Conquerors Tourney

[jghost7]

Concise description:
I think a march madness tournament each year for the conqueror title would be great...have the top 64? players play for conqueror. Work to get there, then battle it out for the title. I think the most negative aspect of these unfortunate discussions are the discussions. Farming, ranching, bogrolling, flippin' stacks, etc....causes so much negativity to be displayed openly and only discourages new(and veteran) players looking in forums at people talking shit at each other. Lets just set up a yearly or bi-annual tourney for conqueror and let all of the extra shit go. No more discussions on it. The conqueror will have worked to qualify for the tourney, and then will have had to fight it out with his peers in order to claim the title. I don't know about you guys, but I am pretty tired of hearing about this subject in post after post after post. Everyone has their things to say, and mostly they just get repeated over and over with only the expletives and choice insults changing from time to time.

I don't have all the specifics of the tourney here, but I think that would be the easy part. I think that making the Conqueror come from the competition rather than just score alone is the biggest part of the suggestion. I think that if the approval comes for that, then the tourney can be fleshed out later.

Just a potential sketch would be like so:
To qualify you would have to be in the top 64 on the scoreboard by an allotted day. Following a confirmation, empty slots would be filled by next in queue on the scoreboard.(ie.. a freemium who isn't free to play, or someone who doesn't wish to participate.) You can use a random or ranked bracket, for this example lets use a ranked bracket like the NCAA, where the top 16 players would be divided up to the four main brackets....etc...
You could use a 3 or a 5 game set and have each player designate a home map and settings with randoms making up the middle games. As a personal suggestion, I would enjoy seeing at the sweet 16 or elite 8, the sets go to 7 with the players adding 1 additional home map and settings. The tourney plays out and our champion is crowned Conqueror. He would then hold that until the finish of the next Conquerors Tourney.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Doing it this way, you don't have to complain so much if they want to contribute to the education and introduction of CC to newer players if they so choose. Hopefully the buzz will change from this mess to an actual excitement for an event such as the Conquerors Cup?...

I think that this is something that could potentially eliminate or substantially reduce this issue altogether. Lets work together to fix it. Just trying to keep adding more rules and regulations to try to calm the furor will probably only exacerbate the problem and cause more work and controversy for admin and staff. Change the system. It is a smallish change and could have a largely positive effect.

thanks,

J


Note: Most of this comes from an earlier post of mine, and was copied here afterwords.

[IR1SH ACE]

I read this when you posted it earlier and thought it had some merit....i do believe it would be a good way to go and a better way to determine the Conqueror but would still not eliminate the problem of members that use questionable/cheap tactics to increase there scores and if the top 64 all had equal chance of gettin the title then I could see a lot more players resorting to above mentioned tactics to get into the top 64...

i do like the idea but they still need to come up with a decent solution to the farming/ranching/bog-rolling that goes on...I am waiting with baited breath for the big behind the scenes announcement on this issue and hope they do the right thing and then something like this would be a great next step......good luck and I support this...

[Dukasaur]

I don't think it will end all the problems, but it's a step in the right direction.

+1

[zimmah]

I read this when you posted it earlier and thought it had some merit....i do believe it would be a good way to go and a better way to determine the Conqueror but would still not eliminate the problem of members that use questionable/cheap tactics to increase there scores and if the top 64 all had equal chance of gettin the title then I could see a lot more players resorting to above mentioned tactics to get into the top 64...

i do like the idea but they still need to come up with a decent solution to the farming/ranching/bog-rolling that goes on...I am waiting with baited breath for the big behind the scenes announcement on this issue and hope they do the right thing and then something like this would be a great next step......good luck and I support this...

what if we design some system to keep track of the top 64 for a whole year, and then take the 64 players who were in the top 64 most of the year, the overall score throughout the year, amount of games played, maybe even win/loss ratio (also taking into account the difference in expected win/loss for 1v1 as opposed to 1v1v1v1 for example) , maybe even factor in the amount of different settings played and the amount of different players played, and the ranks the player played against.

based on those facts the top 64 for that year is chosen, which is not necessarily the top 64 at the moment the tournament will start. this will, if done right, reduce farming a lot.

overall i think the score system can be improved in many ways.

[chapcrap]

I like it. I don't like zimmah's idea. This isn't about just one year, it's about everything you have done.

Create a tournament for them all to play in.

Now, while I like your idea, I'm not sure many of them will appreciate a 1v1 tournament. There is a lot of luck involved in 1v1 tournaments.

Perhaps, incorporating various gameplay aspects would be nice.

[ljex]

how do you account for the fact that there are many different types of games on cc and all players are good at different types of games? What settings/map are used for this and if its 1 vs 1 sequential that will essentially come down to luck when we are looking at the top 64 players on the site. I really dont think people understand the actual ramifications of the suggestions they make before they make them. This is perhaps one of the dumbest suggestions i have ever seen and am honestly surprised those who have posted agree with it.

[chapcrap]

Hey, ljex...

Now, while I like your idea, I'm not sure many of them will appreciate a 1v1 tournament. There is a lot of luck involved in 1v1 tournaments.

Perhaps, incorporating various gameplay aspects would be nice.

[ljex]

Hey, ljex...

Now, while I like your idea, I'm not sure many of them will appreciate a 1v1 tournament. There is a lot of luck involved in 1v1 tournaments.

Perhaps, incorporating various gameplay aspects would be nice.

so then what settings are you going to make it...is it going to be a mandatory tournament for the top 64 and what about freemium members will the games count as one/more of their 4. There are just so many flaws the 1 vs 1 aspect is only a drop in the ocean.

[chapcrap]

I do not disagree that things would need ironed out.

The freemium issue shouldn't matter. If lack wanted to implement something like this, then they could be allowed to play more than 4 at a time.

As far as settings, I do not know right now, but having some kind of competition between the top ranked players of the site shouldn't be a bad thing. Even if it were just the luck of 1v1 games, the competition would be good.

Is there something that you disagree with about having a competition of some kind between the highest ranked players?

[ljex]

I do not disagree that things would need ironed out.

The freemium issue shouldn't matter. If lack wanted to implement something like this, then they could be allowed to play more than 4 at a time.

As far as settings, I do not know right now, but having some kind of competition between the top ranked players of the site shouldn't be a bad thing. Even if it were just the luck of 1v1 games, the competition would be good.

Is there something that you disagree with about having a competition of some kind between the highest ranked players?

None of you are in the top 64 and yet you all think its a splendid idea...have you bothered to ask any of those in the top 64 if they would enjoy this? The competition would be stupid...i wouldnt even join it and would only play if i was forced to and that would only be because i wouldnt want to deadbeat out of the games. Not to mention the fact that a game involving a great degree of luck would determine the conqueror for a whole year. Its just a bad idea all around if you really at it from a perspective other than "i dont want GLG's to be conqueror because of the games he plays" and even under that perspective its still not a great idea

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

. . .The competition would be stupid. . . luck would determine the conqueror for a whole year. Its just a bad idea all around if you really at it . . ."

While a Super-Conqueror Tournament has its merits, there's a lot of truth in ljex's comment. it's like what happened to The World Series of Poker -- or US College football Bowls. But maybe CC needs that - and WSOP has like 27 mini tourneys and "the main event" -- and what, 50 Bowls? CC needs a combination of BCS/March madness maybe -- just not luck driven.

Maybe CC should combine several inputs and do something like:
-satellite entries into "Super Conquer of the year" -- where you HAVE to win 3/4 of entry games to qualify -- several times, on several maps, on several settings, etc.
-have Power rankings from several areas then have THOSE top 64 battle it out -- but not 1 and out, probably need double elim to offset luck.
-or maybe ~32 entries: 1 from each clan, with 1-5 At Large bids -- already winnowed down from satellite tourneys mentioned above
-but be careful of altering "the sacred scoring formula"

[Agent 86]

Finally GLG a post I agree with you on +1, now we are getting somewhere..I'm all for the conqueror of conquerors

86

[chapcrap]

@ljex: I wouldn't care if the person who won this was deemed as conqueror or not. I just think it's a good idea to have a competition with the players with the highest scores. If I was in the top 64 (or whatever number was chosen), I would participate.

@GLG: I think that idea is probably the best way to do it. Have multiple satellites (games) that feed into something larger.

[agentcom]

I see that there was some support for this, but I do not believe anyone has addressed how in the world this would be workable. Even with the plan to do a bunch of different game types seems unwieldy and problematic. Plus, it seems to have died, so I'm moving this over to REJECTED.