Conqueror's Cup 2010. Winners Knights of the round table !!

[Lubawski]

1. start date: I think that having the official start date as March 15 or even April 1 might be the best bet. In a larger sense, the clan league's regular season wraps up by the end of March. In a smaller sense, while the thota-monki challenge should be winding down, I wouldn't mind a wee break between the end of that challenge and the beginning of the cup.

I'll leave this to Chuck to answer.

4. number of games: looks fine. Like some I'm not exactly over the moon with 1v1, but I accept the fact that they've become a legit part of challenges and thus merit some representation in an event of this sort.

lol. I argued with Chuck on this point as well. I am a big fan of 1v1, but I didn't think the majority of clans would agree to it. I think about half the challenges or so have 1v1 in there, which is why he decided to go with it, but because many do not, the number was kept very small.

5. play-in games: should be kept pretty short and sweet, say 3d/3t/3q and a best-of 3 1v1 per side, 20 points, 24 total games, one map use, anything shorter and you might as well make the whole play-in best of 3.

Great idea. That would still make it a legit challenge (meeting the 20 game minimum) and it has good proportions. Obviously Chuck has to agree to this, as this is his show, but I'm giving my support for what it's worth.

One question: for the 1v1 sets, do all 5 games have to have the same settings? Or does it just have to be the same map and same players?

All 5 games have to be the same map, with identical settings. I suppose the exception would be if you chose Random maps. The settings would still have to be the same, but obviously the maps would end up different.

Nice work fellas, esp Chuck.

He deserves all the credit. Anyone else involved only proofread or gave feedback on how others might react.

[Lubawski]

We are looking forward to giving you all a kick in the pants... defending our 7-1 clan challenge record.

Before you stick your chest out too far remember your group barely edged mine last time around and my group has trimmed up considerable, and for the better, since out last engagement.
This should be fun jj

lol. So have we Chris...so have we. But it is always tough fighting BSS.

However, I think John's comment was directed at Scott-Land and his preposterous claim that we somehow expunged 5 or 6 losses somehow off our clan challenge record. Have the Monkis verified yet? I want to face Scott and show him what we are made of. I'm sure he's either buried in the archives searching in vain or busy with his shovel trying to dig himself out of yet another hole his mouth dropped him in.

...sorry for getting off topic. Back to the excitement of the tournament. We can't wait.

[mkcummins]

This has a much better chance of success if you reduce the game load to half.

so, you're suggesting 20 or 30 game "challenges"? is not the normal, acceptable game count for a clan challenge between 40-60 games?

each round of this tourney is a Clan Challenge. 20-30 games would not be enough.

[mkcummins]

One question: if we end up with more clans than the 16 that will start in the grid, what will the format be for the preliminary round(s) that would be played by the lesser-ranked clans? If they too are going to be 48 games then this may take some time to get underway as the lesser lights are not renowned for their organisational skills (refer CLA Div.B for example).

Any other suggestions of how many games the play-ins should play?

Here's an idea and i'd like to see what discussion this leads to: the play-ins compete in a simple best-of-7 series for the spots. The best-of-7 series will be played on Random maps, but settings will be chosen based on home-field advantage. home-field advantage picks the settings for 4 of the 7 (games 1and2 home, 3and4 away, 1-1-1 to finish). home field advantage determined by the clans' CLA or Clan power rankings.

i don't agree with the play-ins taking on 20 games because they're just playing for a seat at the tourney, so it doesn't need to qualify as a legitimate challenge. earn the seat...earn the challenge.

that should get things decided in a jiffy. thoughts?

[Chuuuuck]

Some various opinions about things that have been discussed:

1. start date: I think that having the official start date as March 15 or even April 1 might be the best bet. In a larger sense, the clan league's regular season wraps up by the end of March. In a smaller sense, while the thota-monki challenge should be winding down, I wouldn't mind a wee break between the end of that challenge and the beginning of the cup.

2. length of the whole thing: yeah, it's going to last awhile for whoever makes the finals, but it's not substantially longer-lasting than either season of the clan league. It's certainly more games, but it's pretty spread out.

3. length of individual challenges: I think you guys are going to need to be at least a little strict when it comes to timing, i.e. while the competing clans should be able to have some discretion, there needs to be some guidelines, i.e. within 1 month of the official start date, all games of a given challenge need to be started (with 48 games, that allows a pretty doable rollout of 16 games every two weeks, or 24 games every 3 weeks). Once the cup gets to the semis and finals, greater allowance can be made for circumstances (as jp mentioned, August and September tend to be dead zones, which could probably be chalked up to Europeans on holiday and practically everyone under the age of, say, 21 doing the back-to-school thing), but if the first round ends up taking 3 months, it'll really screw things up down the road when it comes to working games around the various end-of-year holidays.

4. number of games: looks fine. Like some I'm not exactly over the moon with 1v1, but I accept the fact that they've become a legit part of challenges and thus merit some representation in an event of this sort.

5. play-in games: should be kept pretty short and sweet, say 3d/3t/3q and a best-of 3 1v1 per side, 20 points, 24 total games, one map use, anything shorter and you might as well make the whole play-in best of 3.

One question: for the 1v1 sets, do all 5 games have to have the same settings? Or does it just have to be the same map and same players?

Nice work fellas, esp Chuck.

I agree with most of these.

1) I will pick a hard start date starting soon. Probably March 15, but I will think on it some.
2) I agree with you. Plus anyone that makes it that far will be playing for something big, so I dont think they will mind.
3) I agree. I don't want 1 or 2 matches slowing down the whole tournament and making people lose momentum/excitement. I will recruit someone to help me stay on top of this (I already know who, just need to get them to agree) and we will come up with some guidelines that need to be met by each clan on keeping the tournament moving. If a clan fails to meet those guidelines then it may result in lost games or just a forfeit.
4) I know many don't like 1v1s. I personally do and know others that do. To try and keep everyone happy, I have kept it to very few as everyone can see.
5) I like your set up for the play-in games. I think we may go with this. I also like that it meets the bare minimum to count as a challenge for those involved.

Thanks for the feedback Inc.

[Chuuuuck]

I'd like to address what will happen if a player participating in the tournament gets kicked off of the site because I have seen it happen in CLA and other challenges. I want a rule in place before it happens so it isn't argued about at the time.

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't want the fact that it happened to be hurtful to either clan involved. And I don't want the rule to be subjective like "if the game was clearly over before it happened." So I guess that leaves us with 2 options unless someone has a better idea

1) Throw all games they were involved in out (they do not count)
PROS: Keeps the tournament moving along and doesn't slow us down, if there is a tie then the tie breaker game can be played as already discussed.
CONS: The player can realistically be in 15-20 games when it happens. Could take a lot of games out of the challenge.
2) Restart all games they were involved in, exact same settings, and let each clan pick new players.
PROS: Still have the required number of games for the tournament and gives everyone a fair chance
CONS: Player could of been in a lot of games and this could slow down that round of the tournament.

Thoughts?

[Blitzaholic]

One question: for the 1v1 sets, do all 5 games have to have the same settings? Or does it just have to be the same map and same players?

All 5 games have to be the same map, with identical settings. I suppose the exception would be if you chose Random maps. The settings would still have to be the same, but obviously the maps would end up different.

why do all 5 games have to be the same map for 1 vs 1? So five 1 vs 1 games will count as one game won whoever wins 3 of them, is this correct? who chooses the 5 maps for 1 vs 1?

I'd like to address what will happen if a player participating in the tournament gets kicked off of the site because I have seen it happen in CLA and other challenges. I want a rule in place before it happens so it isn't argued about at the time. Thoughts?

why not if a player gets kicked off the site, they forfeit those games they are in? why reward any negativity?





finally, is there a rule set in place on how much time a team most join their games? I mean, we do not want them to sit there for weeks, correct?

[Chuuuuck]

why do all 5 games have to be the same map for 1 vs 1? So five 1 vs 1 games will count as one game won whoever wins 3 of them, is this correct? who chooses the 5 maps for 1 vs 1?

The map will be chosen by the team whose "home" map it is. So for the 40 game sets, each clan will choose the settings for 1 series.

why not if a player gets kicked off the site, they forfeit those games they are in? why reward any negativity?

My reasoning is simple. You don't forfeit games when you are kicked off the site in a team game. Your teammate gains control of all of your territories and in some games this gives that team an extreme advantge with bonuses and territory counts. This happened to EMPIRE in a recent CLA game. A player in doubles was kicked out on the other team, the player left got all of the territories and was able to win it easily. So in a sense they got rewarded. Also, I don't necessarily think the clan that player is a part of should be punished either. Some clans can't necessarily control all of the actions of each member and if someone gets kicked out I don't think the rest of the players in the clan should suffer.

finally, is there a rule set in place on how much time a team most join their games? I mean, we do not want them to sit there for weeks, correct?

Yes, there will be a rule set in place soon. I have asked TheSpaceCowboy to help me out with all of the admin stuff on this tournament. We are coming up with some rules now for timeline of when games need to be sent by each clan and then how long opposing clans have to join those games. And we are coming up with ways that the two of us can check these facts and they can be verified. The rules won't be anything too extreme but they will be set up to keep the tournament moving along. Not sending or joining your games on time will probably result in games forfeited in some way.

[Chariot of Fire]

I have to say I agree with Blitz in respect of anyone getting kicked out of his games. A clan is like a family and has to take responsibility, even vicariously, for the actions of its members.

For ease of admin, fairness, and to expedite the rate at which games are finished I think the games should stand. It would be farcical to have to replay matches simply because one of the players was booted out. What's to say his or her indiscretion wasn't what helped the clan reach the next round for example?

At the end of the day this whole tourney is about establishing a clan's reputation as much as it is about playing ability, and any misdemeanours should have a bearing on that.

[Frederik Hendrik]

Veroveraars der Lage Landen are definately in. Contacts: Frederik Hendrik and MarVal.

Looking forward to it!

[Bones2484]

Generation One would like to participate as well. The main clan contact will be RedBaron0. I can back him up.

[Chuuuuck]

I have to say I agree with Blitz in respect of anyone getting kicked out of his games. A clan is like a family and has to take responsibility, even vicariously, for the actions of its members.

For ease of admin, fairness, and to expedite the rate at which games are finished I think the games should stand. It would be farcical to have to replay matches simply because one of the players was booted out. What's to say his or her indiscretion wasn't what helped the clan reach the next round for example?

At the end of the day this whole tourney is about establishing a clan's reputation as much as it is about playing ability, and any misdemeanours should have a bearing on that.

Ok, are you suggesting they forfeit the game or they play the game out and it stands however it ends? I ask because in some situations (mainly doubles) the player getting kicked out can actually HELP the team. This happened to us in a recent CLA game as I already stated. So should the clan that got the player kicked out forfeit the game, or get the win because the other player went on to win it? This is all hypothetically speaking of course, I just want a rule in place before it happens, not after.

[Chuuuuck]

Thank you Bones and Frederik, I will update both of your clans shortly.

[Chariot of Fire]

I have to say I agree with Blitz in respect of anyone getting kicked out of his games. A clan is like a family and has to take responsibility, even vicariously, for the actions of its members.

For ease of admin, fairness, and to expedite the rate at which games are finished I think the games should stand. It would be farcical to have to replay matches simply because one of the players was booted out. What's to say his or her indiscretion wasn't what helped the clan reach the next round for example?

At the end of the day this whole tourney is about establishing a clan's reputation as much as it is about playing ability, and any misdemeanours should have a bearing on that.

Ok, are you suggesting they forfeit the game or they play the game out and it stands however it ends? I ask because in some situations (mainly doubles) the player getting kicked out can actually HELP the team. This happened to us in a recent CLA game as I already stated. So should the clan that got the player kicked out forfeit the game, or get the win because the other player went on to win it? This is all hypothetically speaking of course, I just want a rule in place before it happens, not after.

I'm suggesting that the result stands (no forfeits). It's a rarer scenario for a team that loses a player to actually benefit from it. If that player also happens to be in, say, 8-15 games, then the overall weight of benefit will almost certainly favour the other team.

[kratos644]

It appears the monkis probably won't be competing in this one. It's not official but not many are sounding too excited about it in the forum.

[chephren]

I'm suggesting that the result stands (no forfeits). It's a rarer scenario for a team that loses a player to actually benefit from it. If that player also happens to be in, say, 8-15 games, then the overall weight of benefit will almost certainly favour the other team.

I have to say that if it's a Dubs game the result should not stand and should be replayed or even forfeited...2v2 Dubs games are normally over relatively quickly anyway, so a replay would not hold up the tournament. You can normally play 2 or 3 Dubs games before a Quads game is over.
It's a farce if the "offending" clan is rewarded with a win in a Dubs game BECAUSE their guy got kicked and handed multiple bonuses and territories - which has happened and will happen again. Say this guy is in 3 or 4 Dubs games....the "offending" clan likely wins them all.

In Trips and Quads games having a guy kicked usually turns out to be a disadvantage: true.

[poptartpsycho18]

Confirming L4D's participation Chuuuuck.

ptp18

[Chuuuuck]

Confirming L4D's participation Chuuuuck.

ptp18

Thanks poptart, can you please provide me with you primary and secondary contact.

[Lubawski]

It appears the monkis probably won't be competing in this one. It's not official but not many are sounding too excited about it in the forum.

Is Scott too afraid that he won't be able to back up his talk? I'm not surprised.

[Lubawski]

I'm suggesting that the result stands (no forfeits). It's a rarer scenario for a team that loses a player to actually benefit from it. If that player also happens to be in, say, 8-15 games, then the overall weight of benefit will almost certainly favour the other team.

I have to say that if it's a Dubs game the result should not stand and should be replayed or even forfeited...2v2 Dubs games are normally over relatively quickly anyway, so a replay would not hold up the tournament. You can normally play 2 or 3 Dubs games before a Quads game is over.
It's a farce if the "offending" clan is rewarded with a win in a Dubs game BECAUSE their guy got kicked and handed multiple bonuses and territories - which has happened and will happen again. Say this guy is in 3 or 4 Dubs games....the "offending" clan likely wins them all.

In Trips and Quads games having a guy kicked usually turns out to be a disadvantage: true.

In about 80% of games played, a player getting kicked out will end up in the team losing anyway. What happened to us was extremely rare. (A player was booted when it was the other player's turn, so all his territory turned over, giving the one player left some huge bonuses for one round, and it was enough to secure it and the game). But honestly, we were behind there anyway. In the other game he was in (a trips), we destroyed them after he was booted.

I can go either way here. Either they all stand no matter the results, or they are all forfeits no matter the result. If it were a vote, I would probably swing toward they stand no matter what the results.

[kratos644]

It appears the monkis probably won't be competing in this one. It's not official but not many are sounding too excited about it in the forum.

Is Scott too afraid that he won't be able to back up his talk? I'm not surprised.

Scott was fine with it but 2 members can't play the league alone. Scott can easily back up his talk so I don't wanna hear it. ^^

[chephren]

I'm suggesting that the result stands (no forfeits). It's a rarer scenario for a team that loses a player to actually benefit from it. If that player also happens to be in, say, 8-15 games, then the overall weight of benefit will almost certainly favour the other team.

I have to say that if it's a Dubs game the result should not stand and should be replayed or even forfeited...2v2 Dubs games are normally over relatively quickly anyway, so a replay would not hold up the tournament. You can normally play 2 or 3 Dubs games before a Quads game is over.
It's a farce if the "offending" clan is rewarded with a win in a Dubs game BECAUSE their guy got kicked and handed multiple bonuses and territories - which has happened and will happen again. Say this guy is in 3 or 4 Dubs games....the "offending" clan likely wins them all.

In Trips and Quads games having a guy kicked usually turns out to be a disadvantage: true.

In about 80% of games played, a player getting kicked out will end up in the team losing anyway. What happened to us was extremely rare. (A player was booted when it was the other player's turn, so all his territory turned over, giving the one player left some huge bonuses for one round, and it was enough to secure it and the game). But honestly, we were behind there anyway. In the other game he was in (a trips), we destroyed them after he was booted.

I can go either way here. Either they all stand no matter the results, or they are all forfeits no matter the result. If it were a vote, I would probably swing toward they stand no matter what the results.

I disagree, fearless leader, but looks like I may be outvoted here
That game was in the balance before he got booted. It wasn't my game but I was watching it... it didn't happen like you say..it was our team's turn straight after he got booted... and we could do nothing about the 11 or 12 deploy he suddenly had with our 3 or 4 deploy. You can check with Canda Vespin.
I still believe that any Dubs game on a larger map ( like Oasis in this instance) where a guy gets booted will give an advantage to the "offending" clan.
You've already said on our forum it needs to be addressed for CLA Season 3 - don't know why it shouldn't be addressed for the Cup too? Unless you've changed your mind?
But ...make a ruling and that's the end of it, I guess.

[poptartpsycho18]

Left4Dead:
Primary: poptartpsycho18
Second: ga7

[laddida]

It appears the monkis probably won't be competing in this one. It's not official but not many are sounding too excited about it in the forum.

Is Scott too afraid that he won't be able to back up his talk? I'm not surprised.

Scott was fine with it but 2 members can't play the league alone. Scott can easily back up his talk so I don't wanna hear it. ^^

its not scotts decision its the clans decision and were wore out from constant cla and 3 clan wars pretty much all non stop for the past year and some months. Some of us need a break and this just came at a bad time. SO say whatcha want we put up a vote and it was pretty much no question monkis need a breather for a bit.

[Chuuuuck]

No worries guys. It's no big deal and I can understand why you aren't participating. I don't think Lubawski means it either, he was just a little offended by Scott's comments in another thread.

I will go ahead and take TSM off of the roster. Hope you all participate in the next one.