Clan League Season 2 [PUBLIC Discussion]

[jpcloet]

Some clans don't like card games, some clans don't like unlimited forts. There were no complaints around settings used in Season 1. I think the clans will make good choices around their maps and settings. If it does happen, I'm sure it will be minimal.

[ahunda]

Several people have suggested going to 8-4-4, however, I'd say 9-4-4 works better.

Well. I was taking 8-4-4, because it says so in your first post. So I was assuming, that this is the current proposal. 9-4-4 is just as fine with me.

My point however was the set-up of the play-offs: 7-0-0 (as in your first post). That is, what I / my clan don´t agree with.

As for the finals, there is no real upper ranked clan, so some other method would be needed.

We could use random map for that. Or limit it to a randomly chosen classic style / standard map, as this would give no advantage to specialists on either side.

There are almost 130 available maps, no more than double for all season and playoffs would be somewhere in between. Does that seem fair. The use of maps by far was the biggest complaint I received in Season 1

Yes. Fair enough.


As for the Doodle-Quads-debate (you know, what I mean):

As Bruce pointed out: If a weaker clan faces a superior one, they could choose to play their Quads on these Doodle-style-mini-maps and their chance at winning would increase to roughly 50 %. I see potential for abuse there.

The whole argument about freedom of choice doesn´t cut it for me. After all, we have certain limits & restrictions in place already, and that is for a reason. This is merely a suggestion for one more limit, and for a reason too.

The question is: Do we want this to be a competition of skill ?

Yes, drop & dice play a role in every single game here on CC. It always is a mixture of both skill & luck. And yes, even on maps like Supermax & Waterloo you can get a very lopsided drop. This is part of the game.

The settings in question however (Quads on those Doodle-mini-maps) will always & every time make for a completely luck-based game.

How about this:

Someone (who ever has done this work already) prepares a list of recommended quad maps so that at least all the clans are informed of which maps are best suited to quads In Your Opinion. The Clan Directors will monitor the map usage as we already plan to, and if there is a serious issue or abuse in some way, we will intervene, otherwise we will see how it goes and look at changing for season 3 if there is an issue.

I don´t know. Most maps can be used / are ok for Quads. Recommendations would be a very subjective thing. I actually find it easier to point out those, that are simply bad.

And before we get all heated up, let´s remember, that we are talking about a handful of maps only. And those would still be available for Doubles.

8 player games starting with 3 terrs each:

- Circus Maximus
- Duck & Cover
- Egypt: Upper
- Greater China
- Haiti
- Indochina
- Madagascar
- Operation Drug War
- USA West

8 player games starting with 2 terrs each:

- Doodle Earth
- Egypt: Lower
- Egypt: Nubia
- Luxembourg

If we´d set a limit at 4 terrs, 13 maps would not be allowed for Quads. 4 would not be allowed for Trips. All would be allowed for Doubles.

If we´d set a limit at 3 terrs, 4 maps would not be allowed for Quads. And as far as I can see, all would be allowed for Trips & Doubles.

[TheBro]

Totally against limiting the choices. It probably won't even be necessary because clans will use those games for doubles most likely, but if anyone wants to play quads Luxembourg then they should be allowed..

[niMic]

Totally against limiting the choices. It probably won't even be necessary because clans will use those games for doubles most likely, but if anyone wants to play quads Luxembourg then they should be allowed..

And if someone wants to play Classic five times, they should be allowed to do that too, right? Point is, we've already got restrictions, so this seemingly principled stand against map restrictions doesn't make much sense.

[Bones2484]

Totally against limiting the choices. It probably won't even be necessary because clans will use those games for doubles most likely, but if anyone wants to play quads Luxembourg then they should be allowed..

And if someone wants to play Classic five times, they should be allowed to do that too, right? Point is, we've already got restrictions, so this seemingly principled stand against map restrictions doesn't make much sense.

Really? You don't see the difference between telling a clan they can't use City Mogul for all 10 games and telling them they can't use City Mogul at all?

[niMic]

Totally against limiting the choices. It probably won't even be necessary because clans will use those games for doubles most likely, but if anyone wants to play quads Luxembourg then they should be allowed..

And if someone wants to play Classic five times, they should be allowed to do that too, right? Point is, we've already got restrictions, so this seemingly principled stand against map restrictions doesn't make much sense.

Really? You don't see the difference between telling a clan they can't use City Mogul for all 10 games and telling them they can't use City Mogul at all?

Who said anything about City Mogul?

And you're twisting the point. The proposal isn't that they can't use a certain map at all, it's that they can't use a certain map for quads and trips. Since most games aren't quads or trips, your argument falls flat.

[ahunda]

Really? You don't see the difference between telling a clan they can't use City Mogul for all 10 games and telling them they can't use City Mogul at all?

All maps could still be used. Only a handful would not be allowed for 1 or 2 game types:

If we´d set a limit at 4 terrs, 13 maps would not be allowed for Quads. 4 would not be allowed for Trips. All would be allowed for Doubles.

If we´d set a limit at 3 terrs, 4 maps would not be allowed for Quads. And as far as I can see, all would be allowed for Trips & Doubles.

But I stated my opinion and will not make a crusade out of this.

[lgoasklucyl]

I don't know if I missed this in the outline or not... but PLEASE enact some sort of penalty for games either being set up late or individuals not having their clanmates join games in a timely manor.

This past season we had quite a few problems with this, both with our games being dropped (due to the other team not joining for THAT long!) or other teams sending us their games either one or two weeks late and us having to play two sets of games at the same time.

It's simply not fair to have to account for that many extra games due to another clan's irresponsibility. There should be a timeframe/forfeit rule so such overlap does not occur.

[jpcloet]

I don't know why it happened, but it almost always happened against IA. I have to give your clan props as you seemed to have had to deal with the most crap. Blitzaholic was a big proponent of joining within a time range.

Given the games will likely be sent out on a Sunday, what makes sense?

[jpcloet]

(56+8+8)=72 (assuming you are top clan and make second round) more likely 64 though.

2 repeats = at least 36 maps
3 repeats = at least 24 maps
4 repeats = at least 18 maps
5 repeats = at least 15 maps

Trying to find balance here is not easy.

How about 2 repeats for the season and you can have a 3rd repeat in the playoffs/relegation? Or just go 3 repeats for all?

[jpcloet]

I didn't track but I'm going to look at actual Season 1 usage.

[ahunda]

I think, you should take the 56 regular season games as starting point. 5 out of 8 clans will not play any play-off / relegation matches anyway.

2 repeats in 56 games = at least 28 maps
3 repeats in 56 games = at least 19 maps

And allowing 1 more repeat for the play-offs sounds good to me. So clans don´t have to consider all the time, if they better hold back with a certain map, so that they can use it in the play-offs, if they qualify for them.

So this sounds good to me:

How about 2 repeats for the season and you can have a 3rd repeat in the playoffs/relegation?

[lgoasklucyl]

I don't know why it happened, but it almost always happened against IA. I have to give your clan props as you seemed to have had to deal with the most crap. Blitzaholic was a big proponent of joining within a time range.

Given the games will likely be sent out on a Sunday, what makes sense?

It really depends on the situation and how everyone else giving input feels about it.

With regards to a time limit, it's hard to say. A week is a long time and if it gets pushed out to a week then you may overlap games due to late joiners. A short time limit (let's just say 3 days) may be difficult, though would really smooth out the process. I understand individuals having lives outside of ConquerClub and all that, but I really don't see how an organized group of individuals could take more than 3 days to join a list of games sent to them.

In all reality, with no procrastination, it takes no more than fifteen-twenty minutes for someone to sit down, divvy up the games, and send them out. If this is done on day one, they can send a reminder on day two, and get up the player's ass on day three. If a player takes more than 3 days to join a game, they obviously are not checking PMs or are blatantly ignoring their CD and their clan should seriously ponder switching a new player in and handling the inactivity of said player.

The whole not joining until the games drop ordeal? Totally unacceptable. Any clan who takes that long should be punished for doing so. I'm not sure exactly how that would be done fairly, as giving the team 10 (or however many games we end up with this season) losses to the other teams 10 wins is a bit severe and may skew things a little bit on the leader board. Robbing the team who's games were not joined of potential wins, on the other hand, is just as severe.

The CDs and anyone else giving input here really need to figure out a viable means of handling this situation, without the team having to remake their games while being in the middle of another week of games. It simply is not fair to the organized, responsible clan leaders/mates to have to put up with individuals who cannot follow simple instructions. Those individuals need to be properly punished in this situation so as to avoid further similar situations.

[jpcloet]

In all reality, with no procrastination, it takes no more than fifteen-twenty minutes for someone to sit down, divvy up the games, and send them out. If this is done on day one, they can send a reminder on day two, and get up the player's ass on day three. If a player takes more than 3 days to join a game, they obviously are not checking PMs or are blatantly ignoring their CD and their clan should seriously ponder switching a new player in and handling the inactivity of said player.

Each clan is run differently. I'm told some are pure democracies and are why they take longer to assign games. My process for away games has been 2 days of signups, I then send games based on choice, and then assign. That can easily take 4-5 days once they have all joined. 1 week sounds fair.

[lokisgal]

Sounds great. IA is certainly in. Will get our clan leaders to confirm.

Confirming that the Immortal Assassins will indeed be part of season 2

[soundman]

The Last Warriors will be in Season 2.

First contact: soundman
Second contact:azezzo

[jpcloet]

Now taking formal signups:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ead#unread

[Blitzaholic]

I don't know why it happened, but it almost always happened against IA. I have to give your clan props as you seemed to have had to deal with the most crap. Blitzaholic was a big proponent of joining within a time range.

Given the games will likely be sent out on a Sunday, what makes sense?

a 72 hour time frame, each win worth 1.0 match point, after 72 hours a penalty of -0.1 (one tenth on a point) small penalty, but there should be a rule in place for this, of course every 24 hours past 72 hours, like 96 hours and still not joined, -0.2 MP (match points) etc.

[Chariot of Fire]

I don't know why it happened, but it almost always happened against IA. I have to give your clan props as you seemed to have had to deal with the most crap. Blitzaholic was a big proponent of joining within a time range.

Given the games will likely be sent out on a Sunday, what makes sense?

a 72 hour time frame, each win worth 1.0 match point, after 72 hours a penalty of -0.1 (one tenth on a point) small penalty, but there should be a rule in place for this, of course every 24 hours past 72 hours, like 96 hours and still not joined, -0.2 MP (match points) etc.

I concur with Blitz that penalty points - deducted from those already earned - would be the best deterrent. The concept of forfeiting games is too inequitable and - whilst it may be fair to penalise the late team in such a way - it does offer too great an advantage to the team whose games were not joined in time, resulting in a feeling of ill-will (and even a chance of manipulating scores).

I would add however that 72 hours may be too brief given the nature of the format. Unlike a tourney (same teams & players) this has a more dynamic range involving all clan members and as such will span all time zones. A day or two can easily be lost in cross-correspondence, or due to the temporary absence of a clan admin, so would suggest a compromise of 96 hours (1 Day to receive notice and send out PMs, 2 Days for correspondence and assignments, 1 Day for joining).

I also think the penalty points could be raised from 0.1 to 0.5 as once a 0.1 penalty has been incurred it would effectively allow a further eight games to be joined late without any real impact on the overall score (39.9 is really not much different to 39.1 once a clan has entered the realms of decimal points). 0.5 would have a greater impact, even after the first penalty had been incurred.

Thanks for your consideration

CoF

[jpcloet]

Please re-read the final settings. Penalties have been added.

Clans are asked to fill the games within 1 week. If a clan is late, they will receive a warning the first time. The second time, they will be defaulted for half of the late games (rounded down), and then if it happens a third time, they will be defaulted on all games.

[Georgerx7di]

I would like to make a couple of suggestions. I am not in a clan yet, but will be soon; and i've been around for a block on CC.

1. Everyone knows classic, or should know it. Maybe make that an exception (since everyone knows it), so that if a clan runs out of maps they like, or runs out of maps that are good for that game style, they can just pick classic. In other words, give the option to the home team to pick classic as many times as they want.

2. Another choice that may ease the concern of running out of maps would be to let teams play each map 2 times, instead of one.

Either of these options may ease concerns about home team running out of maps to play. You said that there are 135 maps, but lets be honest, a lot of them are only suited for certain types of games. Many maps you cannot even play quads on, Aor's, fuedal, etc. So maybe one of the above options would help alleviate some of the problem.



Edit: Sorry, I saw you already thought of option 2.

[TheBro]

Surely people can find at least 28 different maps to play on without going back to the classic map. AND, you can already play classic 4 times.

[Evil Semp]

It would be a great strategy for a lesser clan to pick a map like doodle earth in a quads to luck into a victory. I agree we need some sort of limits to triples and quads. There are only a few maps that should be off limits for those.

Wouldn't it be a great strategy for a "Better" clan to choose a complicated map? In other words you are trying to take a perceived advantage away from the team that would choose the small map while retaining your perceived advantage by choosing a complicated map.

Unless a quads or trips game can't be played on the map because of the number of territories then it should be allowed.

[Hopscotcher]

GOTTA SAY.... I hate Classic lol.

[Seulessliathan]

penalties make sense, but 72 hours is very short.

Usually, it goes like this:

A player from Clan A creates a game and pm´s his leader
20 hours later, the leader gets the pm but is busy
10 hours later, he pm´s the other clan B leader
this pm is found about 20 hours later
perhaps 5 hours later he put´s that game in forum
after 10 hours, some of his clanmates see the games
they spend about 40 hours with pm´s due to time zones, talking about teams, map experts, settings etc
then they join all during the next 20 hours

that´s 125 hours in total, about 6 days ... and this is for the case no part of the chain is broken, and if the clan manages to finish the discussion about best team for that game during 40 hours ( i have seen games for which this took more than a week)

i would suggest we use the full 2 weeks , and before the away team gets a penalty, we have to make sure the home team sent the game number in time.
If a game auto dropped and away team was informed in time (at least after one week? 3 days?) , i would vote for a penalty


keep in mind, there aren´t only pro gamers , but fun players like me who don´t think about CC 25 hours per day