Conquer Club

I always thought that the rationale behind the rule was to ensure that Clan X plays Clan Y rather than Clan X plays Clan Y and the best players from Clans (A,C, an B [who all hate Clan X]). This scenario is purely hypothetical and, perhaps, a little absurd. With that in mind, I'd posit, whatever the reasoning behind the rule, it likely isn't strong enough to merit its existence and enforcement.

Foxglove wrote:Thanks for the reasonable explanations of the CD motivations, Leehar.

I will say that I don't think your adherence to this rule for the sake of attempting to keep strong players with less strong clans will work as you intend it to. Once a person decides to leave their clan (or guild or tribe or meta - it's the same in every type of game that allows player groups), they will find a way to leave. They won't stay just so they can repeat the same experience for the next year.

This
Im still not seeing where does it protect small clans, even though i respect your position and accept it.

On a side note, for this rule make sense, than it should be enforced to everyone in the competition , not only the ones that were eliminated.

Well, I don't think Dualta is going to be the only one affected by this. KORT have a few members that may be unable to participate because they were in other clans

I can appreciate Leehar's reasons for it, but, I also feel that it won't prevent members who want to leave their clan from leaving. I highly doubt that most people leave their clan because of this competition. For some it's a case of feeling that they can't learn any more where they are, so they want to move up the ladder a bit. Others might leave because of differences/personality clashes and others because of activity within their old clan. There are lots of reasons. One thing it does prevent I suppose is people clan hopping for the duration of a competition. That's the only legit reason I can really think of for having that rule in place, and it's possibly a good reason. But.. protecting smaller clans? Nah!

If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

iAmCaffeine wrote:If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

Yes.

Rodion wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

Yes.

Just don't merge it with a name change (e.g., AOC + Empire = ACE) and have all ATN players join KORT (or whichever clan) instead.

Nice, AramA

Leehar wrote:Secondly, Doc Browns quote is somewhat misleading, because the adjustable settings regulation is in fact bracketed under the Clan Wars spoiler & not eligibility.

Leehar,
The division of those regulations between different spoiler tags was the same in CCC3 as it currently is in CC4. My only point was to address josko's claim that the rule was different last year. It wasn't any different. However, the regulations have always been "subject to TO's approval." This year approval is not being granted to clans requesting to overturn the eligibility requirements. I can respect that. I may disagree with it, but I also 100% do not want an exception to be made for TOFU that had already been denied other clans. Rules should be applied uniformly without question. That's why I requested a public statement and that the issue be opened for public discussion for next year's cup. I am not attempting to argue against your ruling against Dualta. I fully accept it for the duration of CC4. I simply haven't convinced myself whether or not the overall concept is particularly effective and would like to see more discussion before CC5.

Agree with Foxy and Voice here, this rules was designed because Chuck thought higher clans will lure best players to aid them. That never happened. But this rules stayed for the sake of the rule itself and you (CDs) created new fake meaning of protecting someone and some other marketing grass root level clans bullshit. Sorry I just don't buy it.

Rodion wrote:

Rodion wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

Yes.

Just don't merge it with a name change (e.g., AOC + Empire = ACE) and have all ATN players join KORT (or whichever clan) instead.

Funny how that works.

elfish_lad wrote:Gawd. Coffeeman has (shit, I had to actually bring up my medal total to learn this) 8 more medals than me!!! And LC... well, he has a far cooler user name than the one I chose for an online moniker 20 years ago when I was a Zelda freak. Bass-turd.

How about this: Uh...

Never-mind.

More fun to read the flames. Carry on.

Yeah.

E.

heheh, Elf have did you put some acid on your cornflakes?

In general i support the rule. though of course it does take the whole thing too seriously, bothering to argue to change it takes us even more seriously than actually having the rule.... Ahhh the complexity makes me hard!

The opportunity for abuse is fairly clear; the most active recruiters with the biggest head turning ability and player turnover are most likely to be able to abuse. TSM don't really have a turnover, we are solid and wistful; monki's go away -have kids, die, get a vasectomy, change sex and then pop back for a game every few years (perhaps that is just me) but some of the top clans seem to go through players like shit through a goose.
We can say gross abuse of course and that is sensible but why bother waiting for the clan to abuse it when the rule avoids the chance.

So what could the abuse be? well nicking all the best players once a lower ranked clan is knocked out - clearly. Also, and this is where it could be more sneaky - high ranked clans could 'lend' great players to lower ranks to beat other higher ranked clans, clear the competition and then nick them back for the final - a gross abuse clearly. But excluding whilst noting this exaggerated possibility, how do we definitively determine within the margins of intent?

Disclaimer: i do not really know what the rule is, and i certainly don't care about the result but i am willing to fight for my right not to!
NB I also don't really know if shit passes quickly through a goose.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Rodion wrote:

Rodion wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

Yes.

Just don't merge it with a name change (e.g., AOC + Empire = ACE) and have all ATN players join KORT (or whichever clan) instead.

Funny how that works.

KORT co-opts ATN in desperate attempt to defeat monkis in the semi-finals?
I am writing my complaint to the CDs right now.

I reread "Ahhh the complexity makes me hard!" at least three times.

Quality post jim, well said. But I still don't think someone will go for so much trouble as to get best players from lower clans, let them meld with current roster in terms of strategy etc. This is close to miracle for me.

last year was also run by CDs/Dako

but then the head of CDs was Bruce

or am I missing something?

benga wrote:last year was also run by CDs/Dako

but then the head of CDs was Bruce

or am I missing something?

Last year was run by Chuuuuck and then me. We asked CDs for help (privileges and some minor conflicts in the threads, nothing outside of their regular duties) but they didn't make/force rules during the competition.

And yes, Bruce was the head then afaik.

laughingcavalier wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Rodion wrote:

Rodion wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

Yes.

Just don't merge it with a name change (e.g., AOC + Empire = ACE) and have all ATN players join KORT (or whichever clan) instead.

Funny how that works.

KORT co-opts ATN in desperate attempt to defeat monkis in the semi-finals?
I am writing my complaint to the CDs right now.

Obviously it's not happening, but it's interesting to see how it could work differently to get more beneficial results.

jiminski wrote:heheh, Elf have did you put some acid on your cornflakes?

What do you mean?

Doesn't everyone?

elfish_lad wrote:

jiminski wrote:heheh, Elf have did you put some acid on your cornflakes?

What do you mean?

Doesn't everyone?

Of course not, don't be so narrow minded! I much prefer acid-filled croissants.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

elfish_lad wrote:

jiminski wrote:heheh, Elf have did you put some acid on your cornflakes?

What do you mean?

Doesn't everyone?

Of course not, don't be so narrow minded! I much prefer acid-filled croissants.

I prefer it on my .... bloody hell did you see that...

jiminski wrote:TSM don't really have a turnover, we are solid and wistful; monki's go away -have kids, die, get a vasectomy, change sex and then pop back for a game every few years (perhaps that is just me) but some of the top clans seem to go through players like shit through a goose.

We don't have a turnover of players either, but like every clan, have to take in new people to compensate for activity. People don't leave KORT, they retire, take a break, leave the game, get banned (GLG ) but yeah, pretty much the same as you guys. The only time it happened recently was when Pixar came to visit for a few days and realised that we don't play enough of wars to keep him occupied. Otherwise, no one has ever left to join another clan. I'd like to think most clans would be above abuse of the game and not "hire" or "loan" players.

laughingcavalier wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Rodion wrote:

Rodion wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:If Aeternus merged with KoRT would we all (from ATN) be eligible to play since we weren't in CC4?

Yes.

Just don't merge it with a name change (e.g., AOC + Empire = ACE) and have all ATN players join KORT (or whichever clan) instead.

Funny how that works.

KORT co-opts ATN in desperate attempt to defeat monkis in the semi-finals?
I am writing my complaint to the CDs right now.

Haha, this made me laugh.

A quick request for clarification: I was reviewing the tie-breaker procedure for the Semifinals and Finals. The rules state that maps may not be reused in the tie-breaker set. Does this simply mean that you can't use map X twice within the 3 home tie-breaker games, or does it mean that within the tie-breaker set you can't re-use a map used earlier in the set of 30 home games?

Doc_Brown wrote:A quick request for clarification: I was reviewing the tie-breaker procedure for the Semifinals and Finals. The rules state that maps may not be reused in the tie-breaker set. Does this simply mean that you can't use map X twice within the 3 home tie-breaker games, or does it mean that within the tie-breaker set you can't re-use a map used earlier in the set of 30 home games?

The TO finds that, historically, the tiebreaker would not count towards player game counts;

The TO further finds that, historically, the tiebreaker would not be subject to map restrictions;

It is therefore Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that any map will do, even if it has been used before, but it can only be used once during the tiebreaker.

It is so ordered.

Somebody's been reading Julius Caesar!

Chariot of Fire wrote:Somebody's been reading Julius Caesar!

Or somebody could be a trial lawyer...