Conquer Club

From experience I can tell you that Lx runs the best tournies on the site and this TLO V has great appeal. It's also been carefully planned and lot of effort has been put into covering every detail. With the NC Cup (for the newer clans) and a lot of abstentions (it seems) from CC4 then there's definitely scope to run a competition like this concurrently.

I do have one question Rob. Why have a maximum number of players that can participate? I can understand the need for a minimum, but by placing a ceiling on the number I would have to tell a couple of guys in my clan "We're joining TLO V but sorry mate, you can't play". That doesn't seem right. Have I misread something or is this really the rule? Cheers

Chariot of Fire wrote:From experience I can tell you that Lx runs the best tournies on the site and this TLO V has great appeal. It's also been carefully planned and lot of effort has been put into covering every detail. With the NC Cup (for the newer clans) and a lot of abstentions (it seems) from CC4 then there's definitely scope to run a competition like this concurrently.

I do have one question Rob. Why have a maximum number of players that can participate? I can understand the need for a minimum, but by placing a ceiling on the number I would have to tell a couple of guys in my clan "We're joining TLO V but sorry mate, you can't play". That doesn't seem right. Have I misread something or is this really the rule? Cheers

Thanks for the compliment! I'm glad to see you understand what I'm trying to do here.

The maximum number of 16 was not chosen "arbitrarily". With that amount of players, all players would still be eligible for a medal. With more players that could become an issue. However, if there is a general consensus amongst (potentially participating) clans that the maximum amount of players should be raised, I'm willing to consider that. In that case players would be able to play, but may not be eligible for a medal though....

Lx

Ah OK, gotcha, thanks. So if the ceiling was raised and we could involve all clan members you would have to introduce some criteria to award achievement medals to just 16 of them, e.g. for best win % after a reaching a minimum number of games, e.g. 6. ??

one more thing is this for officers only?

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah OK, gotcha, thanks. So if the ceiling was raised and we could involve all clan members you would have to introduce some criteria to award achievement medals to just 16 of them, e.g. for best win % after a reaching a minimum number of games, e.g. 6. ??

If the ceiling the will be raised, I will be able to work something out on the medal issue. So, no worries there (thanks to the CD in charge of that).

I would just like to hear from other clans as well that they feel that the ceiling should be raised.

Lx

benga wrote:one more thing is this for officers only?

Nope. Now that it's a clan tournament I'm no longer using that as a requirement.

Lx

I think you have good idea, but wrong timing. CL5 Phase 2 will soon start, CC4 will soon start so more interest for your tournament would be if you start it in August/September, when 24/32 clans from CC4 will be eliminated and when probably more than half of clans will already be out of competition for top places in CL5.

Feedback very positive from clanmates and I believe TOFU will participate. I should have a firm answer in 24-48 hours. Thanks for your reconsideration of the maximum player rule.

I would just like to hear from other clans as well that they feel that the ceiling should be raised.

We only have 16 members, but I am sure we would not be against it. I am sure we enter as well.

*****

BGtheBrain wrote:TNC would do this.

Wow, I guess you guys have been a clan for longer than I thought.

Nice tournament idea, Lindax.

Lindax wrote:Every player has to play at least 1 game per round and cannot play more than 6 games a round. A player can play a maximum of 2 games in every category: doubles, triples, quads, home games, away games. In other words, a player cannot play 3 doubles and 3 home games, for example.

Why do you have the requirement that every player has to play at least 1 game per round? It will mean that anytime a person wants to sit out a round for vacation reasons (or whatever else), the player list will have to be altered. Was that your intention?

josko.ri wrote:I think you have good idea, but wrong timing. CL5 Phase 2 will soon start, CC4 will soon start so more interest for your tournament would be if you start it in August/September, when 24/32 clans from CC4 will be eliminated and when probably more than half of clans will already be out of competition for top places in CL5.

Thanks for your input. I asked the Clan Department what would be a good time to start, they know the big picture. I also think that with game load per player (15 games per month, per clan) it's something clans can participate in even if there are other major events going on.

Having said that: The start date is not set in stone (yet).

Lx

Foxglove wrote:Nice tournament idea, Lindax.

Lindax wrote:Every player has to play at least 1 game per round and cannot play more than 6 games a round. A player can play a maximum of 2 games in every category: doubles, triples, quads, home games, away games. In other words, a player cannot play 3 doubles and 3 home games, for example.

Why do you have the requirement that every player has to play at least 1 game per round? It will mean that anytime a person wants to sit out a round for vacation reasons (or whatever else), the player list will have to be altered. Was that your intention?

Thanks.

Mmmm...., no it was not my intention to have clans change the player list if a player sits out a round. I decided this more with medals in mind. With one round per month, 15 games, do you think this could become an issue? I don't think people are away for that long generally.

On the other hand, IF I raise the ceiling of 16 players (as mentioned previous in this thread), I may also have to re-think the above rule.

Lx

Lindax wrote:

chapcrap wrote:What research led you to the date? If you did the research ahead, wouldn't you know who was eligible? It is irritating that I can't even bring this forward to my clan. By the time this starts, we'll have finished 10 clan wars and be ranked in the top 10. How is that not established? Not only that, the redundancy of the requirements is why I'm questioning. If you have been an active clan since January 1, 2001, then they would have 4 wars because you have to have that many in that time to be considered active.

This is why I ask you how you come to your criteria. Because I don't think you is the research and I think that the restrictions shouldn't have been allowed.

Well, I'm terribly sorry you feel "irritated". Fortunately I'm not running this tournament through the Tournament Department , so I don't have to answer to you.

As far as I'm concerned you have 3 options:

1. You can join a clan that's eligible if you're so desperate to play in my tournament.
   
2. You can file a complaint with the Clan Department.
   
3. You can take it like a man and join the next edition.

Whatever you choose to do, stop spamming my clan tournament thread with your petty complaints.

Lx

Well, that answered none of my questions. Well played. I understand the method completely now.

Since you have not done your research, I'll tell you what established clans you are leaving out.

the Fallen: ranked number 8 and will have 10 completed wars
Otpisani: ranked number 10 and will have 8 completed wars
Pig Renters: ranked number 11 and will have 11 completed wars

There are obviously other clans left out as well, but you have 3 of the top 11 not eligible under your restrictions.

Lx, I think you should drop max players cap at all. If you want to limit medals then limit medals and not players.

A very honest question - why are medals so important to some of you?

I don't see where your question is even coming from. The conversation started about why there was a cap on the number of players allowed to participate in the event - and the reason given by the organizer was that it was due to the maximum number of players that could meet the standard for medals. Since then, multiple clans have stated that they would rather not have a cap on players, even if that means not all players get medals.

What about any of that lead you to ask that question? The discussion was much more so about the number of players that can participate, and people have shown they are less concerned about the medals than getting their players involved.

I was just about to post the same thing Swifte. Thanks

The only entry criteria that HH don't meet is that we weren't formed until Sept/Oct 2011. If this is relaxed at all then we would love to participate.

Keefie wrote:The only entry criteria that HH don't meet is that we weren't formed until Sept/Oct 2011. If this is relaxed at all then we would love to participate.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

Lx

Good luck Lx, i know i will sound bitter, my usual, this handicap system is a no sense if you ask me ...
F400 is there to show the strength differences between clans, and you are using this scoring to create new measures (handicap) to show/see if clan A is even better than what it shows in F400, and if the clan B is not as strong as where it shows in F400. Well, maybe i am wrong, but my very honest opinion, you are equalizing competing clans via giving weak clans additional win points by start of the battle. Then say if a clan say in 20th position in F400 ranking wins, how are we going to see it ? TLO CLAN version winner, "with handicapping" note added. Not any explainatory, but blurry IMO.

Anyway, i missed thousands so far, and this might be a new one i m missing something again maybe.
Have fun.

cheers.

It is not only my opinion but can comfortably say it, everyone's very honest opinion, that is, the lastest one you organized which harem kings won, was SUCH A TOURNAMENT, great taste, great organization. Why dont you put your effort in such verified on performance organization instead this new arguable one ? By the way, it is certainly your call, i am just putting my idea if no problem at all.

HardAttack wrote:Good luck Lx, i know i will sound bitter, my usual, this handicap system is a no sense if you ask me ...
F400 is there to show the strength differences between clans, and you are using this scoring to create new measures (handicap) to show/see if clan A is even better than what it shows in F400, and if the clan B is not as strong as where it shows in F400. Well, maybe i am wrong, but my very honest opinion, you are equalizing competing clans via giving weak clans additional win points by start of the battle. Then say if a clan say in 20th position in F400 ranking wins, how are we going to see it ? TLO CLAN version winner, "with handicapping" note added. Not any explainatory, but blurry IMO.

Anyway, i missed thousands so far, and this might be a new one i m missing something again maybe.
Have fun.

cheers.

You're not missing anything mate. And I can't help it if you don't like the format of my tournament. Luckily nobody forces you to join.

Lx

Lindax wrote:

HardAttack wrote:Good luck Lx, i know i will sound bitter, my usual, this handicap system is a no sense if you ask me ...
F400 is there to show the strength differences between clans, and you are using this scoring to create new measures (handicap) to show/see if clan A is even better than what it shows in F400, and if the clan B is not as strong as where it shows in F400. Well, maybe i am wrong, but my very honest opinion, you are equalizing competing clans via giving weak clans additional win points by start of the battle. Then say if a clan say in 20th position in F400 ranking wins, how are we going to see it ? TLO CLAN version winner, "with handicapping" note added. Not any explainatory, but blurry IMO.

Anyway, i missed thousands so far, and this might be a new one i m missing something again maybe.
Have fun.

cheers.

You're not missing anything mate. And I can't help it if you don't like the format of my tournament. Luckily nobody forces you to join.

Lx

Yes, i am not joining in this one as long as handicap stands
Cheers.

I kind of like the handicap idea. Makes it interesting for match-ups which might otherwise not have any interest in them at all. Nice small challenges and regular maps too sounds good for a change.