CCup 4 format discussion (ver 5, p. 28)

[IcePack]

Play-in round, Round of 32, Round of 16
- 41 total games
- 12 doubles, 14 triples, 14 quads with 31st game being Quads on World 2.1, sunny, chained, no spoils
- Each clan member can only participate in 12 games per clan war
- Each round will be played in two batches with exactly half of the games in each batch

Minor correction needed, to 41st.

[josko.ri]

[*]Clans ranked 5 — 32 will be divided in 4 pots:

1. Pot A — clans from 5 to 11
2. Pot B — clans from 12 to 18
3. Pot C — clans from 19 to 25
4. Pot D — clans from 26 to 32

[*]After that they will be randomly paired with the following idea: clan from Pot A vs clan from Pot C or clan from Pot B vs clan from Pot D[/list]
Here is an image of brackets for 35 clans so you can grasp an idea of how it will work.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6157/ccbrackets.jpg

Again, again and again Dako. Do you really make fools of all of us who spent a lot of time discussing format possibilities, and then you came with format which is impossible, and 8 years old kid who just started learn mathematics would be able to realize it is impossible.

In the given picture example, Your round of 32 has 21 places for clans from pots+3 places for winners of play in round. BUT, number of spots in your pots (from 5~29, because 30~35 is play in round) is 25. So how 25 clans which enter draw can fill 21 slots?

[Doc_Brown]

[*]Clans ranked 5 — 32 will be divided in 4 pots:

1. Pot A — clans from 5 to 11
2. Pot B — clans from 12 to 18
3. Pot C — clans from 19 to 25
4. Pot D — clans from 26 to 32

[*]After that they will be randomly paired with the following idea: clan from Pot A vs clan from Pot C or clan from Pot B vs clan from Pot D[/list]
Here is an image of brackets for 35 clans so you can grasp an idea of how it will work.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6157/ccbrackets.jpg

Again, again and again Dako. Do you really make fools of all of us who spent a lot of time discussing format possibilities, and then you came with format which is impossible, and 8 years old kid who just started learn mathematics would be able to realize it is impossible.

In the given picture example, Your round of 32 has 21 places for clans from pots+3 places for winners of play in round. BUT, number of spots in your pots (from 5~29, because 30~35 is play in round) is 25. So how 25 clans which enter draw can fill 21 slots?

There's no need to be nasty Josko. You're right that there is a math error though. It's the common fencepost error. There will only be 24 teams playing in the "round of 32" with 4 more teams skipping it to the round of 16. An easy way to think about it is, with 4 teams skipping to the next round, there are 4 fewer games played in the "round of 32," which accounts for 8 teams.

Anyway, the concept still works, it just has to be refined a bit. Groups A-D will have 6 teams each (5-10, 11-16, 17-22, and 23-28). If you have between 29 and 34 (inclusive) teams signed up, some or all of the group D slots will be filled by play-in games. If you have between 35 and 40 (inclusive) teams, some of the group C slots will also be filled by play-in games. If more than 40 teams sign up, I'd rethink the initial rounds.

[Keefie]

I would like to see a clan vote in the CD&F regarding seeding or random draw.

[josko.ri]

[*]Clans ranked 5 — 32 will be divided in 4 pots:

1. Pot A — clans from 5 to 11
2. Pot B — clans from 12 to 18
3. Pot C — clans from 19 to 25
4. Pot D — clans from 26 to 32

[*]After that they will be randomly paired with the following idea: clan from Pot A vs clan from Pot C or clan from Pot B vs clan from Pot D[/list]
Here is an image of brackets for 35 clans so you can grasp an idea of how it will work.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6157/ccbrackets.jpg

Again, again and again Dako. Do you really make fools of all of us who spent a lot of time discussing format possibilities, and then you came with format which is impossible, and 8 years old kid who just started learn mathematics would be able to realize it is impossible.

In the given picture example, Your round of 32 has 21 places for clans from pots+3 places for winners of play in round. BUT, number of spots in your pots (from 5~29, because 30~35 is play in round) is 25. So how 25 clans which enter draw can fill 21 slots?

There's no need to be nasty Josko. You're right that there is a math error though. It's the common fencepost error. There will only be 24 teams playing in the "round of 32" with 4 more teams skipping it to the round of 16. An easy way to think about it is, with 4 teams skipping to the next round, there are 4 fewer games played in the "round of 32," which accounts for 8 teams.

Well, there have been several pages discussing about format, and in addition there have already been one warning from me that there is mathematical error in the suggested format when Dako last time put format idea, and after all that, among various format suggestions by many players (which may be not ideal formats and may be diversity of opinions in them, but at least do not have mathematical errors) he came with idea which has mathematical error. That is for sure really encouraging for players to put their ideas and to contribute here, when their ideas is just ignored in favor of idea with mathematical error.

And you really do not need explain to me which is easy way to think about it, explain it to Dako, he obviously has hard time to think about it on mathematically correct way, even after being warned first time that his idea has error. Check this idea, it will show you that I very well understand how system of byes and reducing/increasing number of clans per rounds is working according to number of byes awarded. That idea has easy solution for any number of participating clans. Maybe is not the best idea, but for sure does not have mathematical error in itself, when I suggest something I am doing my job seriously: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p4085818

Anyway, the concept still works, it just has to be refined a bit. Groups A-D will have 6 teams each (5-10, 11-16, 17-22, and 23-28). If you have between 29 and 34 (inclusive) teams signed up, some or all of the group D slots will be filled by play-in games. If you have between 35 and 40 (inclusive) teams, some of the group C slots will also be filled by play-in games. If more than 40 teams sign up, I'd rethink the initial rounds.

This has sense, but I am not sure if this is what Dako was meant, I am not mind reader to know it. Actually, (only) in the case of 40 clans participating, the idea which you describe here is the same like my proposing idea.

[josko.ri]

I would like to see a clan vote in the CD&F regarding seeding or random draw.

Are you sure those are only 2 solutions? For what I can read, current proposed draw format of Dako is nor seeding nor random draw, it is something third.

[jetsetwilly]

I would like to see a clan vote in the CD&F regarding seeding or random draw.

Agreed but we need to clearly define the various alternatives here before we can do that.

[Chariot of Fire]

Is it not possible to find out beforehand exactly how many clans will be participating, i.e. get sign-ups now, and then work out the format for the draw? Final format can be discussed here and voted on in CDF, where every participating clan will have a voice and a vote. Just seems very 'cart before horse' trying to implement a draw system when one doesn't even know the number of combatants.

Some questions re Draft v.4.......

1. Why does a clan have to have 15 members? If 126 spots have to be filled and the quota per player is 12 games, then a clan needs just 11 members to fulfill the requirements for Play-in, Rnd of 32 and Rnd of 16.

2. Re player eligibility. It only says "If a player joins a clan......". Surely the cup-tied rule should only apply to players who are joining a clan from another clan and who have already participated in the current competition. If a clan recruits someone who has never been in a clan or has who not played in the active edition of the Cup I fail to see why that player should have to miss a round.

3. "Fog of rule" should read "Fog of war"

4. Participation. If a player may play max 12 of 41, and max 22 of 81, wouldn't it be better if it was max 17 of 61? It preserves the ratio if it is 17 (or do you only like even numbers)

5. Final. If it is played over 4 batches it could take months. Why not make it 3 batches?

6. The 'timing out' rules are ridiculously severe. A remake for first offence in any spoils game? So, for example, when a snowstorm hits a Chicago suburb and the power goes down mid-turn in a Flat Rate game it will be remade? Yay! for the lucky team who was behind. Or, even better, "Hey we are losing this game....just time-out and it will be remade". Do you see my point? This rule needs a serious rethink. It may even be better to leave it to the clans to negotiate between themselves (let's face it, it only applies to nuke spoils) what the penalty should be. Some clans might not want a penalty at all and consider timing-out a perfectly legitimate strategy. The circumstances surrounding the reasons for a timeout can never be proven, so who is to be punished here? The poor bastard whose power went out while his team was ahead - and then the CDs have to make an impartial ruling?

7. Changes by mutual agreement. Both numbers of trench games and round limits may be changed (fair enough) though I do think trench should definitely be restricted to 30 rounds or we could end up with interminable games. So a fixed rule 'Trench games must have a 30 round limit set on them'

That's all, thanks.

[Dako]

the only potential loophole I found is this:

Timing-out, missing turns or dead beating in No Spoils games will not be investigated, or result in any penalties.

In this, a clan could potentially have somebody deadbeat intentionally in a no spoils giving their territs and troops to a teammate and changing the flow of the game. I doubt this is likely to happen, but it's still a possibility.

Intentional deadbeating is punishable by C&A. It has nothing to do with clan games. I don't think we have extra rules about NS deadbeating.

Again, again and again Dako. Do you really make fools of all of us who spent a lot of time discussing format possibilities, and then you came with format which is impossible, and 8 years old kid who just started learn mathematics would be able to realize it is impossible.

In the given picture example, Your round of 32 has 21 places for clans from pots+3 places for winners of play in round. BUT, number of spots in your pots (from 5~29, because 30~35 is play in round) is 25. So how 25 clans which enter draw can fill 21 slots?

Ahh, my rude guy, I made that list in 2am after I've been working all Sunday. Sorry that I made math mistake that you were so eager to catch and crucify me about. Next time I post anything here I will be send it to you to proof-read it and do the math and stamp it with approval for me beforehand. I am really sorry that I didn't stand up to your expectations and failed to do the math this time.

Anyway, the concept still works, it just has to be refined a bit. Groups A-D will have 6 teams each (5-10, 11-16, 17-22, and 23-28). If you have between 29 and 34 (inclusive) teams signed up, some or all of the group D slots will be filled by play-in games. If you have between 35 and 40 (inclusive) teams, some of the group C slots will also be filled by play-in games. If more than 40 teams sign up, I'd rethink the initial rounds.

This has sense, but I am not sure if this is what Dako was meant, I am not mind reader to know it. Actually, (only) in the case of 40 clans participating, the idea which you describe here is the same like my proposing idea.

Yes, Doc did grasp my idea of the bracket system correctly.

Is it not possible to find out beforehand exactly how many clans will be participating, i.e. get sign-ups now, and then work out the format for the draw? Final format can be discussed here and voted on in CDF, where every participating clan will have a voice and a vote. Just seems very 'cart before horse' trying to implement a draw system when one doesn't even know the number of combatants.

Some questions re Draft v.4.......

1. Why does a clan have to have 15 members? If 126 spots have to be filled and the quota per player is 12 games, then a clan needs just 11 members to fulfill the requirements for Play-in, Rnd of 32 and Rnd of 16.

2. Re player eligibility. It only says "If a player joins a clan......". Surely the cup-tied rule should only apply to players who are joining a clan from another clan and who have already participated in the current competition. If a clan recruits someone who has never been in a clan or has who not played in the active edition of the Cup I fail to see why that player should have to miss a round.

3. "Fog of rule" should read "Fog of war"

4. Participation. If a player may play max 12 of 41, and max 22 of 81, wouldn't it be better if it was max 17 of 61? It preserves the ratio if it is 17 (or do you only like even numbers) ;)

5. Final. If it is played over 4 batches it could take months. Why not make it 3 batches?

6. The 'timing out' rules are ridiculously severe. A remake for first offence in any spoils game? So, for example, when a snowstorm hits a Chicago suburb and the power goes down mid-turn in a Flat Rate game it will be remade? Yay! for the lucky team who was behind. Or, even better, "Hey we are losing this game....just time-out and it will be remade". Do you see my point? This rule needs a serious rethink. It may even be better to leave it to the clans to negotiate between themselves (let's face it, it only applies to nuke spoils) what the penalty should be. Some clans might not want a penalty at all and consider timing-out a perfectly legitimate strategy. The circumstances surrounding the reasons for a timeout can never be proven, so who is to be punished here? The poor bastard whose power went out while his team was ahead - and then the CDs have to make an impartial ruling?

7. Changes by mutual agreement. Both numbers of trench games and round limits may be changed (fair enough) though I do think trench should definitely be restricted to 30 rounds or we could end up with interminable games. So a fixed rule 'Trench games must have a 30 round limit set on them'

That's all, thanks.

1. I set up this req so that clan can fill all the slots even when some of the members are on vacation or cannot play right now. What would you change that number to then?
2. Sure, I will change the wording.
3. Same.
4. I like even numbers ;). But I am ok to change it to 17 as well.
5. Well, people complained that 61 games in 2 batches is hard (30 games a batch), so 81 games in 3 batches (27 games per batch) is almost as hard. That is why I suggested 4 batches.
6. Sorry, that is what CD's insist upon. The game will be remade only if the timing-out was abusive. CDs will personally make impartial ruling. And if you want to change it — please discuss it with CDs and not me. I don't like and don't want this rule.
7. Makes sense, but I will not add it to the rules because people has to approve rules of each round with me if the make changes. If they want to drop round limit I will kindly remind them that it cannot be dropped from trench games.

[Nicky15]

In regards to timing out. The Cup and the Clan league are CD led events. We cannot condone any perceived methods of cheating. If you take a territory you get a card. That is the way the game is designed and we can't allow any exploitation of loopholes. If you claim timed out by "accident" and this time out leads to your team gaining an advantage then the game will be remade. However If the time out, the 1st course of action will be to speak to both clans and see if they want the game to be remade. We can also wait until the game finishes. It will be up to the wronged clan to make the final decision, but if they want a remake they will get one. My advice is to make sure you don't time out

This only applies to escalating and Nuclear spoils.

[Nicky15]

@ the people who do not know the art of constructive criticism.

Our Tournament organizers put a great deal of time and effort into running our clan events for us. They do not deserve to be disrespected. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you do no agree with something then you are more than welcome to share your opinion in this thread. BUT if you cant do this constructively, omitting insults, calling them useless or their format nonsense and generally insulting them then please refrain from posting any further comments.

If you spot a mistake all you have to say is something like "i think the maths are wrong" this gets the point across just fine. There is no need for a long winded insulting post. The CDs will not condone anyone who insists on insulting our TOs they work very hard for all of us participating in these tournaments and as such they should be spoken to with respect. If you can't do that then do not post.

[Chariot of Fire]

In regards to timing out. The Cup and the Clan league are CD led events. We cannot condone any perceived methods of cheating. If you take a territory you get a card. That is the way the game is designed and we can't allow any exploitation of loopholes. If you claim timed out by "accident" and this time out leads to your team gaining an advantage then the game will be remade. However If the time out, the 1st course of action will be to speak to both clans and see if they want the game to be remade. We can also wait until the game finishes. It will be up to the wronged clan to make the final decision, but if they want a remake they will get one. My advice is to make sure you don't time out

This only applies to escalating and Nuclear spoils.

OK, thanks for clarifying. You can see why I think the v.4 wording maybe needs a rewrite though. Perhaps I can suggest something to Dako when I have a mo.

[Nicky15]

In regards to timing out. The Cup and the Clan league are CD led events. We cannot condone any perceived methods of cheating. If you take a territory you get a card. That is the way the game is designed and we can't allow any exploitation of loopholes. If you claim timed out by "accident" and this time out leads to your team gaining an advantage then the game will be remade. However If the time out, the 1st course of action will be to speak to both clans and see if they want the game to be remade. We can also wait until the game finishes. It will be up to the wronged clan to make the final decision, but if they want a remake they will get one. My advice is to make sure you don't time out

This only applies to escalating and Nuclear spoils.

OK, thanks for clarifying. You can see why I think the v.4 wording maybe needs a rewrite though. Perhaps I can suggest something to Dako when I have a mo.

As it a CD rule we can work something out.

[Qwert]

well i think that we need to play withouth play -in rounds. In bouth cases top clans start in Top 16.

Lets to refresh mine schemes for:
32 Clans

Click image to enlarge.

36 clans

Click image to enlarge.

if need can build scheme for 40 clans to.

[josko.ri]

well i think that we need to play withouth play -in rounds. In bouth cases top clans start in Top 16.

What you call Round 1 in your suggestion, Dako calls play-in round in his suggestion. You may call it shit round if you wish, it will still be the same thing, just differently named.

[Chariot of Fire]

well i think that we need to play withouth play -in rounds. In bouth cases top clans start in Top 16.

What you call Round 1 in your suggestion, Dako calls play-in round in his suggestion. You may call it shit round if you wish, it will still be the same thing, just differently named.

Classy

[josko.ri]

well i think that we need to play withouth play -in rounds. In bouth cases top clans start in Top 16.

What you call Round 1 in your suggestion, Dako calls play-in round in his suggestion. You may call it shit round if you wish, it will still be the same thing, just differently named.

Classy

Not insulting anyone, just expressing that essence of a round is important, not name of the round.
Another point is that qwert says he do not like play-in round, and in his format suggestion (which I support) there is Round 1 which has the same weight like play-in round in Dako's suggestion, just different name.

Btw- Nice try to quote my post before I even get chance to edit/delete it . I do not see other purpose of your post other than that, as you did not contribute to the discussion at all with your comment.

[Leehar]

In regards to timing out. The Cup and the Clan league are CD led events. We cannot condone any perceived methods of cheating. If you take a territory you get a card. That is the way the game is designed and we can't allow any exploitation of loopholes. If you claim timed out by "accident" and this time out leads to your team gaining an advantage then the game will be remade. However If the time out, the 1st course of action will be to speak to both clans and see if they want the game to be remade. We can also wait until the game finishes. It will be up to the wronged clan to make the final decision, but if they want a remake they will get one. My advice is to make sure you don't time out

This only applies to escalating and Nuclear spoils.

OK, thanks for clarifying. You can see why I think the v.4 wording maybe needs a rewrite though. Perhaps I can suggest something to Dako when I have a mo.

As it a CD rule we can work something out.

And just as a reminder, this wording should be almost identical to whats already in place with CL4 & CL5, and if I remember correctly was agreed upon in deliberations with the CLA.

(And as background info, it was put into place after controversy in the cl4 Finals where 1 of the clans timed out in escalating to stay behind in cards (while still taking terr)

I'm sure we can discuss whether further wording amendments are necessary taking cognizance of the point Crazyirish made with NS etc, but I personally don't feel it really needs much attention bearing in mind it went without referral to in CL4 & the current ruling still gives us(CD's) the ambit to make fair and reasonable decisions if instances of abuse comes up.

More importantly however, the seeding is certainly a hot topic, and I must concur that the thought of possibly#1 vs #5 (in the F400) occurring in the round of 16 is very disconcerting.

I can also understand the desire to decrease the player limit, but I'd prefer to avoid messing with what works. So 15/41; 20/61 was in the previous Cup?

If you want to make the above 2 significant choices, I'd really suggest it be left to a vote. The experience with the Map limit suggests most clans would prefer to retain the player limits as it was previously (Which is a perfectly understandable considering often all members of a clan are not heavily involved, so when allocating away maps especially, it often falls on the more active members to bear the load rather than a desire for anyone to control most of the war).

[Chariot of Fire]

I can feel the urge to contribute any further rapidly diminishing, lol.

[Dako]

More importantly however, the seeding is certainly a hot topic, and I must concur that the thought of possibly#1 vs #5 (in the F400) occurring in the round of 16 is very disconcerting.

I can also understand the desire to decrease the player limit, but I'd prefer to avoid messing with what works. So 15/41; 20/61 was in the previous Cup?

If you want to make the above 2 significant choices, I'd really suggest it be left to a vote. The experience with the Map limit suggests most clans would prefer to retain the player limits as it was previously (Which is a perfectly understandable considering often all members of a clan are not heavily involved, so when allocating away maps especially, it often falls on the more active members to bear the load rather than a desire for anyone to control most of the war).

#1 vs #5 will be a hot match-up no matter where it will happen - in the finals or in the round of 16. Why is it disconcerting to you?

As far as the map limits, it was easy to predict that 70% of people will always vote for "leave things as they are" option. If we want to drive changes we should not allow to vote "leave as it was", because people will always choose that option. We should present two-three or more new alternatives so people have to choose only between them.

But if you ask me, I don't think that voting for event rules is a good idea at all. Most of the voters don't follow this thread, or don't have in-depth view of clan area. We will walk into the same trap twice if we allow votes for seeding system. Heck, this entire thread would not have been necessary, we could have left everything as it was and people would be satisfied (and I am sure I messed with tenses in this sentence).

But changes are good. I like to change even things that work if I see that change will be beneficial.

[josko.ri]

#1 vs #5 will be a hot match-up no matter where it will happen - in the finals or in the round of 16. Why is it disconcerting to you?

I am sure that nobody suggested this idea in this topic. At one hand you say why we need voting if this topic is here, and in other hand you make some autocratic decision that was not suggested by anyone. If your argument is that this thread is here to get ideas from here, please do so. Some players suggested "leave it as it is" 1v32, 2v31..., some others suggested totally random draw, some third suggested make upper half of the draw seeds and lower half of the draw random assigned non-seeds for every round, but so far nobody suggested to make pots like you did in your suggestion (pots A-C, B-D). Please respect amount of time that players put in this thread and discussion and value their ideas, especially if you want that they respect your time put into organizing this.

[Dako]

I never thought about dividing clans into seed or doing random drawing before people have posted it here. So I took those ideas and changed them a little to include some of my own views.

If I didn't respect the time people put into discussions I'd never start them in the first place. I also would not reply to people who cannot discuss things in a calm manner.

If I don't copy suggestions 100% from what people post it doesn't mean I ignore them completely.

[josko.ri]

I never thought about dividing clans into seed or doing random drawing before people have posted it here. So I took those ideas and changed them a little to include some of my own views.

If I didn't respect the time people put into discussions I'd never start them in the first place. I also would not reply to people who cannot discuss things in a calm manner.

If I don't copy suggestions 100% from what people post it doesn't mean I ignore them completely.

This is wrong way. When someone put an idea, he has some reasoning for it why he think it is good, and just a little change may make idea very bad even from perspective of the one who suggested it.

To give a real example for that, you said you used my suggestion as basis for your idea but then you put some your additions into it. At the end, it was far away from my original idea. If you ask me for rank format ideas, I would put mine #1, qwert's #2, IcePack's "leave it as it is" #3 and your current idea #4. If you value someone's suggestion, then accept it in format how the player suggested it because he had his reasoning and background for it. Do not add anything new to original ideas of anyone. Accept ideas, or decline ideas, do not change them. That is why I think voting system is the best way for deciding about key points, because every solution is then valued exactly on the way how author of the solution wanted his idea to be presented, not how you presented it or how you changed it. That may be very different from the goal which author of the idea wanted to achieve with his suggestion.

[Dako]

Can you explain why have you put those ideas in that order? It would be great if you highlighted weak and strong points of each idea.

[Vid_FISO]

If you ask me for rank format ideas, I would put mine #1, qwert's #2, IcePack's "leave it as it is" #3 and your current idea #4.

I'd still put mine (which you've ignored) as #1 - fixed bracket with the top 8 as fixed seeds and random draw for the other positions.