Conquer Club

dako wrote
Clan Eligibility

Clan should have at least 15 members to sign of for the CCup. That clan should also they meet one of the following criteria:

Either be a member of CD&F group
Or get my personal approval

well clan eligibility i think that you need to look on Cl5 and CC3 and to build some combination?

Clan Eligibility
To sign up for CL5, each clan must meet the following criteria.
1-Must be eligible to be members of CD&F (Adhere to the 1 competitive clan rule)
2-Must have completed (enough wins for a decisive winner) 2 competitive clan wars of at least 40 games
3- Must have existed for 3 months
4- Must have at least 14 members

Clan Eligibility
To sign up for the Conquer0r's Cup, each clan must meet the following criteria.

-Must be eligible to be members of the CLA (Adhere to the 1 competetive clan rule)
-Must have completed (enough wins for a decisive winner) 2 competetive clan wars of at least 40 games

We can have lets say a month or two free time between CC3 and CC4, that time would be used for sign ups
and to play out the play-in round, also I would like the play-in round be moved up to 41 games.

One more thing, think it's time for finals to be a 80 games war, seems odd that quarters, semis and finals have the same amount of games.

benga wrote:We can have lets say a month or two free time between CC3 and CC4, that time would be used for sign ups
and to play out the play-in round, also I would like the play-in round be moved up to 41 games.

One more thing, think it's time for finals to be a 80 games war, seems odd that quarters, semis and finals have the same amount of games.

I think I like 21 for play in and use that minor time savings to boost finals to 81

My apologies for not seeing this sooner.

The play-in round of 31 games makes this a tournament under the privileges and medal rules (assuming that privileges will be requested in the first round). Accordingly, if the 31 game round stays intact, there will be no medals for any individual round, only for the winner of the entire tournament. This is probably not the result anyone wants.

chemefreak wrote:My apologies for not seeing this sooner.

The play-in round of 31 games makes this a tournament under the privileges and medal rules (assuming that privileges will be requested in the first round). Accordingly, if the 31 game round stays intact, there will be no medals for any individual round, only for the winner of the entire tournament. This is probably not the result anyone wants.

So if two clans play in, and 1 moved into the clan event, the entire event is over 41 but the play in round screws the whole rest of the event from medals?

IcePack wrote:

chemefreak wrote:My apologies for not seeing this sooner.

The play-in round of 31 games makes this a tournament under the privileges and medal rules (assuming that privileges will be requested in the first round). Accordingly, if the 31 game round stays intact, there will be no medals for any individual round, only for the winner of the entire tournament. This is probably not the result anyone wants.

So if two clans play in, and 1 moved into the clan event, the entire event is over 41 but the play in round screws the whole rest of the event from medals?

Yes. Privileges are only available for two things: Clan Wars (at least 41 games) or Clan Tournaments. Accordingly, the play-in games will not qualify for privileges on their own at 31 games. As such, in order for the play-in games to have privileges at 31 games, they must be a part of a Clan Tournament. Clan Tournaments award medals to overall winners, not individual match-ups within the Tournament.

Thanks for the clarification

chemefreak wrote:Yes. Privileges are only available for two things: Clan Wars (at least 41 games) or Clan Tournaments. Accordingly, the play-in games will not qualify for privileges on their own at 31 games. As such, in order for the play-in games to have privileges at 31 games, they must be a part of a Clan Tournament. Clan Tournaments award medals to overall winners, not individual match-ups within the Tournament.

I think this logic is flawed and we should discuss it and probably change. Denying medals to all valid wars inside a tournament just because play-in round had 10 less games? That is some weird logic.

But, well, in the end we can play the play-in round the old way, with private games and without privileges. That will decide the winner and that winner can enter the group of 32 and then the actual tournament starts. It will have 5 rounds with 40+ games in each. Qualifies then, pain in the ass for the organizers and lower-ranked clans but if this is the way you want it…

Dako wrote:

chemefreak wrote:Yes. Privileges are only available for two things: Clan Wars (at least 41 games) or Clan Tournaments. Accordingly, the play-in games will not qualify for privileges on their own at 31 games. As such, in order for the play-in games to have privileges at 31 games, they must be a part of a Clan Tournament. Clan Tournaments award medals to overall winners, not individual match-ups within the Tournament.

I think this logic is flawed and we should discuss it and probably change. Denying medals to all valid wars inside a tournament just because play-in round had 10 less games? That is some weird logic.

But, well, in the end we can play the play-in round the old way, with private games and without privileges. That will decide the winner and that winner can enter the group of 32 and then the actual tournament starts. It will have 5 rounds with 40+ games in each. Qualifies then, pain in the ass for the organizers and lower-ranked clans but if this is the way you want it…

Hysterical. Elitist. Annoying.

The best part of your suggestion is that (I assume) the reason that you are having the play-ins play only 31 rather than 41 games is speed...and yet, you are willing to suggest they run the play-ins without privileges under the "old" way? How in the hell would that be faster? Hysterical!

chemefreak wrote:Hysterical. Elitist. Annoying.

The best part of your suggestion is that (I assume) the reason that you are having the play-ins play only 31 rather than 41 games is speed...and yet, you are willing to suggest they run the play-ins without privileges under the "old" way? How in the hell would that be faster? Hysterical!

Yes, I'd rather like the rules to be adjusted then going the old way.

But if we are talking about speed, creating private games and creating tournament games takes the same amount of time. Well, maybe creating private games will take 5 minutes longer or so.

Dako wrote:Foxy (I can call you Foxy outside of KORT-TOFU conflict, right?),

no, im the only one that can call her Foxy... it sounds dirty when you said it!

also, i like "half -random" draws. similar with tennis GS draws. lets say top 8 clans got their seeding over F400. after that, you start with draw, drawing no 1 and no 2 seed in opposite side of bracket. then you assign 3-4 seeds to 1-2 seed(its not necessary 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3), then you assign 5-8, one in each quarter(again, randomly, so you can have 1 vs 5, 4 vs ... after that, you fill the bracket with remaining clans

whats your opinion about this?

I don't think it's fair that some of the lesser clans will not be able to get medals because of the game limit on the play in round.

Dako wrote:

chemefreak wrote:Hysterical. Elitist. Annoying.

The best part of your suggestion is that (I assume) the reason that you are having the play-ins play only 31 rather than 41 games is speed...and yet, you are willing to suggest they run the play-ins without privileges under the "old" way? How in the hell would that be faster? Hysterical!

Yes, I'd rather like the rules to be adjusted then going the old way.

But if we are talking about speed, creating private games and creating tournament games takes the same amount of time. Well, maybe creating private games will take 5 minutes longer or so.

The rules will not be amended for any events. To qualify for a medal you need 41 games or to be run as a tournament with the TO making ALL the games, or having a few helpers. Cheme is 100% correct.

BTW Private games are a pain in the ass to get going. Just saying... Trying to collect 10 games from teammates with all the same password and all the correct people invited can be a task. Having someone make them via privs is sooo much easier.

Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.

Dako wrote:Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.

Not trying to be hard, but we must play within the rules. Personally I was always fond of the 21 game play in round, but 41 works also. In that case we should start signing up really soon so we can get an idea of who wants to play or not?

But if we make it 21 games then we cannot hope for medals for each round, and that will suck.

Bruceswar wrote:

Dako wrote:Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.

Not trying to be hard, but we must play within the rules. Personally I was always fond of the 21 game play in round, but 41 works also. In that case we should start signing up really soon so we can get an idea of who wants to play or not?

If start signups in week or 2 and let them last for 2 or 3 weeks,
play-in can finish just at the right time (the same time as CC3 or a bit later).

And CC3 had only 1 play-in game...

With regard to nukes, will "timing out" be permitted or prohibited as in CL5?

Vid_FISO wrote:With regard to nukes, will "timing out" be permitted or prohibited as in CL5?

About timing out… there is no way one can tell if user timed out on purpose or had a power failure or forgot about a turn. There is no way it can be checked/controlled so I don't know how we can enforce this rule other than based on mutual agreement.

It's a tricky one to prove but the rule should be in place. In this case guilty until proven innocent it should be relatively obvious if there was a tactical gain to be made from cheating. Case by case assessment is required but it's a rare thing and not a major overhead.

Dako wrote:Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.

I think that these could be solve in these way.

You could have two tournaments
CC4 Tournament
CC4 qualification Round

These could be in separate topic, and in CC4 qualification Round, team will play these one round, and will not get medals,because they will play 31 games, after that these Tournament are over, nobody get medals, and they will then advance in CC4 Tournament.

CC4 Tournament are separate competition ,where you have 32 teams and all match are 41+ games.

Now in these way everything will be ok, because you have two separate tournament,and in one nobody get medals,,and in other each match are medal award.

qwert wrote:

Dako wrote:Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.

I think that these could be solve in these way.

You could have two tournaments
CC4 Tournament
CC4 qualification Round

These could be in separate topic, and in CC4 qualification Round, team will play these one round, and will not get medals,because they will play 31 games, after that these Tournament are over, nobody get medals, and they will then advance in CC4 Tournament.

CC4 Tournament are separate competition ,where you have 32 teams and all match are 41+ games.

Now in these way everything will be ok, because you have two separate tournament,and in one nobody get medals,,and in other each match are medal award.

I couldn't disagree more, it treats the low/non ranked clans as second class.

Just some things off the top of my head:

1. Reduce the number of batches per challenge so the process is speeded-up

This shouldn't be a hardship if the player quotas are reduced. No-one would be playing more than, say, eight games per batch (and that's a high estimate, the figure would more than likely be five).

2. Lower the quota per player, 10 games for a 41 game challenge, 15 for a 61 game challenge

Reward clans who have a broader player depth rather than those who depend on three or four players for results.

3. Dispense with the play-in system - just pick the Top 32 seeds who are willing to participate

Why have the headache of play-ins? 32 clans are required to fill the bracket. If there's a clan outside that number then they are going to have to improve and join the next edition.

4. A map may only be chosen once by each clan

We have 214 maps (non-beta) to choose from. Why not have clans have to play them instead of the repetitive selection of the same old maps challenge after challenge? A lot of the fun of the C.Cup comes from the prep & planning. Can you imagine the added level of excitement and risk if a clan wishes to reserve its better maps to use later against stronger opposition?
Round of 16 = 20 maps, Round of 8 = 20 maps, Qtr Finals = 30 maps, Semi Finals = 30 maps, Final = 40 maps. Total = 140 maps. The tiebreaker in every challenge (i.e. 41st, 61st or 81st game) is Classic trips, esc, chained, sunny.

5. Every game has a round limit

No harm in this. Keep the tourney moving along, so every game must have a 20 round limit. It also adds a new dimension to games and would also help end lengthy games, which may not be a bad thing if nukes & trench are being considered.

I like both Vid_FISO's and Josko's ideas about a random draw for at least some portion of the seedings, and I would be content with either the old scenario or one of these scenarios.

HOWEVER, if we elect a scenario where there would be random assignments, I'd be concerned with anyone outside of my own clan in charge of randomly assigning the seedings. I know it sounds silly, but please here me out. For example, if Player X were in charge of randomly assigning seeds, people might be calling foul should Player X's clan find itself in what might be perceived to be an easy route to the finals.

My only suggestion to verify the veracity of the random assignments would be to have a few players from various clans viewing the screen of the person in charge of the assignments (using a program like TeamViewer) during the process.

I apologize if I've completely misunderstood how random assignments would work. With the F400, the seedings are indisputable. I don't believe that's the case if we adopt random assignments.

Dako wrote:Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.

Those of us from lower ranked clans thank you Dako! Who knows, you may not even need a true "play-in" round if the #s work out right.