Conquer Club

All round 2 games have now gone out.

Dukasaur wrote:

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..........

............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.

So I haven't even checked out this page of the tournament, but learned a ton from your post, Dukasaur. thanks for being so thorough in explaining it. I'm surprised that nobody else has jumped in to comment since the post was made.

So it looks like you have put a ton of time into deciding which maps go where. I think it makes an excellent representation of all of the different maps that would be played by triples. While I agree that there are plenty of maps in there that I (and other people) don't like, it certainly represents a good cross-section of conquer club play. Thanks a ton for working it all out. Our team has already had a chance to play a map we have never used, and we hope we advance and can play some others in the random round.

I haven't played more than a couple escalating spoils maps in years and am really not looking forward to it...but again, I think that is probably what most people spent a lot of time playing, so it is probably a good use in determing best CC triples players.

All in all, I gotta say I think you have done a helluva job in getting it all set up. It's pretty easy for people to stand on the sidelines and nitpick the differnt parts of the tournament that we don't like. I have no idea what kind of time you have spent putting this tournament together and managing it, but I wouldnt be surprised if it hits the 100s of hours mark by the end. So thanks a bunch for all of your work. It's pretty nice that we get to play in a tournament such as this and not have to do a thing but show up and make plays. We appreciate you making it possible for us!

hey duka, will we be able to see the results and rankings on the same page as before? from what i understand the round 2 was done manually unlike the first round, would that still work?

betiko wrote:hey duka, will we be able to see the results and rankings on the same page as before? from what i understand the round 2 was done manually unlike the first round, would that still work?

This will be somewhat experimental. In theory, once all round 2 games finish I will manually score them and bigWham will input the data into the autotournament engine to retroactively make it look like they were part of the auto engine. In practise, it's never been done and it may be quirky, so bear with me...

hayesez wrote:So I haven't even checked out this page of the tournament, but learned a ton from your post, Dukasaur. thanks for being so thorough in explaining it. I'm surprised that nobody else has jumped in to comment since the post was made.

So it looks like you have put a ton of time into deciding which maps go where. I think it makes an excellent representation of all of the different maps that would be played by triples. While I agree that there are plenty of maps in there that I (and other people) don't like, it certainly represents a good cross-section of conquer club play. Thanks a ton for working it all out. Our team has already had a chance to play a map we have never used, and we hope we advance and can play some others in the random round.

I haven't played more than a couple escalating spoils maps in years and am really not looking forward to it...but again, I think that is probably what most people spent a lot of time playing, so it is probably a good use in determing best CC triples players.

All in all, I gotta say I think you have done a helluva job in getting it all set up. It's pretty easy for people to stand on the sidelines and nitpick the differnt parts of the tournament that we don't like. I have no idea what kind of time you have spent putting this tournament together and managing it, but I wouldnt be surprised if it hits the 100s of hours mark by the end. So thanks a bunch for all of your work. It's pretty nice that we get to play in a tournament such as this and not have to do a thing but show up and make plays. We appreciate you making it possible for us!

Thank you! It's really good to hear.

*EDITED by josko - mistakenly double post*

I also want to express gratitude to Dukasaur for his efforts and thoughts in organizing this tournament. The research and concept about the maps are greatly systematized into a whole. You also put in a great argument in earlier phase that point of this tournament is to find great team rather than skilled individual who can lead any cooks, even if it costed us to have low teams. I only regret that one team who satisfied criteria was rejected, but other decisions were all well thought, congrats for that.

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:hey duka, will we be able to see the results and rankings on the same page as before? from what i understand the round 2 was done manually unlike the first round, would that still work?

This will be somewhat experimental. In theory, once all round 2 games finish I will manually score them and bigWham will input the data into the autotournament engine to retroactively make it look like they were part of the auto engine. In practise, it's never been done and it may be quirky, so bear with me...

I am not expert for this, but I know that The Championship - 1v1 and The Championship - Doubles tournaments both have multiple sub-rounds within one round, just like this tournament has. However, in those tournaments Scoreboard normally continues to update results even after second set of games is sent, so I guess the same set up can also be used for this tournament?

Would it be possible to start the round 3 games soon? With all these Hives games in round 2 it could be weeks before they're all finished. These official championship tournaments are great in theory, but in practice they are all moving ridiculously slow. There has to be a way to get these things done in a timely manner.

by the way duka, how do you determine who advances and who doesn't? there will be tons of ties between teams. tie breakers?

prismsaber wrote:Would it be possible to start the round 3 games soon? With all these Hives games in round 2 it could be weeks before they're all finished. These official championship tournaments are great in theory, but in practice they are all moving ridiculously slow. There has to be a way to get these things done in a timely manner.

There are still 39 active games. I'm not going to wait for all of them to finish, but 39 is still too many. I was thinking we would get to a point where 95% of the active games are finished, and there are 5 or 6 stragglers dragging on, and then start the next round.

(Actual number may vary. The number of stragglers may be higher than 5 or 6. However, we will get to a point where most games are finished, and a small number of games is dragging on. We're not there yet.)

betiko wrote:by the way duka, how do you determine who advances and who doesn't? there will be tons of ties between teams. tie breakers?

Aggregate number of rounds required to win the games you won.

why aren't the round 2 games showing up on the fancy tournament page?

RobbieDub wrote:why aren't the round 2 games showing up on the fancy tournament page?

They have to be manually scored and inputted, and I'm not going to do that until they're all done.

ok I'm doing it for group A here out of curiosity; might help duka:

Game 14465886
Game 14465854
Game 14465849 1A L; 3A W
Game 14465848
Game 14465844 5A L; 6A W
Game 14465840 1A L; 6A W
Game 14465828 3A L; 2A W
Game 14465821 5A L; 2A W
Game 14465817 1A L; 2A W
Game 14465807 6A L; 2A W
Game 14465786 7A L; 3A W
Game 14465782 5A L; 7A W
Game 14465778 1A L; 7A W
Game 14465774 7A L; 6A W
Game 14465752 2A L; 7A W
Game 14465743 3A L; 4A W
Game 14465726 4A L; 5A W
Game 14465723 4A L; 1A W
Game 14465691 6A L; 4A W
Game 14465686 4A L; 2A W
Game 14465684 (7A L; 4A W not officially counted yet)

1 aaronvollrath Bigroo4601 hambone 5/6 round 2 1/5 total 6/11
2 Veni Vici Vidi Culham hayesez 5/6 round 2 5/6 total 10/12
3 dakky21 Hannibal 19 benga 4/6 round 2 2/4 total 6/10
4 arno30 Mishalex betiko 3/6 round 2 2/5 total 5/11
5 SpiteMalice shoop76 Tin Trumpet 2/6 round 2 1/4 total 3/10
6 RKCVED zips5000 jackal31 1/6 round 2 3/5 total 4/11
7 xman5151 alaskanassassin akabob2 1/6 round 2 3/5 total 4/11

rankings:

team 2 -> 10/12
team 3 -> 6/10
team 1 -> 6/11
team 4 -> 5/11
team 6 -> 4/11
team 7 -> 4/11
team 5 -> 3/10

Thanks, betiko...

Still 34 active games left. Some look like they are getting close to finished. I would expect the next round in no more than nine days.

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:by the way duka, how do you determine who advances and who doesn't? there will be tons of ties between teams. tie breakers?

Aggregate number of rounds required to win the games you won.

not sure it's very fair with maps like hive that take necesairly more rounds than other maps; and no one is playing the same amount of each maps; same thing with random on round 3.

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:by the way duka, how do you determine who advances and who doesn't? there will be tons of ties between teams. tie breakers?

Aggregate number of rounds required to win the games you won.

If this is the case, then more fair would be (and less chance to still lead to be tied):

Aggregate number of rounds required to win the games you won - Aggregate number of rounds required to lose the games you lost

The logic is the same, winning in as smaller number of rounds is "better" win because it means that you outplayed opponents in shorter time.
But also, losing in as bigger number of rounds is "better" loss, because it means that you as loser was resistant to your opponents longer time.
So I think both winning and losing rounds should be counted, to increase fairness.
Also, it will increase chance that it will not be new tie, just because game load winning+losing is higher than game load only from winning games.

Most hive games will have the winner determined well before the game ends. The game itself requires several mop up rounds for an official end. You can see quite clearly in most hive games the likely outcome. Award the win even if the game hasn't ended and we can move on to round 3.

Blitzkrieg Frank wrote:Most hive games will have the winner determined well before the game ends. The game itself requires several mop up rounds for an official end. You can see quite clearly in most hive games the likely outcome. Award the win even if the game hasn't ended and we can move on to round 3.

we are making a comeback on hive after being at -60 troops on round 10 (we had been outdeploying the whole time though) and we are +70 now on round 14. You can't just award a win just like that.

Is there an easy way for us to check the records of the other teams in our group? I saw betiko posted some stats for his group. Is the only way to know to manually go find the games and tally them up?

hyposquasher wrote:Is there an easy way for us to check the records of the other teams in our group? I saw betiko posted some stats for his group. Is the only way to know to manually go find the games and tally them up?

Yup! At least until duka updates us, and he won t do it before all games are finished.
You can do the same as I did for your group, takes about 15 minutes!

betiko wrote:

hyposquasher wrote:Is there an easy way for us to check the records of the other teams in our group? I saw betiko posted some stats for his group. Is the only way to know to manually go find the games and tally them up?

Yup! At least until duka updates us, and he won t do it before all games are finished.
You can do the same as I did for your group, takes about 15 minutes!

Ok, I will try to do that.

Also, I think I saw in the rules that the top 16 teams will advance beyond Round 3. Does that mean it is 4 teams from each Group? Or is it the top 16 teams overall?

Just looking at the timeline for this event baffles me..It won't finish this year?

Aggregate number of rounds required to win the games you won.

I don't understand how this can be fair to anyone in any case.
I think games finish quickly when the dice are completely one sided and this is pure luck.
I think when dice are fair and both teams are good, then games can be very long, especially on the map we are playing, Conquer Rome can be very long for example.

Making advance people that won quickly seems non-sense to me.

And in extra, of course, hive will always be longer than waterloo, for example.
Number of territory should at least be considered as a coefficient.



Also, when games are lost, I always find pointless to keep fighting and just make the game longer. I am quite annoyed by the idea I should keep playing a game lost just to force opponent team to play more round.

Group B
1prismsaber Foxglove agonzos 9774 B
6angola jetsetwilly hyposquasher 8757 B
7Donelladan Momo33 QuikSilver 7832 B
2ckyrias dana1971 Epitaph1 7157 B
4jordy2425 Great-Ollie lynch5762 6774 B
3Seamus76 sandman175 V.J. 6358 B
5lordlau1 rjhankey Leverpuller 5901 B


Game 14464400 - leaning to team 2
Game 14464393 - team 1 Win
Game 14464388 - team 2 Win
Game 14464379 - team 1 Win
Game 14464377 - nearly over team 4 Win
Game 14464373 - team 4 Win
Game 14464368 - team 5 Win
Game 14464366 - team 2 Win
Game 14464353 -
Game 14464349 -
Game 14464343 - team 1 Win
Game 14464342 - will be team 6 Win
Game 14464339 - nearly over team 3 Win
Game 14464335 - team 6 Win
Game 14464332 - leaning to team 6
Game 14464329 - will be team 1 Win
Game 14464326 - team 7 Win
Game 14464319 - team 7 Win
Game 14464305 - team 7 Win
Game 14464297 - team 5 Win
Game 14464295 - leaning to team 7

This Round
Scores counting only games completed or "nearly over" or "will be team X win" above
Team 1 - 4 (1 game not accounted for)
Team 2 - 2 (1 game not accounted for)
Team 3 - 1 (1 game not accounted for)
Team 4 - 2 (1 game not accounted for)
Team 5 - 2 (3 games not accounted for)
Team 6 - 2 (2 games not accounted for)
Team 7 - 3 (1 game not accounted for)

Including Round 1
Team 1 - 9
Team 2 - 5
Team 3 - 3
Team 4 - 5
Team 5 - 4
Team 6 - 6
Team 7 - 5

Donelladan wrote:

Aggregate number of rounds required to win the games you won.

I don't understand how this can be fair to anyone in any case.
I think games finish quickly when the dice are completely one sided and this is pure luck.
I think when dice are fair and both teams are good, then games can be very long, especially on the map we are playing, Conquer Rome can be very long for example.

Making advance people that won quickly seems non-sense to me.

And in extra, of course, hive will always be longer than waterloo, for example.
Number of territory should at least be considered as a coefficient.



Also, when games are lost, I always find pointless to keep fighting and just make the game longer. I am quite annoyed by the idea I should keep playing a game lost just to force opponent team to play more round.

I agree with these statements.