Conquer Club

I do not know if its already been a discussion about it around here, but what about the official CC Olympics 2008 (only for clans) Tournament from [player]Night Strike[/player]?

Will they or are they calculated on the Unofficial Clan Ladder?

If not, IMO they must count as well.
If yes, sorry for not read the posts well

Grtz
MarVal

Yeah, I agree. i think you should have only used Clan challenges with their own threads which are displayed on marvals thread! If we are going to do this lets do it proper, not including tournaments that fell apart!

MarVal wrote:I do not know if its already been a discussion about it around here, but what about the official CC Olympics 2008 (only for clans) Tournament from [player]Night Strike[/player]?

Will they or are they calculated on the Unofficial Clan Ladder?

This would be extremely difficult to calculate and gather the results, especially if there were 6 to 8 players in a clan in single game. I don't think it's likely to be included.

jpc, dont you feel it would be better to restrict clans to 1v1 face-offs unless all the games were played as 6p doubles? ( 1v1v1)

I would tend to agree. Based on Hulmey's argument, the new system might as well start at 1000 points each due to the total number of challenges so far. Also the challenges are so different from each other, not sure how comparable they really are.

I'm going to look to see if I can find any cases of multiple participants. I've seen ELO on tennis based sites so there must be some situation like doubles etc. but that is as a team and is likely an average similar to CC partnership team calculations.

I think the key thing is that whatever CC does end up using, that it's clear as to what the ladder settings and methodology is.

I've also been playing with the "K-Factor" and in order to get some more separation, it may need to be higher due to the total number of clans on this site. K-Factor of 16 works when you have several thousand chess players, but when you have 50-100 clans, doesn't create that much of a ladder gap at all for some time.

Ok, I've added a second ladder for comparison purposes on page 1 that includes only 20+ game clan wars and no tournament challenges like the TDL.

jpcloet wrote:Ok, I've added a second ladder for comparison purposes on page 1 that includes only 20+ game clan wars and no tournament challenges like the TDL.

i think it should be that way.

hwhrhett wrote:

jpcloet wrote:Ok, I've added a second ladder for comparison purposes on page 1 that includes only 20+ game clan wars and no tournament challenges like the TDL.

i think it should be that way.

I agree, having the strangely formatted challenges and tournaments messes it up.

jpcloet wrote:I would tend to agree. Based on Hulmey's argument, the new system might as well start at 1000 points each due to the total number of challenges so far. Also the challenges are so different from each other, not sure how comparable they really are.

I'm going to look to see if I can find any cases of multiple participants. I've seen ELO on tennis based sites so there must be some situation like doubles etc. but that is as a team and is likely an average similar to CC partnership team calculations.

I think the key thing is that whatever CC does end up using, that it's clear as to what the ladder settings and methodology is.

I've also been playing with the "K-Factor" and in order to get some more separation, it may need to be higher due to the total number of clans on this site. K-Factor of 16 works when you have several thousand chess players, but when you have 50-100 clans, doesn't create that much of a ladder gap at all for some time.

you also need to make sure which challenged started first , IE LOD defeats clan a and b in 2007 and is now on 1400 points and then is defeated by clan c in 2008. If you need any help, just pm me

I believe I have all the dates correct, I had to go searching games where the threads didn't have the final score. Given the 20 game limit, I believe we should have all the major challenges now.

jpcloet wrote:IMO, Clan wars should include singles, doubles, triples and quad games.

Does that mean you want to have 1v1 games in your clan war schedule you want to use for all further clan wars? Did clans already play several 1v1 games in clan wars?

Only a few wars have had 1v1's. The ladder will be updated for 20 game and higher challenges whatever shape they may take. My mix of game comment is just an opinion around wars in general.

being no member of CLA but of a clan who isn´t in that group, here is my opinion about clan war schedules:

Doubles, Triples and Quads
no standard/terminator/assassine games

all forts and cards are ok,
although i still believe unlimited and Flat Rate is more about luck, but ok, personal opinion

fog is interesting for some maps, but i would make a limit here, perhaps max 50% games for each team. It can be fun sometimes, but usually it´s just more time consuming and most clans have some players who doesn´t like fog.

only seq, no fs ( in my opinion freestyle gives an advantage to players who are online 24/7)

no speed games

about maps:

i guess all maps can be allowed in a clan war, but i woulnd´t participate in a clan war with 20 games doodle, 20 games Waterloo and 20 games Feudal. A limit for each map could work, perhaps each map can be taken 3 times by each team, or (2;4 or 5 depending on the total number of games).

number of games (homegames per team):

5-20 dubs
5-20 trips
5-10 quads

i think 10/10/5 is fine, 50 games are enough to see who is the better team and it´s not an endless fight

please keep in mind that this is my personal opinion and not representative for any clan or group, just my 2 cents.

Your views seem to be consistent with the CLA general consensus. The only thing I'd throw out there is that

1. You didn't mention any singles (Singles5 has been recommended where you play 5 game series for 1 point on 5 different maps for 1 point)

2. I have clans specifically tell me they couldn't handle more than 20 games. 20 game set is nice as you could scale to 40, 60, or even 100 like the ID and THOTA match.

Outside of the singles5, I think maxing a map at 20-30% seems reasonable and fog, probably in the same realm.

jpcloet wrote:Your views seem to be consistent with the CLA general consensus. The only thing I'd throw out there is that

1. You didn't mention any singles (Singles5 has been recommended where you play 5 game series for 1 point on 5 different maps for 1 point)

2. I have clans specifically tell me they couldn't handle more than 20 games. 20 game set is nice as you could scale to 40, 60, or even 100 like the ID and THOTA match.

Outside of the singles5, I think maxing a map at 20-30% seems reasonable and fog, probably in the same realm.

So now we have to play 10-20 clanwars a year to remain competitive and singles? Next thing you're going to tell me there's general consensus about playing assdoodles.

Yeah, and big maps and fog. And freestyle. Fun stuff.

marvel/dc heroes or whatever we're called should be added soon. the challenge is over, games just aren't all done yet

Yep, just need to finish the last remaining games so he can update the table

can you explain that single5 idea more detailed? you don´t mean 1v1 games, do you?

Seulessliathan wrote:can you explain that single5 idea more detailed? you don´t mean 1v1 games, do you?

He does mean 1v1s - a best of 5 set being equivalent to a team game.

Also - there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread stemming from the difference between CLA's opinions (as set up and written by jpcloet - and of which there are very few concrete ideas at present) and jpcloet's personal opinions.


In order for any meaningful clan challenge scoreboard, there needs to be some kind of standardisation of what a challenge consists of.

My personal opinion is that a challenge should consist of 20 game blocks, made up of any combination of 1v1sets, doubles, trips, quads, and with any map / settings restrictions that the clans agree with each other. I shall however be trying to steer away from challenges that have a lot of restrictions. If however, the clan scoreboard requires some sort of scheduling in order to operate that pits certain clans against each other, then a different approach will need to be taken, which has these "rules" in a much more rigid form... I don't see the need to move to that position too quickly though.


Also - the Monkis' opinions are needed and very much desired

hwhrhett wrote:

jpcloet wrote: Once you have met the 3 requirements to join, I'll add you to that group along with one other member of your clan.

you should add those 3 requirements to the post.

1. one competitive clan
2. one completed clan challenge.
3. three months as a clan

Why would 3 months as a clan be a problem? If a new comp clan started up and played a clan match and won I see no problem with them being newer than 3 months.

As soon as we(Immortal Assassins) get the first match out of the way we will be on there as well.

IA was one of the clans from the beginning that I've been mentioning as one of the possible new elite clans that follows the 1 clan rule. The 3 month rule was a suggestion by a CLA member and it avoids the "built in a week" clans that may not survive. We wanted "established clans" and that seemed to work. From the inception of a clan it takes time to grow and to get organized and to get used to playing in games together. I first heard about IA at the beginning of September and your clan is pretty much 2 months old already.

Updated for 2 challenges and added results used in calculations on page 1.

please change the m/dc and legion challenge to 14-26. lfaw forgot to reverse one call from legion to m/dc

Noted, will include in next update.