Conquer Club

in with morley and ElectrickShock

Morley and I have won several doubles tourneys together and we are all 3 in the same clan so we also have some trips and quads experience.

Just an update on our team, stealth99, bpt777, conquerhero:

We have our team wins up to 10:

The next part of that equation is the problem, one of our 3 pairs of players, only has 1 extra win together.

We have 9 team games in progress, with 3 of them at this point, certain wins, that we are mopping up. This will bring our team total to 13, plus the 1 win that each of our pairs of players has, leaves us just one short. We still have many games pending.

We would be able to very easily accept pretty well any condition or requirement, in a fairly short period of time.

UPDATED APRIL 19TH

In Please with zips5000 and jackal31

babagonosh wrote:in with morley and ElectrickShock

Morley and I have won several doubles tourneys together and we are all 3 in the same clan so we also have some trips and quads experience.

By morley I assume you mean morleyjoe?

I'm just taking a quick look at your games. I see wins together with you and morleyjoe but none with ElectrickShock. You have plenty of wins with alstergren though. I haven't added it up, but it might even be enough to qualify. Why don't you persuade alstergren to play?

In with Arno30 and Betiko please

Thanks

In please

dchide01
ezlok
jakael02

Registration is now closed.

(team score shown as of 1900 hrs on April 22nd):

The following teams have qualified by the original rules:
1,hayesez,Veni Vici Vidi,Culham,10351
2,PROFITS,BRADDY,TheProwler,9483
3,loutil,Agent 86,Blitzkrieg Frank,8315
4,prismsaber,Foxglove,agonzos,8123
5,umbrellaman,evildoer,generalahole
6,TX AG 90,hutchkov,geko,7798
7,RKCVED,zips5000,jackal31,7597
8,sdh,hmsps,sekretar,7597
9,ckyrias,dana1971,Epitaph1,7362
10,dakky21,benga,Hannibal 19,7059
11,OutSider,RobbieDub,mrfitz66,6968
12,xman5151,alaskanassassin,akabob2,6928
13,shoop76,SpiteMalice,Tin Trumpet,6910
14,pearljamrox2,WPBRJ,hotfire,6894
15,Donelladan,Momo33,QuikSilver,6769
16,Bigroo4601,aaronvollrath,hambone,6734
17,ooge,cjtails,Slaylark,6645
18,blonderic,Alexlau,Cascades,6502
19,MD212,danhulbert,radioman212,5813
20,lordlau1,rjhankey,Leverpuller,5790
21,Seamus76,sandman175,V.J.,5573
22,sccoxx,ltndvm,JJ41375,4817

The following teams have qualified by the "15-n" modified rule:
23,angola,jetsetwilly,hyposquasher,8990
25,josko.ri,Moonchild,Rodion,10130
27,stealth99,conquerhero,bpt777,5567
30,jordy2425,Great-Ollie,lynch5762,8008
32,Mishalex,arno30,betiko,6973
34,Gilligan,SuperWang,Peter Gibbons,5801

The following teams failed to qualify:
24,Aussie02,conrwronski,therealdeal_37,6738,0,Fail,Not enough games with partner (2),,
26,babagonosh,morleyjoe,ElectrickShock,6216,0,Fail,Not enough games with partner (0),,
28,Bobby4254,DetroitSteel,eric111213,5470,0,Fail,Not enough games with partner (10),,
31,dchide01,Ezlok,jakael02,3335,0,Fail,Not enough games with partner (2),,
33,slickstick,nibotha,Arya,6611,,Fail,Not enough games with partner (12),,

OP has been updated with a revised schedule for 28 teams.

The beginning of the tournament is imminent.

I thought we had made it with the new rules, but I guess my math is off. Thanks for the effort you put into the tournaments. We will try again in another one.

This was just in my tournament listing, but it disappeared. Did the tourney get cancelled?

sccoxx wrote:This was just in my tournament listing, but it disappeared. Did the tourney get cancelled?

I found out that I had made a mistake. I thought we had exactly 28 qualifying teams, but it turned out that I've had too many late nights, and it was actually 29. So, the lowest-ranking team -- yours -- got dropped. My apologies for the mistake.

Can't you just allow 3 more teams (regardless of them filling the requirements) and design the setup for 32?

I mean, they qualified with the original rules, back when there were 48 spots. I don't think it's fair to drop the number of spots down from 48 to 28 and kick a team that managed to satisfy even the original criterium of 15 wins together. If anything, you should have kicked the lowest-ranking team among the ones that didn't classify with the original rules (which is also far from the best option).

especially since you based it off of rank, how about number of matches played together. We play very high teams and thus can't jump up in rank very often, but we play triples matches every day! We were number 22 in the qualified teams...so why should we get bumped???

And if all else fails, how about a PM to the dropped team to explain, justify, apologize, and offer an appeal or something...

Rodion wrote:Can't you just allow 3 more teams (regardless of them filling the requirements) and design the setup for 32?

I mean, they qualified with the original rules, back when there were 48 spots. I don't think it's fair to drop the number of spots down from 48 to 28 and kick a team that managed to satisfy even the original criterium of 15 wins together. If anything, you should have kicked the lowest-ranking team among the ones that didn't classify with the original rules (which is also far from the best option).

sccoxx wrote:especially since you based it off of rank, how about number of matches played together. We play very high teams and thus can't jump up in rank very often, but we play triples matches every day! We were number 22 in the qualified teams...so why should we get bumped???

And if all else fails, how about a PM to the dropped team to explain, justify, apologize, and offer an appeal or something...

I made a decision. It might not have been the best decision possible. There's other ways that things could have been done, but no matter what you do there are pros and cons. We were already almost three weeks behind schedule and a decision had to be made quickly. The original published spec was that the lowest-ranking teams be dropped, so that's what I went with. I've already apologised. I'll make a tournament later in the year with your own specs, if you want. That's the best I can do at this point.

Dukasaur wrote:

Rodion wrote:Can't you just allow 3 more teams (regardless of them filling the requirements) and design the setup for 32?

I mean, they qualified with the original rules, back when there were 48 spots. I don't think it's fair to drop the number of spots down from 48 to 28 and kick a team that managed to satisfy even the original criterium of 15 wins together. If anything, you should have kicked the lowest-ranking team among the ones that didn't classify with the original rules (which is also far from the best option).

sccoxx wrote:especially since you based it off of rank, how about number of matches played together. We play very high teams and thus can't jump up in rank very often, but we play triples matches every day! We were number 22 in the qualified teams...so why should we get bumped???

And if all else fails, how about a PM to the dropped team to explain, justify, apologize, and offer an appeal or something...

I made a decision. It might not have been the best decision possible. There's other ways that things could have been done, but no matter what you do there are pros and cons. We were already almost three weeks behind schedule and a decision had to be made quickly. The original published spec was that the lowest-ranking teams be dropped, so that's what I went with. I've already apologised. I'll make a tournament later in the year with your own specs, if you want. That's the best I can do at this point.

this is when ego prevails common sense. why is it so hard to accept suggestions?
This is supposed to be gaming site, yet sccoxx and his friends are not allowed to have their piece of cake. For what sake? Because schedule for 29 teams is uneven? Really, there is no weird that recently number of active players are in steady decline. I hope CC management can turn on common sense more often and give the ones who want fun their fun.
It is even not so hard to accept next 3 teams with the most games together, and have ideal 32 teams. Everything is better than disqualifying legally qualified team

Thanks for your support Rodion and josko.ri ...but it seems there is no turning back now. Nothing us premium members can do now but watch you guys battle it out. Good luck!

sccoxx wrote:Thanks for your support Rodion and josko.ri ...but it seems there is no turning back now. Nothing us premium members can do now but watch you guys battle it out. Good luck!

I agree....thanks for the support guys....best of luck to everybody in this tournament.

Anyone noticed that Round of 16 and onward games are Standard 2 players?

also 168/84 players

The tournament source page has not been properly updated. For proper information on the composition of the rounds, etc., look to Post 1 of this thread.

Dukasaur wrote:The tournament source page has not been properly updated. For proper information on the composition of the rounds, etc., look to Post 1 of this thread.

Yes but doesn't the source page need to be correct for it to function properly?

Gilligan wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The tournament source page has not been properly updated. For proper information on the composition of the rounds, etc., look to Post 1 of this thread.

Yes but doesn't the source page need to be correct for it to function properly?

Because it's a hybrid manual/auto tournament, it doesn't advance to the next round until BW tells it to, so (I hope) there is no chance it will push you forward into a round that hasn't been corrected.

All rounds are corrected now as I see

I have begun sending out games for Round 2.

Round 2 is composed of six games on six maps, so many will assume that you should have exactly one game on each map. To be honest, that was my original idea, too.

The idea is based on this matrix:


In order for every map to be played the same number of times, every team would have to play every other team twice. This is the smallest pattern that can be made to work. With each team playing each other team just once, there is no pattern that can be made to work. I had to make a choice between doubling the number of games this round, or throwing out the idea that every map is played the same number of times.

What I did was begin with the matrix above, and then used random.org to generate a sequence of 1s and 2s. For every pairing of teams, a 1 means they play off the top (yellow) part of the matrix, and a 2 means they play off the bottom (turquoise) part of the matrix. This also determines which one is treated as Team 1 and which one is treated as Team 2.

Using this formula, you will play at least three different maps. You will not play any map more than twice, and you have a 1/8 chance of playing all six maps. You will still play every other team in your group once.

I guess it is too late to complain ? Or can we say it is way better if we play every other team twice?

Also, how did you come to chose those 6 maps? We have 3 big maps, eurasia, world 2.1, Hive. Very nice for those who like that. But for people that doesn't it sucks a lot. I do not like big map at all - and I especially hate Hive which I have to play twice on my 6 games right now.

So, is it to be considered that we play each team twice and each map twice?

Donelladan wrote:I guess it is too late to complain ? Or can we say it is way better if we play every other team twice?

Also, how did you come to chose those 6 maps? We have 3 big maps, eurasia, world 2.1, Hive. Very nice for those who like that. But for people that doesn't it sucks a lot. I do not like big map at all - and I especially hate Hive which I have to play twice on my 6 games right now.

So, is it to be considered that we play each team twice and each map twice?

I don't like big maps in general, and I hate Hive specifically, so I'm with you on that! However, a lot of thought went into these maps, and I spent a lot of time balancing things out, representing fairly all the different elements of Conquer Club.

For every map on Conquer Club, there are people that hate it and people that love it. Some are more popular than others, but there isn't any map whatsoever for which you cannot find at least one player that loves it and at least one player that hates it. I'll tell you how each round was derived.

First, for a little bit of perspective. You are playing 18 games in the first three rounds. In the bracket phase, if you continue to survive, you will play another 92. Altogether, if you go to the very end and win the tournament, you will have played 110 games. There's a lot of statistical robustness in playing that many games. The fact that you have an advantage on map x or a disadvantage on map y will tend to disappear as you continue on.

The round-robin phase
First off, about the round-robin phase. The round-robin phase is a triad: Round 1, 2, and 3 all count together. Advancement to the bracket phase is based on your wins over all 18 games. In this triad, I tried to balance three elements -- tradition, strategy, and luck. Tradition was represented by round 1 -- the Classic map, the map that 95% of us played first, still by far the most popular map on the site and the most frequently used tournament tiebreaker map. Luck is represented by Round 3 -- a random selection from all the maps on the site with 35 terts or more (35 being a kind of cut-off line below which 6-player games are too luck-dependent to be considered even for the luck phase).

That leaves Round 2, which represents strategy. For this I chose the maps that are most often cited in discussions as being "strategic" -- in other words, as being maps where the importance of the dice and drop can be minimized by players making good decisions. These are not based on my personal preferences. Of the six, the only ones I like are Conquer Rome and Stalingrad. The Hive I hate with a passion, and I don't much like World 2.1 or Eurasia or Waterloo. I am not a great player, myself, but I read everything that the great players write. Whenever I see a post in GD or in the Strategy forum by a conqueror or former conqueror, or by some of the Masters of the game that haven't quite reached the top but are obviously very intelligent, I pay attention, and I consider very seriously. In reading the the forums for years now, I have seen these six maps mentioned over and over again as being relatively immune to the vagaries of dice and drop.

They are difficult maps, but I don't think they are the most difficult on the site. I think most people have far more trouble understanding Poison Rome or Forbidden City than Eurasia. Being considered a "strategic" map depends mainly on the fact that the drop is distributed fairly enough and the bonuses are diverse enough that small distortions by dice and drop can be overcome, as can the advantage of moving first.

If these were the only maps to be played in the whole tournament, I might agree that it's a very narrow selection, but again, you have to look with the wide perspective and see this round as being only one component of many.

The bracket phase
For the bracket phase, we started with some lists of what people are playing. BigWham provided the list of the most popular Triples maps on the site as well as the most popular Triples maps in Clan/Tournament play. I took an article that The Voice wrote for Issue 105 of the Dispatch, entitled "Where the CC4 Clan wars Are".

The Final round is, almost exactly except for a couple very minor changes, the list of the 33 most popular maps in Triples play on the site overall.

The Semifinal round is, almost exactly except for a couple very minor changes, a list of the maps played more than 5 times during the Round of 16 in CC4, as referenced in the article cited above. (article that The Voice wrote for Issue 105 of the Dispatch, entitled "Where the CC4 Clan wars Are".)

The Quarterfinal round is, almost exactly except for a couple very minor changes, the list of the 19 most popular Triples maps in Clan/Tournament play overall. (Unfortunately there's no easy way to separate Clan and Tournament games of the past. Now that Clans have a different database it may be possible in future years, but for now we had to treat them as a whole.)

The Round of 16 in the bracket phase was based on a composite score of maps that placed highly in the three lists referenced above.

Now I will tell what changes I made, based on my subjective opinion. They are very few, and I'll tell you all of them. WWII Gazala and WWII Ardennes are, in my opinion, outstanding triples maps, and I felt they should be represented. American Civil War is an extremely popular map in 6-player Standard and Terminator, and although it doesn't get much play in Trips, I felt that such a popular 6-player map is a natural, so I added it. Northwest Passage is my personal favourite Trips map, so I threw in one instance of it. Finally, no Rail map made any of the lists, but Rail maps taken as a group would have, and I felt that a site championship should represent such an important genre on the site, so I chose one -- Rail Europe -- and added that.

That's it. Out of 92 maps in the bracket phase, only 5 were added by my personal whim. All the others come from objective tests of what is popular on the site as a whole, or specifically in Clan/Tournament play, or among the strongest (round of 16 in CC4) clans.

To make room for the 5 maps that I added, I did not delete any map entirely. What I did was reduce the frequency of maps that were played more than once. Eurasia and World 2.1 would each have made all four rounds in the bracket phase. I reduced them to 2 each, which I felt would be okay since they were already heavily represented in the round-robin phase. Classic would have made 3 of the 4 lists, I reduced it to 2. Likewise, Pearl Harbor, D-Day Omaha, and I think a couple of others were reduced from 3 instances to 2. Altogether, I think I was extremely delicate in trimming some of the excesses to make room for a few key maps that I wanted to see added.

Again, what you see in the bracket phase, like the round-robin phase, is that I was trying to balance different factors. In this case the main triad was site popularity vs. top clan popularity vs. clan/tournament popularity, and a few little tweaks for things that I thought deserved to be represented.