth violation: replacement of clan member as main contact
Fifth or more violations: forfeit of game

EDIT: Forgot to mention I don't think #3 (nuke limit) or #5 (unlimited limit) should be in here. I feel clans should have enough experience with these games that they should not be limited at this point. A great clan can play and win with no limitations. I agree with a trench limit due to long games, but I'm not sure if it should be limited to certain map sizes or types instead of a game number limit.

First in red,i like this, in this way,clan will pay more attention,because organizer can not watch all what going on. Ofcourse ,then we need to give time for clan to address any brake of rules,some time limit, and when this time expire, this game become valid?(im i talk right)

I must say that first violation dont know how to apply?
I understand Second violation-remake of games,its can be apply if clan repeat game tvice on same map.
Fourth violation? Hmm this not sound that its related on this braking rules,its more related when clan leaders act hostile and make troubles to everybody, this definitly need to go to some special braking rules.
fifth are same like third.
==========================
And your edit-I dont know what to think smart abouth nukes and unlimited forts. I still dont have clear decision with this two.

Thanks ace, you give interesting sugestions, and something(expecialy in red) will try to add(somehow)

Again, here's the sliding scale used in the CL4 for escalating, which i think can be easily adapted:

Timing out in Escalating games will not be tolerated by any players or clans that abuse this.

• First offense of a team: the game will be remade.
• Second offense of a team (in the same game): the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan has been penalized (as above) for two offenses in one game, then commits a single further offense in any game in the same round the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan have been penalized twice during the season then any single further offense in any game during the entire season will result in the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
  Timing-out, missing turns or dead beating in No Spoils or Flat Rate games will not be investigated, or result in any penalties.

Great discussion to have after the format is determined.

Ok. I´m bored & have no turns up, so I´ll comment on some of the recent issues:

Trench: As far as I know, there hasn´t been a single clan challenge completed yet, that included Trench. So why would we want to include it in an event of this magnitude here ? So far, new settings were thoroughly tested until they became accepted in the clan scene. The same should apply to Trench, in my opinion. Oh, and Round Limits are about the worst idea for team games in clan competition I´ve ever heard.

Other settings: I am fine with Unlimited & Nukes. If I remember correctly, all limitations on settings, that are in place today, were the result of debates about luck factor, etc. (especially after the 1st CLA League season, that consisted only of Dubs). But the current CLA League season shows, that too many regulations & limitations cause extra work for the clan contacts & problems keeping up with them. Beyond that, I´d also just let people play, what they want to play. This is meant to be fun after all.

So I repeat myself: Keep it easy, keep it simple. A limitation on maps is certainly in order, but otherwise I don´t see a need for any regulations. This:

Chariot of Fire wrote:If a different map is to be used for each game (I believe this is the proposal, which is a good one) then it would also follow that we try and encompass all the different settings too, e.g. 50% fog 50% sunny; 25% each of Nuke, NS, FR & Esc; etc. (and maybe 25% ceiling on Trench games, i.e. 2 out of 8 home games may be Trench).

Half the fun of the next league would be each clan sitting down and working through all the available maps and allocating settings to them and pre-planning their season's campaign.

Sounds like a nightmare to me. I´ve been running the current phase of the CLA League for IA (together with loki) and imagining the work, that would be involved with such a set-up, would probably make me vote against even participating in such an event. I´m here to play games, not to sit endless hours about a list of maps & settings to be used.

Game Count/Scoring: Looking at the current CLA League season, 12 game sets are already quite small (IA trashing KORT in phase 1, KORT trashing IA in phase 2, just as an example), and 8 should be an absolute minimum. I don´t care much, if it is an even or uneven number of games (draws would be ok with me), but if we go with an even number, I strongly agree with CoF, that 3 points for a win are too much (1 single game out of 8 could make 3 points difference, no thanks), and that we could even consider an entirely different scoring system, that does not award points for won matches, but only counts overall won games.

Scheduling: I am still arguing for 2 weeks breaks between sets. Real breaks, not just breaks between home sets. If I get home sets every 2nd week and away sets inbetween, I´ll still have to sort teams & shit every single week for almost an entire year. And I also repeat my argument about results coming in so slowly. In the current CLA League we are now already playing the last matches/games, but in Division 1 only 5 matches have been decided yet.

And when we are already at it: I didn´t like the schedule, that qwert suggested 1 or 2 pages ago. It is very un-regular and seems almost random with its BYE (vacation) weeks. Clan contacts would be forced to keep an eye on the dates all the time, very easily forgetting a dead-line in the course of the season. Make it regular, with new sets every 2 weeks, and make some bigger breaks instead of so many small ones (a couple of weeks vacation during summer, a couple of weeks at the very end of the season so games can finish & there will be a break until the start of the next season).

Penalties: Agree with DJ Teflon, that we seem to have more important questions to decide first. But I´d keep the rules here as simple as possible too: First (and maybe second) offense games being remade, afterwards games being count as losses, done.

qwert wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:I don't think there should be separate penalties for each separate violation. I think it should be a sliding scale, taking into account all violations. I also think it should be clear that it is not up to the organizer(s) to watch for violations, but they will address them if they are brought to the organizer's attention.

First in red,i like this, in this way,clan will pay more attention,because organizer can not watch all what going on. Ofcourse ,then we need to give time for clan to address any brake of rules,some time limit, and when this time expire, this game become valid?(im i talk right)

Translated: There needs to be a limit of how long a team can bring up a violation of the rules and have the organizer(s) deal with it. I think that once the game starts, then it's valid. Between the time the contacts submit the game list and when the game actually starts is when a violation of the rules must be applied. You can't notice a violation and wait to see if you lose the game before you point out that it's invalid.

qwert wrote:I must say that first violation dont know how to apply?

Easy, you send a PM to the main contact and post in the thread that the clan got an official warning for breaking the rules.

qwert wrote:I understand Second violation-remake of games,its can be apply if clan repeat game tvice on same map.
Fourth violation? Hmm this not sound that its related on this braking rules,its more related when clan leaders act hostile and make troubles to everybody, this definitly need to go to some special braking rules.
fifth are same like third.

I know the third is the same - because I think that needs to be the standard going forward. I said #4 because I think if a clan leader/war minister/whatever you want to call it can't keep their shit straight, then they need to be replaced. If you f*ck up four times, then you obviously aren't organized enough to continue in that role, and you need to step aside.

It's been brought up a few times in the thread and I forgot to mention it, but I do not think there should be any penalties for missing turns or timing out to skip a card. If you think someone is intentionally missing turns, put in a C&A report as it is against the site rules. The site rules allow someone to time out their turn to receive a card. I disagree with that rule, but I think it's easier to deal with the site rules instead of making more tournament rules that are a pain in the ass to enforce. This also goes along with my first set of penalties - once the game starts, it's valid.

ahunda wrote:Trench: As far as I know, there hasn´t been a single clan challenge completed yet, that included Trench. So why would we want to include it in an event of this magnitude here ? So far, new settings were thoroughly tested until they became accepted in the clan scene. The same should apply to Trench, in my opinion. Oh, and Round Limits are about the worst idea for team games in clan competition I´ve ever heard.

A valid point that there have been no trench clan challenges - do you think that will be a problem because there are inherent problems in trench from a team game standpoint? Or do you think it shouldn't be here because clans don't have experience in it? I can certainly see the reasoning behind no trench, and if this turns into the blueprint for CL5 (which I think it should) then I would agree that leaving trench out is not a bad idea. Why do you think round limits are a problem - because they're currently broken (IMHO) for team games, or because there should not be round limits?

ahunda wrote:So I repeat myself: Keep it easy, keep it simple. A limitation on maps is certainly in order, but otherwise I don´t see a need for any regulations.

QFT

ahunda wrote:Scheduling: I am still arguing for 2 weeks breaks between sets. Real breaks, not just breaks between home sets.

I am turning to this mode of thinking. What about 2 sets (1 home, 1 away, not against the same team) every 2 weeks? So you have to submit 8 games and figure out players for 8 away games every 2 weeks instead of 8 games every week. Then have regular breaks during the season. The sets would have to be in early enough that you would know a week or so in advance what your away games were.

How about this for a schedule (changed dates to all Sundays instead of every 10 days or so). Break over christmas, and games should be finished and winner posted by the beginning of summer.

[2 september] - rules finalized and signups open up
[16 september] - signups closed. Roster due. Official threads are created and rankings are assigned using the F400 update from the beginning of September.
Week 1 - [23 september] - home games due for first and second matches
Week 2 - [30 september] - away team roster due for first week. first match games made (home and away)
Week 3 - [7 october] - no new games made or due
Week 4 - [14 october] - away team roster due for second week. second match games made (home and away). Home games due for third match
Week 5 - [21 october] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 6 - [28 october] - away team roster due for third week. third match games made (home and away). Home games due for fourth match
Week 7 - [4 november] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 8 - [11 november] - away team roster due for fourth week. fourth match games made (home and away). Home games due for fifth match
Week 9 - [18 november] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 10 - [25 november] - away team roster due for fifth week. fifth match games made (home and away). Home games due for sixth match
Week 11 - [2 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 12 - [9 december] - away team roster due for sixth week. sixth match games made (home and away). Home games due for seventh match
Week 13 - [16 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 14 - [23 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 15 - [30 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings. PM from tournament organizer(s) to teams reminding them of away teams due in one week
Week 16 - [6 january] - away team roster due for seventh week. seventh match games made (home and away). Home games due for eighth match
Week 17 - [13 january] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 18 - [20 january] - away team roster due for eighth week. eighth match games made (home and away). Home games due for ninth match
Week 19 - [27 january] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 20 - [3 february] - away team roster due for ninth week. ninth match games made (home and away). Home games due for tenth match
Week 21 - [10 february] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 22 - [17 february] - away team roster due for tenth week. tenth match games made (home and away). Home games due for eleventh match
Week 23 - [24 february] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 24 - [3 march] - away team roster due for eleventh week. eleventh match games made (home and away). Home games due for twelfth match
Week 25 - [10 march] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 26 - [17 march] - away team roster due for twelfth week. twelfth match games made (home and away). Home games due for thirteenth match
Week 27 - [24 march] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 28 - [31 march] - away team roster due for thirteenth week. thirteenth match games made (home and away). Final week
weekly thread updates by tournament organizer(s) showing standings until all games are complete or standings are finalized.

Leehar wrote:Again, here's the sliding scale used in the CL4 for escalating, which i think can be easily adapted:

Timing out in Escalating games will not be tolerated by any players or clans that abuse this.

• First offense of a team: the game will be remade.
• Second offense of a team (in the same game): the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan has been penalized (as above) for two offenses in one game, then commits a single further offense in any game in the same round the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan have been penalized twice during the season then any single further offense in any game during the entire season will result in the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
  Timing-out, missing turns or dead beating in No Spoils or Flat Rate games will not be investigated, or result in any penalties.

Timing out, its this something intentionaly miss turn in escalating games?

DJ Teflon wrote:Great discussion to have after the format is determined.

Well its not determinet 100%, but i like to start little abouth other things. CLA forum are still dead space, like moon surface,no living action there.

ahunda wrote:Ok. I´m bored & have no turns up, so I´ll comment on some of the recent issues:

1.Trench: As far as I know, there hasn´t been a single clan challenge completed yet, that included Trench. So why would we want to include it in an event of this magnitude here ? So far, new settings were thoroughly tested until they became accepted in the clan scene. The same should apply to Trench, in my opinion. Oh, and Round Limits are about the worst idea for team games in clan competition I´ve ever heard.

2.Other settings: I am fine with Unlimited & Nukes. If I remember correctly, all limitations on settings, that are in place today, were the result of debates about luck factor, etc. (especially after the 1st CLA League season, that consisted only of Dubs). But the current CLA League season shows, that too many regulations & limitations cause extra work for the clan contacts & problems keeping up with them. Beyond that, I´d also just let people play, what they want to play. This is meant to be fun after all.

So I repeat myself: Keep it easy, keep it simple. A limitation on maps is certainly in order, but otherwise I don´t see a need for any regulations. This:

Chariot of Fire wrote:If a different map is to be used for each game (I believe this is the proposal, which is a good one) then it would also follow that we try and encompass all the different settings too, e.g. 50% fog 50% sunny; 25% each of Nuke, NS, FR & Esc; etc. (and maybe 25% ceiling on Trench games, i.e. 2 out of 8 home games may be Trench).

Half the fun of the next league would be each clan sitting down and working through all the available maps and allocating settings to them and pre-planning their season's campaign.

3.Sounds like a nightmare to me. I´ve been running the current phase of the CLA League for IA (together with loki) and imagining the work, that would be involved with such a set-up, would probably make me vote against even participating in such an event. I´m here to play games, not to sit endless hours about a list of maps & settings to be used.

4.Game Count/Scoring: Looking at the current CLA League season, 12 game sets are already quite small (IA trashing KORT in phase 1, KORT trashing IA in phase 2, just as an example), and 8 should be an absolute minimum. I don´t care much, if it is an even or uneven number of games (draws would be ok with me), but if we go with an even number, I strongly agree with CoF, that 3 points for a win are too much (1 single game out of 8 could make 3 points difference, no thanks), and that we could even consider an entirely different scoring system, that does not award points for won matches, but only counts overall won games.

5.Scheduling: I am still arguing for 2 weeks breaks between sets. Real breaks, not just breaks between home sets. If I get home sets every 2nd week and away sets inbetween, I´ll still have to sort teams & shit every single week for almost an entire year. And I also repeat my argument about results coming in so slowly. In the current CLA League we are now already playing the last matches/games, but in Division 1 only 5 matches have been decided yet.

And when we are already at it: I didn´t like the schedule, that qwert suggested 1 or 2 pages ok. It is very un-regular and seems almost random with its BYE (vacation) weeks. Clan contacts would be forced to keep an eye on the dates all the time, very easily forgetting a dead-line in the course of the season. Make it regular, with new sets every 2 weeks, and make some bigger breaks instead of so many small ones (a couple of weeks vacation during summer, a couple of weeks at the very end of the season so games can finish & there will be a break until the start of the next season).

6.Penalties: Agree with DJ Teflon, that we seem to have more important questions to decide first. But I´d keep the rules here as simple as possible too: First (and maybe second) offense games being remade, afterwards games being count as losses, done.

And answer
1.I can not say nothing abouth this, like everybody here we are not try trench in clan wars, because they are not accepted. Here we need to decide this,and i see several option.
a- no trench
b) -yes trench with no limitation
c)- yes trench with round limitation
d) yes trench with game and round limitation

2.Unlimited and nukes, im more close that this two be free of any limitation, and that every clan decide how many time will use Unlimited fort, and nuks. again we need to decide how will this be arange.

3. I agree on this , no way that we will have any kind of % limitation on all setings, this will not be accepted from me.

4.if you dont notice im all ready apply 2 point for win and 1 point for draw. Most fair are award points. Count games or any other awards for win,only can give you wrong standings. I do little research and i find something very wrong.

division 1b standing (clan league 2)
2.BpB 66-46 (14)
3.tsm 65-47 (18)

If in CL2 whas apply point for award,then TSM will play in Final, because TSM will collect more points then BpB (18 against 14),instead that , Team who win least chalenges play in Final,only because they have 1 game win then other.

5.This is possibile scedule, so everybody can give hes view scedule. We have 26 play week, and if we take that every two week ,its need to create games,then we will have 52 week long League. Im try to create some scedule, so that we get 3 month of vacation before start of new season. Its initial scedule,and you,like everybody can create your own scedule and present here.

6. Penalties- yes,like you say plain and simple.
I will gladly implement like you say
1.first violation-warning(game remade
2.second violation- game count like loss
------------------------------------------------
simple that this,can not be. No need to complicated to much.
Ok, im ready for more oppinions, some of this will be implemented soon.

""Translated: There needs to be a limit of how long a team can bring up a violation of the rules and have the organizer(s) deal with it. I think that once the game starts, then it's valid. Between the time the contacts submit the game list and when the game actually starts is when a violation of the rules must be applied. You can't notice a violation and wait to see if you lose the game before you point out that it's invalid.""
hmm i need some description to add this.

I'll combine the rules and penalty descriptions into one spot.

If a player joins more games per round than they are allowed or if a clan breaks the single use of each map rule, then they are in violation of the rules. Any rule violation needs to be brought to the Tournament Organizer's attention between the time the game settings are submitted in this thread and when the game starts. The first rule violation brought to the Tournament Organizer's attention will be remade with a warning via PM to the clan leader. If another rule violation happens, the game will not be made and will be awarded as a win for the opposition. Once a game starts, any violations will be ignored and the game will be played out and count.

Ace Rimmer wrote:A valid point that there have been no trench clan challenges - do you think that will be a problem because there are inherent problems in trench from a team game standpoint? Or do you think it shouldn't be here because clans don't have experience in it? I can certainly see the reasoning behind no trench, and if this turns into the blueprint for CL5 (which I think it should) then I would agree that leaving trench out is not a bad idea. Why do you think round limits are a problem - because they're currently broken (IMHO) for team games, or because there should not be round limits?

I simply think, Trench is still very new & untested. I myself haven´t played it yet, but will try it, as soon as my game load is going down a bit (too much clan action at the moment). The only problem in terms of team-play, that I could imagine, is that an unbalanced drop could be harder to counter with this setting. Beyond that the main argument seems to be the duration of games (Trench taking longer), and the problems this can cause in a tournament. My point is simply: Let´s get some more experience with the setting first, try it out in public games & clan challenges, and see how it works out.

As for the Round Limits: Some of the most epic & memorable team games are those, that go on for 20+ rounds without one side getting a decisive advantage, going back & forth, come-back after come-back. But all these games are finally decided & come to an end, because between 2 teams stale-mates are impossible. Round Limits would cap off these games and decide a winner based on a couple of armies difference at a random point in the game. Maybe it´s just me, but I find the idea horrible ...

qwert wrote:4.if you dont notice im all ready apply 2 point for win and 1 point for draw. Most fair are award points. Count games or any other awards for win,only can give you wrong standings. I do little research and i find something very wrong.

division 1b standing (clan league 2)
2.BpB 66-46 (14)
3.tsm 65-47 (18)

If in CL2 whas apply point for award,then TSM will play in Final, because TSM will collect more points then BpB (18 against 14),instead that , Team who win least chalenges play in Final,only because they have 1 game win then other.

This is a false argument. How you view this (who of the two deserved to go to the semis) completely depends on your personal opinion. You say, TSM won more "challenges" & thus would have deserved to progress. I could say, BpB won more games overall during the season & thus deserved to progress. There is no right or wrong here. It´s a matter of opinion.

In this CLA League Season Phase 1, Division C, we faced this situation:

IA 41-19 games, 10 pts
KORT 47-13 games, 8 pts

Who deserved the number spot 1 here ? Some KORT members might find it "very wrong", that they won 6 games more than IA, but were only 2nd.

qwert wrote:This is possibile scedule, so everybody can give hes view scedule. We have 26 play week, and if we take that every two week ,its need to create games,then we will have 52 week long League. Im try to create some scedule, so that we get 3 month of vacation before start of new season. Its initial scedule,and you,like everybody can create your own scedule and present here.

Yeah. I realise, there is a problem with 26 sets on a 2-weekly basis. There are several alternatives:

a) Play home & away games at the same time, as in the current CLA League season. Reducing it to 13 sets.

b) Make the divisions smaller. 12 clans per division = 11x2 = 22 sets, which seems possible on 2-weekly basis.

c) Ace Rimmers suggestion of starting 2 sets every 2 weeks. Though I think, this would cause the same problem, that some people have been complaining about in the current CLA League: That there will be so many sets going on simultaneously, that it will be very hard to keep track, how you are actually doing. Taking away from the fun/experience.

What about:
5 sets
break
4 sets
break
4 sets

with weekly status updates. My suggestion was 6 sets/break/7 sets but we could easily change that to 5/4/4. qwert and I also discussed via PM doing sets every 3 weeks with a small break over Christmas, this way most games in a set would be done before the next one started. That would stretch it out to about 40 weeks I'd say, which is manageable.

Well. I guess, it might be good to get some more opinions on the questions at hand. Maybe I am the only one in favour of longer breaks between the sets. After all I have heard from others, I doubt it. But anyway, I´d just have to suck it up then, I guess.

For the sake of argument: Let´s say, we agree on longer breaks & not having new sets every week. If you are fixed on the divisions size, then playing home & away games at the same time seems the way to go ?

Either with 2 weekly sets, that would allow for a break during the season (summer or Christmas, depending when the season starts) & a long break at the end of the season (before the start of the next). Or with 3 weekly sets, with only a very short (or no) break during the season, but a long break at the end.

I could live with both these arrangements.

Question then being the scoring system: Home & away still counted separately, even when played at the same time ? Or as one result, as it is in the current CLA League ? And how many games per set, when we have longer breaks between them ?

Some more opinions on these matters would be good, I think. Maybe some polls (for the public or clan representatives): Do we want longer breaks between the sets ? Should home & away sets be counted separately ? If yes, should they be played at different times too ?

Based on results, two different approaches / set-ups / schedules could be designed, that people can vote on.

Ahunda
This is a false argument. How you view this (who of the two deserved to go to the semis) completely depends on your personal opinion. You say, TSM won more "challenges" & thus would have deserved to progress. I could say, BpB won more games overall during the season & thus deserved to progress. There is no right or wrong here. It´s a matter of opinion.

In this CLA League Season Phase 1, Division C, we faced this situation:

IA 41-19 games, 10 pts
KORT 47-13 games, 8 pts

Who deserved the number spot 1 here ? Some KORT members might find it "very wrong", that they won 6 games more than IA, but were only 2nd.

How do you mean false argument? Bpb lost more chalenges, but still ,consider that win dont count, they progress to finale. This is not false, and in new concept ,Winner will be Team who score most points. What its purpose of chalenge wins, if you put that only games count?
And you can not compare CL4 with CL2, because CL4 have specific system,where after each phase, all score are reset to zero.
I want to avoide all this,and here you have only one phase,and in very simple way,you will get winner of league.

ahunda wrote:Well. I guess, it might be good to get some more opinions on the questions at hand. Maybe I am the only one in favour of longer breaks between the sets. After all I have heard from others, I doubt it. But anyway, I´d just have to suck it up then, I guess.

For the sake of argument: Let´s say, we agree on longer breaks & not having new sets every week. If you are fixed on the divisions size, then playing home & away games at the same time seems the way to go ?

Either with 2 weekly sets, that would allow for a break during the season (summer or Christmas, depending when the season starts) & a long break at the end of the season (before the start of the next). Or with 3 weekly sets, with only a very short (or no) break during the season, but a long break at the end.

I could live with both these arrangements.

Question then being the scoring system: Home & away still counted separately, even when played at the same time ? Or as one result, as it is in the current CLA League ? And how many games per set, when we have longer breaks between them ?

Some more opinions on these matters would be good, I think. Maybe some polls (for the public or clan representatives): Do we want longer breaks between the sets ? Should home & away sets be counted separately ? If yes, should they be played at different times too ?

Based on results, two different approaches / set-ups / schedules could be designed, that people can vote on.

First-Dont you dare to shut up! We need all talk here.
In previous post Ace give me great idea.
Also we are not going to play home and away in same week, we will play normal round robin scedule.
What hit me in head its this:

Week 1-Round 1 and 2 play
Week 2-
Week 3-
Week 4- Round 3 and 4 play
Week 5-
Week 6-
Week 7-Round 5 and 6 play
=========================
So every third week clans will start play against diferent opponent, and will have quite enough time for rest and preparation.
(example EMP play home in round 1 against TSM, and play away in round 2 against DYn). So one clan will need to prepare 8 home games and to join 8 away games. Consider that this its round robin, clan who create home games in round 1,will be visitor in round 14.(example EMP vs TSM, will play again in round 14, where TSM will be host against EMP)
Also consider that you have 21 days betwene rounds, then much of games will be decided and finished before start of next round, what its big + for organizer to fill and update tables ,simultanious with chalenges.

qwert wrote:

ahunda wrote:This is a false argument. How you view this (who of the two deserved to go to the semis) completely depends on your personal opinion. You say, TSM won more "challenges" & thus would have deserved to progress. I could say, BpB won more games overall during the season & thus deserved to progress. There is no right or wrong here. It´s a matter of opinion.

In this CLA League Season Phase 1, Division C, we faced this situation:

IA 41-19 games, 10 pts
KORT 47-13 games, 8 pts

Who deserved the number spot 1 here ? Some KORT members might find it "very wrong", that they won 6 games more than IA, but were only 2nd.

How do you mean false argument? Bpb lost more chalenges, but still ,consider that win dont count, they progress to finale. This is not false, and in new concept ,Winner will be Team who score most points. What its purpose of chalenge wins, if you put that only games count?
And you can not compare CL4 with CL2, because CL4 have specific system,where after each phase, all score are reset to zero.
I want to avoide all this,and here you have only one phase,and in very simple way,you will get winner of league.

I understand your position, qwert. But you can look at this in different ways. I am not saying, you are wrong, or your scoring system is wrong. What I am saying, is: Both scoring systems are valid & have their justification. It is a matter of opinion, which one you prefer.

Take the example, that I mentioned above (IA vs KORT), and imagine, that trend would have continued throughout an entire season of your format. IA winning set after set, but always very close (5-3,5-3,5-3,...), KORT trashing its opposition week after week (7-1,8-0,6-2,...), but then having bad luck in one set and going 4-4. At the end of the season, KORT might have 30 more wins than IA, but 1 point less. Can you imagine, that in such a case people might start to argue, that your scoring system is not fair ? That KORT was the better clan throughout the season & should be the winner ?

The smaller the sets get, the more luck comes into it. A weaker clan might beat a top clan in an 8 game set with lucky drops & dice, but what about a 60 game challenge ? The argument against your scoring system is, that you put too much weight on the out-come of those small 8 game sets. And that counting overall performance in all games during the season might be better.

I personally think the allowed game limit per round needs to be bumped up from 3 per week. It makes it harder to put people in on maps if one or two players go on vacation or turn premium. This would allow more flexibility from week to week and would help if you happen to get a set of away games where only a couple players are familiar with the settings. Since the home games are locked in having 3 slots limits what they could in the away games.

The Voice wrote:Com'on, guys. No single person is going to get everything he or she wants. If I'm not mistaken, the CLA exists so that every competitive clan can have a voice if it so chooses. If we can't be reasonable, at the very least civil, this thread will soon be archived and locked, and we'll have to start from square one again. Let's not make this about who can put the most exclamation points in a post or throws the most insults.

EDIT: Didn't see lynch's post. More should be like this. So, what if round limits were mandated for every trench game?

Am I missing something? Is there any reason to not put round limits on ALL games? If you have a no spoils game that is going on past 30 rounds that will take just as long as a trench game doing the same. And obviously an escalating game should be done long before a round limit is up as well. Could someone point out why we shouldn't have a 20/30/50 round limit on every single game? If everyone knows going in and it's getting close then the clan who prepares for it will get the win. How is this less strategic than a grind it out game?

Crazyirishman wrote:I personally think the allowed game limit per round needs to be bumped up from 3 per week. It makes it harder to put people in on maps if one or two players go on vacation or turn premium. This would allow more flexibility from week to week and would help if you happen to get a set of away games where only a couple players are familiar with the settings. Since the home games are locked in having 3 slots limits what they could in the away games.

I dont quite understand what you mean? In every round player can play maximum 3 game, and this its enough number consider that one round have 8 games. Each round are separate , one round you play home, maximum 3 game,next round play away, again maximum 3 games.
If you have player who want to play in every round,then he could play maximum 78 games, and its this not enough,then i dont know how many games need to be limit???
Ofcourse if he play every round 3 games,then some of players will be in problem to get medals,if they become winner.
Also you need to have minimum 10 diferent players in each round.

We need feedback - which is more important, winning the most games, or winning the most weeks? Which one should be more important? Seeing how some of the luck has gone in CL4 with the small sets, I'd be inclined to agree with ahunda and say that it should be just on the basis of total wins over the season, not points for a win or a draw.

Ace Rimmer wrote:We need feedback - which is more important, winning the most games, or winning the most weeks? Which one should be more important? Seeing how some of the luck has gone in CL4 with the small sets, I'd be inclined to agree with ahunda and say that it should be just on the basis of total wins over the season, not points for a win or a draw.

No need to have any feedback, Award system are decide, and this will be point award. And this Luck in CL4? All favorites play in First division,so i realy dont see luck there. Luck will be that Kort-IA-TSM- or some other high ranked clan ,not manage to qualify into division 1. Win and draw are two thing what its importan in any league.
In football you play 90 minute and win with 1 goal, and sometime you play draw. Sometime big favorite play draw with most veak opponent,and again its ok. If i need to do some statistic for CL4, to see how many top 10 clans lost games,against clans belove 10th place, to prove that luck dont have big impact, then ok.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
here we go statistic(top 10 clans from 400 ranking)
kort -win 4
tofu -win 4
pack-win 3 -draw 1
tsm -win 3-lost 1
emp -win 3
ia -win 4
aoc -win 4-draw 1
lhdd -win 1-draw 1-lost 1
afos -win 2-draw 3
pig -win 3-lost 1
=================
now some people say"its a small number of games,luck can be involve" but statistic say totaly opposite. Top 10 clans play against clans belove 10th place -41 match,and score are 31 win-7 draw and 3 lost. This mean that top 10 clans have 75% of succes, but if you count draw also(they not defeated) then succes are 92,68% of succes. I think that luck dont have any impact on top 10 clans, because they lost only 3 game against clans belove top 10.
What i need to do next to prove that luck are not big factor in clan league?

I don't want to see trench games in the competition. To me it's about as necessary as doing freestyle. They are specialized styles of play that seem counter intuitive to clan gaming competitions.

I am fine with nuclear.

I'd prefer to stay away from unlimited. Most clans don't seem to like unlimited so I'm going with the majority on that. If I felt that most clans did like unlimited then I'd maybe vote for it. But since the prevailing preference is against it then I think that it is suitable to avoid it.

qwert wrote:++++++++++++++++++++++++
here we go statistic(top 10 clans from 400 ranking)
kort -win 4
tofu -win 4
pack-win 3 -draw 1
tsm -win 3-lost 1
emp -win 3
ia -win 4
aoc -win 4-draw 1
lhdd -win 1-draw 1-lost 1
afos -win 2-draw 3
pig -win 3-lost 1
=================
now some people say"its a small number of games,luck can be involve" but statistic say totaly opposite. Top 10 clans play against clans belove 10th place -41 match,and score are 31 win-7 draw and 3 lost. This mean that top 10 clans have 75% of succes, but if you count draw also(they not defeated) then succes are 92,68% of succes. I think that luck dont have any impact on top 10 clans, because they lost only 3 game against clans belove top 10.
What i need to do next to prove that luck are not big factor in clan league?

I don't know where we left off on a prelim competition for league position? We just lost to LHDD by 1. We would like a chance to make it into the premier league from the start rather than be relegated by a formula. Let teams earn their way into the leagues based on merit, not legacy.

Maybe first year have a play in and all years after based on previous finishing positions?

ViperOverLord wrote:

qwert wrote:++++++++++++++++++++++++
here we go statistic(top 10 clans from 400 ranking)
kort -win 4
tofu -win 4
pack-win 3 -draw 1
tsm -win 3-lost 1
emp -win 3
ia -win 4
aoc -win 4-draw 1
lhdd -win 1-draw 1-lost 1
afos -win 2-draw 3
pig -win 3-lost 1
=================
now some people say"its a small number of games,luck can be involve" but statistic say totaly opposite. Top 10 clans play against clans belove 10th place -41 match,and score are 31 win-7 draw and 3 lost. This mean that top 10 clans have 75% of succes, but if you count draw also(they not defeated) then succes are 92,68% of succes. I think that luck dont have any impact on top 10 clans, because they lost only 3 game against clans belove top 10.
What i need to do next to prove that luck are not big factor in clan league?

I don't know where we left off on a prelim competition for league position? We just lost to LHDD by 1. We would like a chance to make it into the premier league from the start rather than be relegated by a formula. Let teams earn their way into the leagues based on merit, not legacy.

This mine post dont have nothing with league position,its some example from CL4, and how top 10 clans from 400 ranking ,win almost all games, and this mean that luck have little impact on games.

Now , there its no chance for any preliminary competition for league position. Its will be decide by 400 algoritm ranking,or by final score by CL4(if this become official new league), or some combination of bouth.
Last ranking update(6-06-2012) show that Manifest Destinu are ranked 19, so this mean that your clan are qualify to be in First league. This mean that you need to move to position 14 for Premier LEague. September are far away,so your clan still have chance to move up on algoritm 400 ranking.

>>I'd prefer to stay away from unlimited. Most clans don't seem to like unlimited so I'm going with the majority on that. If I felt that most clans did like unlimited then I'd maybe vote for it. But since the prevailing preference is against it then I think that it is suitable to avoid it.<<

ok, good to know this. Somehow im in a middle for this settings, some people like and some people dont like.
So i have several option with this
1. no unlimited
2. yes unlimited
3.yes unlimited with limited game to use
=================================
ok,this will still open for final decision.

No unlimited would be a disastrous decision.