CC Clan League 5 - Question going here

[josko.ri]

What I very like qwert is listening discussions and he change his ideas, if he see that majority of players and/or majority of arguments support other opinion. I have feeling that are missing in CL4, many players suggested many things, but TOs always decided by their own opinion. qwert, if you have wish to make this project for CL5, you have my total support, just listen majority of suggestions and implement them. I will also say my suggestions, but am short of time for now.

[Qwert]

Thanks for support josko, its not going to be easy to be new official CL, because some things in official rules need to be change.
Like Clan Eligibile for Competition. This is first rule who need to be change, because in mine system ,every clan are eligibile for competition. Ofcourse need to have minimum of 10 player.

Participants must be CLA-eligible members meaning they have completed at least one 40+ challenge and adhere to the 1 competitive clan rule.

This need to be change on:
1.For Premier and First League,Participants must be CLA-eligible members meaning they have completed at least one 40+ challenge and adhere to the 1 competitive clan rule.
2.For qualification Tournament ,PArticipants must to adhere to the 1 competitive clan rule.

3.All clans need to have minimum 10 registered players,to be eligibile for competition.

[Qwert]

Ok,i think that Competition format are build very good.
===========================================
Competition format

The competition format follows the usual double round-robin format. During the course of a season, each clan plays every other clan twice, once at home and once away, for a total of 26 games. Clans receive two points for a win, one point for a draw, and no points for a loss. Clans are ranked by total points, with the highest-ranked Clan at the end of the season crowned champion.

The Clan Leagues are divide in 3 lvl
1.Premier League [level 1,14 clans] botom 3 clans are relegated to First League
2.First League [level 2,14 clans] First 3 are promoted to Premier League, botom 3 are relegated to Qualification Tournament
3.Qualification Tournament [level 3, all clans who are not ranked in first 28 clans] Winner,Runer up and Winner for 3rd place are promoted to First League.

promotion:
premier league/league 1: 3 teams from premier league will drop to league 1, and top 3 teams from league 1 will advance to premier league. if one team decide not to participate in premier league before season start, their place will fill 4th team from league 1. if two or more clans decide not to participate, their places will be filled with equal number of best teams from league 1.

league 1/Qualification Tournament: 3 teams from league 1 will drop to Qualification Tournament, and their places will be filled with finalists and winner of match for 3rd place from league 2. if one or more teams from league 1 decide not to participate, empty places in league 1 will be filled with best teams from Qualification Tournament (acording to finished positions)

for example: if 1 clan from premier league and 2 clans from league 1 decide not to participate, premier league will then have all the clans that stayed in premier league plus 4 best teams from league 1. league 1 will then have all the clans stayed in league 1, plus 3 teams who dropped from premier league, plus 3 best teams from Qualification Tournament, plus 4th best clan from Qualification Tournament to fill a place for 4th clan advance to premier league, plus 5th and 6th clan in Qualification Tournament to fill the places from clans that dropped out from league 1.


TIEBREAK
If points are equal between two or more Clans, the rules are:

1.tiebreakers between two clan are applied in the following order:

a)Game difference for the entire season
b)Head-to-head results.

2.If the tie is between more than two clans, then the tie is broken, using the games the clans have played against each other:
a) head-to-head points
b) head-to-head game difference
c) head-to-head game scored

3.If the tie is still not broken, it will be resolved with a tie-break match[TBD]

[WPBRJ]

Not if you simply allow turn skipping or timing out (because neither of these things can be proven to be done with intent so it's impossible to enforce). If a player wishes to skip a turn or timeout in a nuke game then it should be his or her prerogative - treated just like a turn in no spoils - and the penalty to that player is of course an inability to fort and a missed card opportunity, so it's really not a great advantage to play it this way.

In Nukes timing out is absolutely a great advantage to play that way. That is a basic strategy.

In escalating it is pretty dumb, but can be advantageous at certain times. I think timing out should come with rules against, like the CL4 has.

So you are prepared to penalise someone for losing his internet connection? And if so, just what manner of penalty would be written in the rules?

As I say.....too hard to prove and too difficult to come up with any fair punitive measure.

And in angola's own words re timing out in nukes: "That is a basic strategy"

We are playing a strategy game after all.

I have timed out in the past, and it made me uncomfortable. Yet I did it.

I own up to that.

That doesn't make it right going forward.

I hope this league goes in front of the CLA, so I can vote that the rules for timing out from CLA4 goes into effect for this league as well.

this setting has no business in any clan event!!!! there loopholes and to say its a strategy is BS. one of my clan mates had a complaint filed against him on this setting and was warned if he continued to time out further action would be taken on him by admin. so to say this is a strategy is bull shit when the site it self is warning players not to do it or else.

and if someone want to play all 104 home games on trench, then i dont have nothing against this.

I would, and I expect all my fellow clan members would too, which may prompt us to withdraw.

You can't have a clan choosing 100% trench, that's just crackers.

'Trench League', by qwert.

Suddenly I am no longer enthused by qwert's ideas & ability.

wow now that its a setting you don't like it should be limited? you adamantly voiced your opinion for your crony friend on unlimited setting and said it should be allowed. now you are saying on another skilled setting that it should be limited i don't understand. i certainly have not played a lot of trench but it seems to be very popular so far and i have not herd of any loophole as of yet. it absolutely take a certain skill level to be successful at it but some how you feel this setting should be limited.

[Chariot of Fire]

Wow, what a tosser

[lynch5762]

Not if you simply allow turn skipping or timing out (because neither of these things can be proven to be done with intent so it's impossible to enforce). If a player wishes to skip a turn or timeout in a nuke game then it should be his or her prerogative - treated just like a turn in no spoils - and the penalty to that player is of course an inability to fort and a missed card opportunity, so it's really not a great advantage to play it this way.

In Nukes timing out is absolutely a great advantage to play that way. That is a basic strategy.

In escalating it is pretty dumb, but can be advantageous at certain times. I think timing out should come with rules against, like the CL4 has.

So you are prepared to penalise someone for losing his internet connection? And if so, just what manner of penalty would be written in the rules?

As I say.....too hard to prove and too difficult to come up with any fair punitive measure.

And in angola's own words re timing out in nukes: "That is a basic strategy"

We are playing a strategy game after all.

I have timed out in the past, and it made me uncomfortable. Yet I did it.

I own up to that.

That doesn't make it right going forward.

I hope this league goes in front of the CLA, so I can vote that the rules for timing out from CLA4 goes into effect for this league as well.

this setting has no business in any clan event!!!! there loopholes and to say its a strategy is BS. one of my clan mates had a complaint filed against him on this setting and was warned if he continued to time out further action would be taken on him by admin. so to say this is a strategy is bull shit when the site it self is warning players not to do it or else. I tend to agree with this.

and if someone want to play all 104 home games on trench, then i dont have nothing against this.

I would, and I expect all my fellow clan members would too, which may prompt us to withdraw.

You can't have a clan choosing 100% trench, that's just crackers.

'Trench League', by qwert.

Suddenly I am no longer enthused by qwert's ideas & ability.

wow now that its a setting you don't like it should be limited? you adamantly voiced your opinion for your crony friend on unlimited setting and said it should be allowed. now you are saying on another skilled setting that it should be limited i don't understand. i certainly have not played a lot of trench but it seems to be very popular so far and i have not herd of any loophole as of yet. it absolutely take a certain skill level to be successful at it but some how you feel this setting should be limited.

But not this... You don't have to limit trench as long as....... you don't mind having week 1 games still going on during week 36

[The Voice]

Com'on, guys. No single person is going to get everything he or she wants. If I'm not mistaken, the CLA exists so that every competitive clan can have a voice if it so chooses. If we can't be reasonable, at the very least civil, this thread will soon be archived and locked, and we'll have to start from square one again. Let's not make this about who can put the most exclamation points in a post or throws the most insults.

EDIT: Didn't see lynch's post. More should be like this. So, what if round limits were mandated for every trench game?

[uckuki]

trench problem is easily solved by round limit. 20 or 25 rounds should do it.

I don't think we need a limit on number of games for nukes or unlimited,
just don't see the point.

[Qwert]

people i expect constructive discussion, not quarrel in circle.

Trench and NUke and Unlimited forts are open for constructive disscusion, how many games to allow, and in what way to solve possible long games on trench settings. Some normal option who will be accepted for everybody its need to be implemented.
If you have some need to continue with this, then please continue in PM. This discusion its not constructive at all.
Thanks.

[Qwert]

Com'on, guys. No single person is going to get everything he or she wants. If I'm not mistaken, the CLA exists so that every competitive clan can have a voice if it so chooses. If we can't be reasonable, at the very least civil, this thread will soon be archived and locked, and we'll have to start from square one again. Let's not make this about who can put the most exclamation points in a post or throws the most insults.

EDIT: Didn't see lynch's post. More should be like this. So, what if round limits were mandated for every trench game?

Im creator of this topic,and im very civil,and very polite , and speak normal with people. Its not mine fault if some person want to start some insult war here, then i need to be punished, because i want to try to create something good.
Mods need to send warning to this person not to lock mine topic.

[The Voice]

Com'on, guys. No single person is going to get everything he or she wants. If I'm not mistaken, the CLA exists so that every competitive clan can have a voice if it so chooses. If we can't be reasonable, at the very least civil, this thread will soon be archived and locked, and we'll have to start from square one again. Let's not make this about who can put the most exclamation points in a post or throws the most insults.

EDIT: Didn't see lynch's post. More should be like this. So, what if round limits were mandated for every trench game?

Im creator of this topic,and im very civil,and very polite , and speak normal with people. Its not mine fault if some person want to start some insult war here, then i need to be punished, because i want to try to create something good.
Mods need to send warning to this person not to lock mine topic.

I know, qwert. This was an (unofficial) warning to those who have flamed, i.e., not you. In any case, people don't even have to listen to me, as I have no power to lock a thread. My suggestion is for everyone to take a deep breath before typing and then review it before submitting it.

[Ace Rimmer]

Big problem with teams and round limits which would affect the suggestion to add round limits to trench games: the round limit just looks at most troops per INDIVIDUAL, not per TEAM. Vote here to show your support to change this: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6&t=172014

Ace

[Ace Rimmer]

Double post!

Qwert wants feedback on the penalties for breaking the rules.

Violations to be penalized for:
1.Use same map more then once
2.In one round play more then 3 game
3.Use nuclear settings more than limit
4.Use trench settings more than limit
5.Use Unlimited fort more than limit

I don't think there should be separate penalties for each separate violation. I think it should be a sliding scale, taking into account all violations. I also think it should be clear that it is not up to the organizer(s) to watch for violations, but they will address them if they are brought to the organizer's attention.

First violation: warning
Second violation: remake of game
Third violation: forfeit of game
Fourth violation: replacement of clan member as main contact
Fifth or more violations: forfeit of game

EDIT: Forgot to mention I don't think #3 (nuke limit) or #5 (unlimited limit) should be in here. I feel clans should have enough experience with these games that they should not be limited at this point. A great clan can play and win with no limitations. I agree with a trench limit due to long games, but I'm not sure if it should be limited to certain map sizes or types instead of a game number limit.

[Ace Rimmer]

The main objection people raised against fixed divisions was that it creates issues if a high-ranked clan does not participate then wants to join in a later season - they would then have to play through the leagues or a clan in a higher division gets unfairly relegated.

Has there been a high ranked clan that skipped a year in the clan league? I know THOTA skipped the CC, but hasn't the Official Clan League (OCL, I just made that up) always had all the top clans participating? I think that if a clan avoids the OCL, then they either have too few members participating or are on the decline, and I do not see an issue with a clan needing to start over at the bottom the next year to prove themselves again. Why would you have a clan and choose NOT to join the only official clan event?

in reply to CoF/qwert discussing game size: I see both points of view about an even number with wins/draws and an odd number with wins only. I am leaning towards qwerts proposal for having wins/draws because I think a clan should be recognized for playing well enough to earn a draw. I agree that 8 games is best (I agree 6 is too small of a sample size), 2d/3t/3q. I am torn on 2 pts or 3 pts for a win. I'm leaning towards 3pts, because I think that if you win a week, you should get a bigger advantage than a draw. You should get more than 1 extra point for winning a week instead of a draw, because it is much tougher to win a week.

With the schedule, it should be easy to set it up so a clan does not have two home weeks in a row, to negate the work that CoF was talking about.

[Qwert]

damn, no2 are change to be apply for all competitions(Premier-First-Qualification)
"
Brake rules penalties (under construction)
1.if clan use same map more then once
-[rule description]
2. if one player plays more then its allowed (week-round)
-[rule description]
3.if clan uses nuclear settings more times then its allowed
-[rule description]
4.if clan uses trench settings more times then its allowed
-[rule description]
5.if clan uses unlimited settings more times then its allowed
-[rule description]
6.--[add more if miss something]"

[Qwert]

Double post!

Qwert wants feedback on the penalties for breaking the rules.

Violations to be penalized for:
1.Use same map more then once
2.In one round play more then 3 game
3.Use nuclear settings more than limit
4.Use trench settings more than limit
5.Use Unlimited fort more than limit

I don't think there should be separate penalties for each separate violation. I think it should be a sliding scale, taking into account all violations. I also think it should be clear that it is not up to the organizer(s) to watch for violations, but they will address them if they are brought to the organizer's attention.
First violation: warning
Second violation: remake of game
Third violation: forfeit of game
Fourth violation: replacement of clan member as main contact
Fifth or more violations: forfeit of game

EDIT: Forgot to mention I don't think #3 (nuke limit) or #5 (unlimited limit) should be in here. I feel clans should have enough experience with these games that they should not be limited at this point. A great clan can play and win with no limitations. I agree with a trench limit due to long games, but I'm not sure if it should be limited to certain map sizes or types instead of a game number limit.

First in red,i like this, in this way,clan will pay more attention,because organizer can not watch all what going on. Ofcourse ,then we need to give time for clan to address any brake of rules,some time limit, and when this time expire, this game become valid?(im i talk right)

I must say that first violation dont know how to apply?
I understand Second violation-remake of games,its can be apply if clan repeat game tvice on same map.
Fourth violation? Hmm this not sound that its related on this braking rules,its more related when clan leaders act hostile and make troubles to everybody, this definitly need to go to some special braking rules.
fifth are same like third.
==========================
And your edit-I dont know what to think smart abouth nukes and unlimited forts. I still dont have clear decision with this two.

Thanks ace, you give interesting sugestions, and something(expecialy in red) will try to add(somehow)

[Leehar]

Again, here's the sliding scale used in the CL4 for escalating, which i think can be easily adapted:

Timing out in Escalating games will not be tolerated by any players or clans that abuse this.

• First offense of a team: the game will be remade.
• Second offense of a team (in the same game): the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan has been penalized (as above) for two offenses in one game, then commits a single further offense in any game in the same round the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan have been penalized twice during the season then any single further offense in any game during the entire season will result in the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
  Timing-out, missing turns or dead beating in No Spoils or Flat Rate games will not be investigated, or result in any penalties.

[Teflon Kris]

Great discussion to have after the format is determined.

[ahunda]

Ok. I´m bored & have no turns up, so I´ll comment on some of the recent issues:

Trench: As far as I know, there hasn´t been a single clan challenge completed yet, that included Trench. So why would we want to include it in an event of this magnitude here ? So far, new settings were thoroughly tested until they became accepted in the clan scene. The same should apply to Trench, in my opinion. Oh, and Round Limits are about the worst idea for team games in clan competition I´ve ever heard.

Other settings: I am fine with Unlimited & Nukes. If I remember correctly, all limitations on settings, that are in place today, were the result of debates about luck factor, etc. (especially after the 1st CLA League season, that consisted only of Dubs). But the current CLA League season shows, that too many regulations & limitations cause extra work for the clan contacts & problems keeping up with them. Beyond that, I´d also just let people play, what they want to play. This is meant to be fun after all.

So I repeat myself: Keep it easy, keep it simple. A limitation on maps is certainly in order, but otherwise I don´t see a need for any regulations. This:

If a different map is to be used for each game (I believe this is the proposal, which is a good one) then it would also follow that we try and encompass all the different settings too, e.g. 50% fog 50% sunny; 25% each of Nuke, NS, FR & Esc; etc. (and maybe 25% ceiling on Trench games, i.e. 2 out of 8 home games may be Trench).

Half the fun of the next league would be each clan sitting down and working through all the available maps and allocating settings to them and pre-planning their season's campaign.

Sounds like a nightmare to me. I´ve been running the current phase of the CLA League for IA (together with loki) and imagining the work, that would be involved with such a set-up, would probably make me vote against even participating in such an event. I´m here to play games, not to sit endless hours about a list of maps & settings to be used.

Game Count/Scoring: Looking at the current CLA League season, 12 game sets are already quite small (IA trashing KORT in phase 1, KORT trashing IA in phase 2, just as an example), and 8 should be an absolute minimum. I don´t care much, if it is an even or uneven number of games (draws would be ok with me), but if we go with an even number, I strongly agree with CoF, that 3 points for a win are too much (1 single game out of 8 could make 3 points difference, no thanks), and that we could even consider an entirely different scoring system, that does not award points for won matches, but only counts overall won games.

Scheduling: I am still arguing for 2 weeks breaks between sets. Real breaks, not just breaks between home sets. If I get home sets every 2nd week and away sets inbetween, I´ll still have to sort teams & shit every single week for almost an entire year. And I also repeat my argument about results coming in so slowly. In the current CLA League we are now already playing the last matches/games, but in Division 1 only 5 matches have been decided yet.

And when we are already at it: I didn´t like the schedule, that qwert suggested 1 or 2 pages ago. It is very un-regular and seems almost random with its BYE (vacation) weeks. Clan contacts would be forced to keep an eye on the dates all the time, very easily forgetting a dead-line in the course of the season. Make it regular, with new sets every 2 weeks, and make some bigger breaks instead of so many small ones (a couple of weeks vacation during summer, a couple of weeks at the very end of the season so games can finish & there will be a break until the start of the next season).

Penalties: Agree with DJ Teflon, that we seem to have more important questions to decide first. But I´d keep the rules here as simple as possible too: First (and maybe second) offense games being remade, afterwards games being count as losses, done.

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't think there should be separate penalties for each separate violation. I think it should be a sliding scale, taking into account all violations. I also think it should be clear that it is not up to the organizer(s) to watch for violations, but they will address them if they are brought to the organizer's attention.

First in red,i like this, in this way,clan will pay more attention,because organizer can not watch all what going on. Ofcourse ,then we need to give time for clan to address any brake of rules,some time limit, and when this time expire, this game become valid?(im i talk right)

Translated: There needs to be a limit of how long a team can bring up a violation of the rules and have the organizer(s) deal with it. I think that once the game starts, then it's valid. Between the time the contacts submit the game list and when the game actually starts is when a violation of the rules must be applied. You can't notice a violation and wait to see if you lose the game before you point out that it's invalid.

I must say that first violation dont know how to apply?

Easy, you send a PM to the main contact and post in the thread that the clan got an official warning for breaking the rules.

I understand Second violation-remake of games,its can be apply if clan repeat game tvice on same map.
Fourth violation? Hmm this not sound that its related on this braking rules,its more related when clan leaders act hostile and make troubles to everybody, this definitly need to go to some special braking rules.
fifth are same like third.

I know the third is the same - because I think that needs to be the standard going forward. I said #4 because I think if a clan leader/war minister/whatever you want to call it can't keep their shit straight, then they need to be replaced. If you f*ck up four times, then you obviously aren't organized enough to continue in that role, and you need to step aside.

It's been brought up a few times in the thread and I forgot to mention it, but I do not think there should be any penalties for missing turns or timing out to skip a card. If you think someone is intentionally missing turns, put in a C&A report as it is against the site rules. The site rules allow someone to time out their turn to receive a card. I disagree with that rule, but I think it's easier to deal with the site rules instead of making more tournament rules that are a pain in the ass to enforce. This also goes along with my first set of penalties - once the game starts, it's valid.

Trench: As far as I know, there hasn´t been a single clan challenge completed yet, that included Trench. So why would we want to include it in an event of this magnitude here ? So far, new settings were thoroughly tested until they became accepted in the clan scene. The same should apply to Trench, in my opinion. Oh, and Round Limits are about the worst idea for team games in clan competition I´ve ever heard.

A valid point that there have been no trench clan challenges - do you think that will be a problem because there are inherent problems in trench from a team game standpoint? Or do you think it shouldn't be here because clans don't have experience in it? I can certainly see the reasoning behind no trench, and if this turns into the blueprint for CL5 (which I think it should) then I would agree that leaving trench out is not a bad idea. Why do you think round limits are a problem - because they're currently broken (IMHO) for team games, or because there should not be round limits?

So I repeat myself: Keep it easy, keep it simple. A limitation on maps is certainly in order, but otherwise I don´t see a need for any regulations.

QFT

Scheduling: I am still arguing for 2 weeks breaks between sets. Real breaks, not just breaks between home sets.

I am turning to this mode of thinking. What about 2 sets (1 home, 1 away, not against the same team) every 2 weeks? So you have to submit 8 games and figure out players for 8 away games every 2 weeks instead of 8 games every week. Then have regular breaks during the season. The sets would have to be in early enough that you would know a week or so in advance what your away games were.

How about this for a schedule (changed dates to all Sundays instead of every 10 days or so). Break over christmas, and games should be finished and winner posted by the beginning of summer.

[2 september] - rules finalized and signups open up
[16 september] - signups closed. Roster due. Official threads are created and rankings are assigned using the F400 update from the beginning of September.
Week 1 - [23 september] - home games due for first and second matches
Week 2 - [30 september] - away team roster due for first week. first match games made (home and away)
Week 3 - [7 october] - no new games made or due
Week 4 - [14 october] - away team roster due for second week. second match games made (home and away). Home games due for third match
Week 5 - [21 october] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 6 - [28 october] - away team roster due for third week. third match games made (home and away). Home games due for fourth match
Week 7 - [4 november] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 8 - [11 november] - away team roster due for fourth week. fourth match games made (home and away). Home games due for fifth match
Week 9 - [18 november] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 10 - [25 november] - away team roster due for fifth week. fifth match games made (home and away). Home games due for sixth match
Week 11 - [2 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 12 - [9 december] - away team roster due for sixth week. sixth match games made (home and away). Home games due for seventh match
Week 13 - [16 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 14 - [23 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 15 - [30 december] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings. PM from tournament organizer(s) to teams reminding them of away teams due in one week
Week 16 - [6 january] - away team roster due for seventh week. seventh match games made (home and away). Home games due for eighth match
Week 17 - [13 january] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 18 - [20 january] - away team roster due for eighth week. eighth match games made (home and away). Home games due for ninth match
Week 19 - [27 january] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 20 - [3 february] - away team roster due for ninth week. ninth match games made (home and away). Home games due for tenth match
Week 21 - [10 february] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 22 - [17 february] - away team roster due for tenth week. tenth match games made (home and away). Home games due for eleventh match
Week 23 - [24 february] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 24 - [3 march] - away team roster due for eleventh week. eleventh match games made (home and away). Home games due for twelfth match
Week 25 - [10 march] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 26 - [17 march] - away team roster due for twelfth week. twelfth match games made (home and away). Home games due for thirteenth match
Week 27 - [24 march] - no new games made or due. thread update by tournament organizer(s) showing standings.
Week 28 - [31 march] - away team roster due for thirteenth week. thirteenth match games made (home and away). Final week
weekly thread updates by tournament organizer(s) showing standings until all games are complete or standings are finalized.

[Qwert]

Again, here's the sliding scale used in the CL4 for escalating, which i think can be easily adapted:

Timing out in Escalating games will not be tolerated by any players or clans that abuse this.

• First offense of a team: the game will be remade.
• Second offense of a team (in the same game): the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan has been penalized (as above) for two offenses in one game, then commits a single further offense in any game in the same round the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
• If a clan have been penalized twice during the season then any single further offense in any game during the entire season will result in the same penalty will apply: the game will not be considered as a win for the offending clan for league purposes. If they do win, then the game will be declared a draw. In these circumstances, games may still count towards other statistics, such as ranking systems.
  Timing-out, missing turns or dead beating in No Spoils or Flat Rate games will not be investigated, or result in any penalties.

Timing out, its this something intentionaly miss turn in escalating games?

Great discussion to have after the format is determined.

Well its not determinet 100%, but i like to start little abouth other things. CLA forum are still dead space, like moon surface,no living action there.

Ok. I´m bored & have no turns up, so I´ll comment on some of the recent issues:

1.Trench: As far as I know, there hasn´t been a single clan challenge completed yet, that included Trench. So why would we want to include it in an event of this magnitude here ? So far, new settings were thoroughly tested until they became accepted in the clan scene. The same should apply to Trench, in my opinion. Oh, and Round Limits are about the worst idea for team games in clan competition I´ve ever heard.

2.Other settings: I am fine with Unlimited & Nukes. If I remember correctly, all limitations on settings, that are in place today, were the result of debates about luck factor, etc. (especially after the 1st CLA League season, that consisted only of Dubs). But the current CLA League season shows, that too many regulations & limitations cause extra work for the clan contacts & problems keeping up with them. Beyond that, I´d also just let people play, what they want to play. This is meant to be fun after all.

So I repeat myself: Keep it easy, keep it simple. A limitation on maps is certainly in order, but otherwise I don´t see a need for any regulations. This:

If a different map is to be used for each game (I believe this is the proposal, which is a good one) then it would also follow that we try and encompass all the different settings too, e.g. 50% fog 50% sunny; 25% each of Nuke, NS, FR & Esc; etc. (and maybe 25% ceiling on Trench games, i.e. 2 out of 8 home games may be Trench).

Half the fun of the next league would be each clan sitting down and working through all the available maps and allocating settings to them and pre-planning their season's campaign.

3.Sounds like a nightmare to me. I´ve been running the current phase of the CLA League for IA (together with loki) and imagining the work, that would be involved with such a set-up, would probably make me vote against even participating in such an event. I´m here to play games, not to sit endless hours about a list of maps & settings to be used.

4.Game Count/Scoring: Looking at the current CLA League season, 12 game sets are already quite small (IA trashing KORT in phase 1, KORT trashing IA in phase 2, just as an example), and 8 should be an absolute minimum. I don´t care much, if it is an even or uneven number of games (draws would be ok with me), but if we go with an even number, I strongly agree with CoF, that 3 points for a win are too much (1 single game out of 8 could make 3 points difference, no thanks), and that we could even consider an entirely different scoring system, that does not award points for won matches, but only counts overall won games.

5.Scheduling: I am still arguing for 2 weeks breaks between sets. Real breaks, not just breaks between home sets. If I get home sets every 2nd week and away sets inbetween, I´ll still have to sort teams & shit every single week for almost an entire year. And I also repeat my argument about results coming in so slowly. In the current CLA League we are now already playing the last matches/games, but in Division 1 only 5 matches have been decided yet.

And when we are already at it: I didn´t like the schedule, that qwert suggested 1 or 2 pages ok. It is very un-regular and seems almost random with its BYE (vacation) weeks. Clan contacts would be forced to keep an eye on the dates all the time, very easily forgetting a dead-line in the course of the season. Make it regular, with new sets every 2 weeks, and make some bigger breaks instead of so many small ones (a couple of weeks vacation during summer, a couple of weeks at the very end of the season so games can finish & there will be a break until the start of the next season).

6.Penalties: Agree with DJ Teflon, that we seem to have more important questions to decide first. But I´d keep the rules here as simple as possible too: First (and maybe second) offense games being remade, afterwards games being count as losses, done.

And answer
1.I can not say nothing abouth this, like everybody here we are not try trench in clan wars, because they are not accepted. Here we need to decide this,and i see several option.
a- no trench
b) -yes trench with no limitation
c)- yes trench with round limitation
d) yes trench with game and round limitation

2.Unlimited and nukes, im more close that this two be free of any limitation, and that every clan decide how many time will use Unlimited fort, and nuks. again we need to decide how will this be arange.

3. I agree on this , no way that we will have any kind of % limitation on all setings, this will not be accepted from me.

4.if you dont notice im all ready apply 2 point for win and 1 point for draw. Most fair are award points. Count games or any other awards for win,only can give you wrong standings. I do little research and i find something very wrong.

division 1b standing (clan league 2)
2.BpB 66-46 (14)
3.tsm 65-47 (18)

If in CL2 whas apply point for award,then TSM will play in Final, because TSM will collect more points then BpB (18 against 14),instead that , Team who win least chalenges play in Final,only because they have 1 game win then other.

5.This is possibile scedule, so everybody can give hes view scedule. We have 26 play week, and if we take that every two week ,its need to create games,then we will have 52 week long League. Im try to create some scedule, so that we get 3 month of vacation before start of new season. Its initial scedule,and you,like everybody can create your own scedule and present here.

6. Penalties- yes,like you say plain and simple.
I will gladly implement like you say
1.first violation-warning(game remade
2.second violation- game count like loss
------------------------------------------------
simple that this,can not be. No need to complicated to much.
Ok, im ready for more oppinions, some of this will be implemented soon.

[Qwert]

""Translated: There needs to be a limit of how long a team can bring up a violation of the rules and have the organizer(s) deal with it. I think that once the game starts, then it's valid. Between the time the contacts submit the game list and when the game actually starts is when a violation of the rules must be applied. You can't notice a violation and wait to see if you lose the game before you point out that it's invalid.""
hmm i need some description to add this.

[Ace Rimmer]

I'll combine the rules and penalty descriptions into one spot.

If a player joins more games per round than they are allowed or if a clan breaks the single use of each map rule, then they are in violation of the rules. Any rule violation needs to be brought to the Tournament Organizer's attention between the time the game settings are submitted in this thread and when the game starts. The first rule violation brought to the Tournament Organizer's attention will be remade with a warning via PM to the clan leader. If another rule violation happens, the game will not be made and will be awarded as a win for the opposition. Once a game starts, any violations will be ignored and the game will be played out and count.

[ahunda]

A valid point that there have been no trench clan challenges - do you think that will be a problem because there are inherent problems in trench from a team game standpoint? Or do you think it shouldn't be here because clans don't have experience in it? I can certainly see the reasoning behind no trench, and if this turns into the blueprint for CL5 (which I think it should) then I would agree that leaving trench out is not a bad idea. Why do you think round limits are a problem - because they're currently broken (IMHO) for team games, or because there should not be round limits?

I simply think, Trench is still very new & untested. I myself haven´t played it yet, but will try it, as soon as my game load is going down a bit (too much clan action at the moment). The only problem in terms of team-play, that I could imagine, is that an unbalanced drop could be harder to counter with this setting. Beyond that the main argument seems to be the duration of games (Trench taking longer), and the problems this can cause in a tournament. My point is simply: Let´s get some more experience with the setting first, try it out in public games & clan challenges, and see how it works out.

As for the Round Limits: Some of the most epic & memorable team games are those, that go on for 20+ rounds without one side getting a decisive advantage, going back & forth, come-back after come-back. But all these games are finally decided & come to an end, because between 2 teams stale-mates are impossible. Round Limits would cap off these games and decide a winner based on a couple of armies difference at a random point in the game. Maybe it´s just me, but I find the idea horrible ...

4.if you dont notice im all ready apply 2 point for win and 1 point for draw. Most fair are award points. Count games or any other awards for win,only can give you wrong standings. I do little research and i find something very wrong.

division 1b standing (clan league 2)
2.BpB 66-46 (14)
3.tsm 65-47 (18)

If in CL2 whas apply point for award,then TSM will play in Final, because TSM will collect more points then BpB (18 against 14),instead that , Team who win least chalenges play in Final,only because they have 1 game win then other.

This is a false argument. How you view this (who of the two deserved to go to the semis) completely depends on your personal opinion. You say, TSM won more "challenges" & thus would have deserved to progress. I could say, BpB won more games overall during the season & thus deserved to progress. There is no right or wrong here. It´s a matter of opinion.

In this CLA League Season Phase 1, Division C, we faced this situation:

IA 41-19 games, 10 pts
KORT 47-13 games, 8 pts

Who deserved the number spot 1 here ? Some KORT members might find it "very wrong", that they won 6 games more than IA, but were only 2nd.

This is possibile scedule, so everybody can give hes view scedule. We have 26 play week, and if we take that every two week ,its need to create games,then we will have 52 week long League. Im try to create some scedule, so that we get 3 month of vacation before start of new season. Its initial scedule,and you,like everybody can create your own scedule and present here.

Yeah. I realise, there is a problem with 26 sets on a 2-weekly basis. There are several alternatives:

a) Play home & away games at the same time, as in the current CLA League season. Reducing it to 13 sets.

b) Make the divisions smaller. 12 clans per division = 11x2 = 22 sets, which seems possible on 2-weekly basis.

c) Ace Rimmers suggestion of starting 2 sets every 2 weeks. Though I think, this would cause the same problem, that some people have been complaining about in the current CLA League: That there will be so many sets going on simultaneously, that it will be very hard to keep track, how you are actually doing. Taking away from the fun/experience.

[Ace Rimmer]

What about:
5 sets
break
4 sets
break
4 sets

with weekly status updates. My suggestion was 6 sets/break/7 sets but we could easily change that to 5/4/4. qwert and I also discussed via PM doing sets every 3 weeks with a small break over Christmas, this way most games in a set would be done before the next one started. That would stretch it out to about 40 weeks I'd say, which is manageable.