Conquer Club

Had a number of games finish over the last 2 days. I have sent out new games to the Allied teams.

Please check back to the first page to make sure that I did not make any mistakes with the updates please.

Good luck.

I'll try and review what games have finished and get the new games going by mid-week. I'm american so the 4th of july weekend ate up alot of my time(Happy 4th to all my fellow Americans) and I have some village business I need to attend to tonight.

Tried last night but the server was down. Hopefully tonight is the night.

I got caught up tonight. All games that needed to be created have been and the first teams have been notified.

question-if a team wins every match,how many games will we have to play?

Tournament Game: WWII Extravaganza - 7v8 - Pacfic Front - Game 2
2761629


Team 8 victorious

lt.pie wrote:question-if a team wins every match,how many games will we have to play?

You will need to win 8 more games then your opponent on a specific front to win that front. So the number depends on how well your team or your opponents team does.

This will not be a quick tournament. Sorry if you thought it was going to be.

Gratz team 8 and TY for the update.

Kilazul wrote:

lt.pie wrote:question-if a team wins every match,how many games will we have to play?

You will need to win 8 more games then your opponent on a specific front to win that front. So the number depends on how well your team or your opponents team does.

This will not be a quick tournament. Sorry if you thought it was going to be.

We have no problem with it being a long tournament, but I reckon you may have pushed it a bit too far!


Best case - win 8 straight on two of the three fronts.... i.e win the correct 16 out of 24 games. It is then double elimination, 16>8>4>2>1 giving 5 rounds minimum... so I make the minimum number of games required 120... but with them only being played 3 at a time... and with each set taking at least 2 weeks (including time to join the next set etc), then this tourney will last an absolute minimum of 80 weeks - any time the leading team loses on a front they "need" for the win, then add 4 weeks.... so if we manage to only lose 5 games out of the 80 that "matter', we are looking at 2 years (which is longer than almost all of us have been on the site).... oh and that is if all the winning teams get through the early rounds decisively... any that get bogged down in the style of a Wimbledon final set will obviously delay the whole tournament immensely... so I would guess 3 years total ...which is surely pushing the "not quick" a little far?... it also suggests a very high dropout rate in the future (or even in the short term... I'm not sure if the team we are playing at the moment really wants to take a beating 24 times in a row )

Anyway, just some number crunching for thought... in a PM you mentioned that the double elim may be a stage too far... but even making it single
elim doesn't make the minimum length any shorter.

(If you did make it simpler, then my suggestion would be to do it the way I assumed it worked to start with... 3 straight wins per front per round)

I have to admit we were also under the impression, that (looking at the little map on the first post), with every win or loss, you shifted a whole bracket to the left or to the right. thus, you would need 3 straight wins to clinch the front. this seems like a cool idea. then, after winning all our games so far, we were suprised we had just moved one small hash mark to the left. yikes. I think benjikat is right- this thing needs to be shortened, or it could go on forever.

the concept is great, but our team would be for getting rid of the hash marks, and just moving from bracket to bracket (on the little map diagram you wrote up on the first post). there is still the fun chance for pushing back from the other team, but it won't seem tedious after playing the same team for the 100th time....

Well it did say 'Extravaganza' but boy....I had no idea.

Good bit of number crunching there Benji.

The other thing....if we have to keep playing the same team over and over again it seems a bit off that they receive twice as many points for a win as we do - we're all officers and they're all NCOs or privates.

Not ignoring you all just contemplating.

I re-read the wording on the first page and it is pretty clearly stated that a win moves people 1 hash mark. At the same time I can see how people may have assumed differently. I like long tournaments personally, which is why I created it as such. However I'm holding the tournament not so much for myself, as I am for all of you to enjoy yourselves.

I'll put up a poll and we can decide as a community how we want to proceed.

Thank you for voicing your concerns.

I'm sorry, I'm confused - are you saying that the "tug of war" for each front actually consists of 17 hash marks (i.e., 8 to each side of the neutral one in the middle)? Based on the grouping of the dashes in the original post, I thought there were only 7 hash marks on each "tug of war" line (not sure what else to call it), meaning a team would have to go +3 in order to win a given front.

Perhaps switching to a shorter spectrum, where a team has to get to +3 or maybe even +2, for each front should also be an option in the poll?

Not trying to be difficult, I just prefer that option to those currently being offered, thought I'd throw it out there for thought.

Kilazul wrote:Not ignoring you all just contemplating.

I re-read the wording on the first page and it is pretty clearly stated that a win moves people 1 hash mark. At the same time I can see how people may have assumed differently. I like long tournaments personally, which is why I created it as such. However I'm holding the tournament not so much for myself, as I am for all of you to enjoy yourselves.

I'll put up a poll and we can decide as a community how we want to proceed.

Thank you for voicing your concerns.

I like long tourneys as well. Unless there is an overwhelming vote "against" the current format, I wouldn't change a thing. After all, it is your tourney.

I'll be a reserve

good to go

Do the people who are voting for the first option realise they are voting for a THREE YEAR tournament!?!

A few further thoughts:

Nothing against Kilazul, but he's only been a member of CC for 7 months... and so very much can change in 3 years.

Playing against the same team on the same map has already become a touch less enjoyable for me than it should be... in the shorter form, every game (except for tight to-and-fro matches) would be against a different team or be on a different map (and even then would be different on consecutive occasions).

How many teams are going to continue to join the games when they are say 6 or 7 games down on each front? - I know there is provision for that, but it could just mean that some teams get semi-byes into future rounds, which in itself is a problem as non-active participation for extended periods seems to also cause a high level of dropouts.

Surely the winners should be the best co-ordinated fog quad team, and not just whoever happened to stick it out to the end (yes whoever does that would deserve it - but would it be any fun?

Chariot of Fire wrote:The other thing....if we have to keep playing the same team over and over again it seems a bit off that they receive twice as many points for a win as we do - we're all officers and they're all NCOs or privates.

This will never have any bearing in tourney-land -(just get the results that justify your rank ) But at the same time I am acutely aware that as our team currently has about 10,700 pts, we need to win a very high proportion of games scoreboard-wise.

So I have pulled the poll. With 2/3s of the people having voted half the people want to stay with the current format. More then 1/3 of the people who initially joined have already said that they want to play it out the way it was made. I wont punish those who read the rules before joining.

Nothing against Kilazul, but he's only been a member of CC for 7 months... and so very much can change in 3 years.

Not offended at all. But I've actually been around longer then you have so I'd say you don't know how different things will be in 3 years either. The sites only 2 years old anyways.

If anyone wants out I wont be offended. However I would encourage you to read the rules of future tournaments before you agree to join them.

I wish you all the best if you stay or not.

Kilazul wrote:So I have pulled the poll. With 2/3s of the people having voted half the people want to stay with the current format. More then 1/3 of the people who initially joined have already said that they want to play it out the way it was made. I wont punish those who read the rules before joining.

Nothing against Kilazul, but he's only been a member of CC for 7 months... and so very much can change in 3 years.

Not offended at all. But I've actually been around longer then you have so I'd say you don't know how different things will be in 3 years either. The sites only 2 years old anyways.

The whole point I was making is that noone knows what will happen in that time.

(...and btw I have been on CC a lot longer than you - http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... kat&sort=A )
I have no desire for anyone to be "punished", just wanted to make sure everyone knew what they were letting themselves in for!

i like the long way. it takes out a large bit of the luck factor.

I have no desire for anyone to be "punished"

Wasn't trying to imply you were =)

Completed updates for all the games that had finished as of 5 minutes ago. I have about 5 games that I need to create. I should have them created and sent out to Allied teams tomorrow.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:

Kilazul wrote:

lt.pie wrote:question-if a team wins every match,how many games will we have to play?

You will need to win 8 more games then your opponent on a specific front to win that front. So the number depends on how well your team or your opponents team does.

This will not be a quick tournament. Sorry if you thought it was going to be.

We have no problem with it being a long tournament, but I reckon you may have pushed it a bit too far!


Best case - win 8 straight on two of the three fronts.... i.e win the correct 16 out of 24 games. It is then double elimination, 16>8>4>2>1 giving 5 rounds minimum... so I make the minimum number of games required 120... but with them only being played 3 at a time... and with each set taking at least 2 weeks (including time to join the next set etc), then this tourney will last an absolute minimum of 80 weeks - any time the leading team loses on a front they "need" for the win, then add 4 weeks.... so if we manage to only lose 5 games out of the 80 that "matter', we are looking at 2 years (which is longer than almost all of us have been on the site).... oh and that is if all the winning teams get through the early rounds decisively... any that get bogged down in the style of a Wimbledon final set will obviously delay the whole tournament immensely... so I would guess 3 years total ...which is surely pushing the "not quick" a little far?... it also suggests a very high dropout rate in the future (or even in the short term... I'm not sure if the team we are playing at the moment really wants to take a beating 24 times in a row )

Anyway, just some number crunching for thought... in a PM you mentioned that the double elim may be a stage too far... but even making it single
elim doesn't make the minimum length any shorter.

(If you did make it simpler, then my suggestion would be to do it the way I assumed it worked to start with... 3 straight wins per front per round)

This is too funny - this tournament may well last longer than the actual World War II did.

"This is too funny - this tournament may well last longer than the actual World War II did"

It already has done if you are French

lol.