Elite Conquer Rome dubs tourney Winners: josko.ri and Rodion

[hopalong]

partner: still looking

He found it

..we'll go together.

Team name: Maker & Sun
Players: Kabanellas + hopalong
Combined points: 5263
winning ratio of your team on CR dubs: NA - we have never played together before ... have never met, actually ... it's a pre-arranged marriage, i think

[EagleByRob]

In please...if you make 16 teams. Partner to be named later

[EBConquer]

EBConquer & Universalchiro

points - 6593

In if there's room.

[Avi8or]

Please add Big-bad and myself to invite list.

Thanks,
Mike

[Avi8or]

Sorry, Team Viking Quest, 4200 points, 58%

[nolefan5311]

I'm in as well, if you decide to make it 16 teams.

nolefan5311
Egel

Win percentage is about 60% Total score between us is a little less than 6,000 I believe.

[josko.ri]

It seems you will need extend it to 16 teams. However, I still think the best of 3 is too low game count in favor of luck against skill. Maybe you can make teams playing 2 games at a time, and the first team who win both games advances (i.e. 2-0 3-1 4-2...). If set ends 1-1 then send another 2 games until someone wins 2-0. For finals it can even be repeated until someone gets a margin of 4 to be declared winner. That would make tourney a little longer but will increase skill factor over luck factor. Whoever lose by margin of 2 cannot complain that he was screwed by bad luck.

[silversun6]

It seems you will need extend it to 16 teams. However, I still think the best of 3 is too low game count in favor of luck against skill. Maybe you can make teams playing 2 games at a time, and the first team who win both games advances (i.e. 2-0 3-1 4-2...). If set ends 1-1 then send another 2 games until someone wins 2-0. For finals it can even be repeated until someone gets a margin of 4 to be declared winner. That would make tourney a little longer but will increase skill factor over luck factor. Whoever lose by margin of 2 cannot complain that he was screwed by bad luck.

this is good , just maybe add a tie breaker in case of 3-3


oh and josko - sign up !

[Seulessliathan]

sounds interesting, i will look for a teammate

[g8keepr]

Josko, thx for the input. I will consider your suggestion if I run it again. At the moment and expanding the tourney to 16 teams (assuming the quality of teams continues to be that great) I prefer to go with a best of 3 for the first two rounds.

For SF and F I suggest to switch to the modus described by Josko and edited by Silver. Only change to shorten the time: 4 games at once and game numbers determine the result. So it is possible that we see a 2-0 ending in a 2-2; but the team that has lead 2-0 wins the round. As all of us looking for good competition I assume everyone is fine with this. 2-2 would give 3 more games at once - the 7th as a tie breaker.

Would like to hear some feedback - the amount of games would only be a problem for one team so far, but we will handle that I guess.

[josko.ri]

Josko, thx for the input. I will consider your suggestion if I run it again. At the moment and expanding the tourney to 16 teams (assuming the quality of teams continues to be that great) I prefer to go with a best of 3 for the first two rounds.

For SF and F I suggest to switch to the modus described by Josko and edited by Silver. Only change to shorten the time: 4 games at once and game numbers determine the result. So it is possible that we see a 2-0 ending in a 2-2; but the team that has lead 2-0 wins the round. As all of us looking for good competition I assume everyone is fine with this. 2-2 would give 3 more games at once - the 7th as a tie breaker.

Would like to hear some feedback - the amount of games would only be a problem for one team so far, but we will handle that I guess.

One of reasons for suggesting that was also lowering game load, which is my the biggest problem now, as I am lowering my games so signing up for tourney with 3 games at once would be too much ATM, especially on so hard map and with expected high quality opposition. Also going 2-2 but being eliminated is not great for competition.

[nokelberry]

Team Name: Big Balls
Total Points: 5056
Win %: 10/19 (53%)

[Ika Pakao]

I vote for lower games load too. The less simultaneous games the better.

[g8keepr]

I prefer a low game load as well - wait, I like a low work load for organizing the tourney as well.

I am fine with the change - but slighty different as we have a lot of good teams (going with 8 would be a shame) and I dont want to make it lasting for too long. 2 games will be sent out; if a team wins both games, the teams advances. in case of a 1-1 two more games are sent out. the team leading 3-1 advances - in case of a draw we will have a tie-breaker. So kind of a best of 5 but with less games to handle.

Hope that works for all - moreover I appreciate if the teams could inform me if the round is decided or more games are needed.

All fine with this setting?

[g8keepr]

looks like only 2 teamslots will be left! hmm, looking at the reserved slots we are already full. Great!

BUT as the reservations are still just reservations, please sign up.

[jsnyder748]

ill find a teammate

[josko.ri]

I prefer a low game load as well - wait, I like a low work load for organizing the tourney as well.

I am fine with the change - but slighty different as we have a lot of good teams (going with 8 would be a shame) and I dont want to make it lasting for too long. 2 games will be sent out; if a team wins both games, the teams advances. in case of a 1-1 two more games are sent out. the team leading 3-1 advances - in case of a draw we will have a tie-breaker. So kind of a best of 5 but with less games to handle.

Hope that works for all - moreover I appreciate if the teams could inform me if the round is decided or more games are needed.

All fine with this setting?

I think it is ok except for 5th game, maybe make decider beat of 3 (total beat of 7) if reault is 2-2? I that happens obviously there is an epic match between 2 top teams so it would be pitty to decide it in just one match. I will look for teammate.

[g8keepr]

Josko, I do understand your concerns. but there has to be a winner and a tie breaker is always kind of luck - I assume you know that better than me one as you are involved in the clan scene with tie breakers after 60 games. moreover I personally can't run a tourney to go for a "until a team leads by 2" (time consuming to look after and duration). The last one with 16 teams and a best of 3 took 4 months - I assume this one will be 8 months. hope you are still in.

[josko.ri]

Josko, I do understand your concerns. but there has to be a winner and a tie breaker is always kind of luck - I assume you know that better than me one as you are involved in the clan scene with tie breakers after 60 games. moreover I personally can't run a tourney to go for a "until a team leads by 2" (time consuming to look after and duration). The last one with 16 teams and a best of 3 took 4 months - I assume this one will be 8 months. hope you are still in.

In clan scene there is best of 7 tie breaker after 60 games which is still better than 1 game tiebreaker.
There is no difference between playing 3 games at once after result is 1-1 or playing 2 games at once plus one if result is 2-2 because you can put immediately to play 3 games when score is 1-1 and in every case, if a team wins 2-0 they will win regardless of result of 5th game, and if not then 5th game will be played earlier to fasten flow of the tournament. That is why I think it is pointless to make 1 game tiebreaker in this system of play. Regarding time of ending a round, playing best of 3 or best of 1 as decider is more or less the same, as finishing time of games do not vary so much.

[g8keepr]

Maybe there are 2 clan scenes at CC - the clan wars I just checked (again) have 1 game as a tie breaker, but I guess it could differ between official events and "private" challenges.

And of course we could play 3 games at once. Why did I come up with it? Because interested players wrote "so signing up for tourney with 3 games at once would be too much ATM" or wrote that they prefer a lower game load.

So I will wait for more feedback to settle the format.

[josko.ri]

Maybe there are 2 clan scenes at CC - the clan wars I just checked (again) have 1 game as a tie breaker, but I guess it could differ between official events and "private" challenges.

And of course we could play 3 games at once. Why did I come up with it? Because interested players wrote "so signing up for tourney with 3 games at once would be too much ATM" or wrote that they prefer a lower game load.

So I will wait for more feedback to settle the format.

Since you were implying that tie breakers are coming after 60 games played, I think the only active clan challenge which fits into the description are finals of CC3 and it has 7 games tie breaker: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=188805

I was the one who wrote that I wish lower game load. But, with the first format idea you forced everyone to play 3 games at a time by default. With making it 2+2+3 games nobody is forced to play 3 games, if they come to 2-2 result it is then their own "fault" that they could not do better than 2-2 so they will suffer by having higher game load because of not being able to advance when game load was lower.

[Seulessliathan]

I won´t participate , maybe next time.

[jimmyrules712]

Teamname: JimmyRocks
Players: jimmyrules712 and Rockit
combined points: 4796
Winning ratio: 12/20 = 60%

[g8keepr]

Tie breaker: I referred to this challengs viewtopic.php?f=441&t=185497 / viewtopic.php?f=442&t=185153.

3 games: the general low game load was a quote from Ika Pakao; you said you won't enter with 3 games to play; 3 ends in the end are still 3 games (2-2-3). that's why I came up with 2-2-1.

forced: I did not force anybody to play 3 games at once as all teams enter the tourney by their own will.

I thought about the whole thing again and decided that I will stick to the original concept for now. so we do a classic best of 3 that the teams so far signed up to. I like the change suggested by Josko and will take that into consideration my next tourney. Sorry if the discussion caused irritations.

Josko, thx for the input again - would have been great to have you on board. hopefully next time.

[chapcrap]

If you are changing the setup, make sure that everyone is ok with the change. This is reason we try to have tournaments set BEFORE sign ups. Kindly stop trying to get the setup changed, josko. Thanks.

Also, remember to make a list of teams.