Conquer Club

Thanks buddy! That was refreashing! Secrets don't make friends you know!

max is gr8 wrote:I would send them but my PMs keep on failing *strokes chin*

DBC is all for this.
So is Hulmey and all his "hulmeyaniacs!"

The idea of having a ladder was to do away with points altogether - the mechanics are that your clan simply moves up or down a place. Everyone starts on the same rung of the ladder.

The alternative - and I'd be in favour of this more than anything - is to have a league. Each clan plays the other clans once, settings as per my previous post (4 sings, 2 doubs, 1 trips & 1 quads determined by each clan). 1 point for a win, -1 for a loss, 0 for a draw.

Can the same clan member play in all games? Sure, why not. It may piss off his fellow clan members who want a game though. Also, with the 16 games that will be contested for each challenge, there should be some maps that suit certain clan members and some that don't; so I'm sure the participants will be from a broad spectrum of clan members and not just a hardcore 4 or 5. Bear in mind too that not all clans will be able to field 15 members in a challenge, so to have anywhere between 4-15 seems like a good compromise (also true during holiday periods).

With this system every clan gets to play (and know) the others, hopefully encouraging some fraternity and respect in a spirit of competition.

If, say, 15 clans join this league, then the final table (or 'season') will be complete when each has finished its 14 challenges.

Example format : Untouchables challenge CWC, who accept. Each clan then sets up its 8 'home' games and its members join. The two clans can then look at the settings and players and determine which of its members should join the 'away' games. This will hopefully obviate any imbalance of a team of cadets facing a team of generals, coz it's in the interests of the team joining not to create too great a discrepancy in the levels of the players.

A simple table can be administered, showing 'Played', 'Won', 'Lost', 'Drawn', 'For', 'Against' and 'Points'

The advantage of this system is that there need not be any time constraints (within reason). So one clan can play its 14 challenges in one month if it's able to do so - it matters not.

1) If we went with a point structure like that, I'd prefer to see 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. Just like in football (soccer) a win should count for more than 2 draws.

2) I think forcing challenges to be a specific structure (your suggestion of 16 games), is not a good idea. I would prefer to see a minimum number of games, but no maximum, and no set structure for how many of each size game there are. The size and structure should be worked out between the participating clans.

3)I'd like to see a minimum of 10 members of a clan participating in each challenge. That way, you couldn't have the 4 best players in a clan playing all the games. I pick 10, because that is the minimum number of members required to start a clan.

Timminz wrote:1) If we went with a point structure like that, I'd prefer to see 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. Just like in football (soccer) a win should count for more than 2 draws.

2) I think forcing challenges to be a specific structure (your suggestion of 16 games), is not a good idea. I would prefer to see a minimum number of games, but no maximum, and no set structure for how many of each size game there are. The size and structure should be worked out between the participating clans.

3)I'd like to see a minimum of 10 members of a clan participating in each challenge. That way, you couldn't have the 4 best players in a clan playing all the games. I pick 10, because that is the minimum number of members required to start a clan.

Disagree...uniformed structure should be agreed apon before hand! Also maps and settings should be agreed apon. My clan wont take part in flat rate games or singles!

But would they play assassin?

Also I think the 3 point a win system would not be fair, then in a 4 team doubles you earn the same number as you get in a 1v1.

hulmey wrote:

Timminz wrote:1) If we went with a point structure like that, I'd prefer to see 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. Just like in football (soccer) a win should count for more than 2 draws.

2) I think forcing challenges to be a specific structure (your suggestion of 16 games), is not a good idea. I would prefer to see a minimum number of games, but no maximum, and no set structure for how many of each size game there are. The size and structure should be worked out between the participating clans.

3)I'd like to see a minimum of 10 members of a clan participating in each challenge. That way, you couldn't have the 4 best players in a clan playing all the games. I pick 10, because that is the minimum number of members required to start a clan.

Disagree...uniformed structure should be agreed apon before hand! Also maps and settings should be agreed apon. My clan wont take part in flat rate games or singles!

What a sec, are you saying that there should be set number of maps, and game trypes that are for "official play???" Like all clan challenges are played on esc/no fog/classic?

Or are you saying that the clans can work that out between themselves before they play challenges???

hulmey wrote:

Timminz wrote:1) If we went with a point structure like that, I'd prefer to see 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. Just like in football (soccer) a win should count for more than 2 draws.

2) I think forcing challenges to be a specific structure (your suggestion of 16 games), is not a good idea. I would prefer to see a minimum number of games, but no maximum, and no set structure for how many of each size game there are. The size and structure should be worked out between the participating clans.

3)I'd like to see a minimum of 10 members of a clan participating in each challenge. That way, you couldn't have the 4 best players in a clan playing all the games. I pick 10, because that is the minimum number of members required to start a clan.

Disagree...uniformed structure should be agreed apon before hand! Also maps and settings should be agreed apon. My clan wont take part in flat rate games or singles!

I agree entirely. I think maps and settings, and number of games should be determined beforehand, but by the clans participating in the challenge at hand. Not mandated. Imagine that there is a clan that will only play flat rate. Of course your clan would never play them, but to mandate specific settings for everyone to follow would mean that either your clan or theirs would be excluded completely from competition.

Oh... glad you got that. I don't know Hulmey well enough, I suppose.

So this is for sure then?

I had the impression that the callout's reorg was going to involve some sort of "official" ladder for the clans that declare themselves as competitive.

I think sucking it up and submitting to whatever "neutral" rules can be put in place for challenges on the ladder should be the price of claiming that your clan is "competitive"... and thus limiting yourself by the "only 1 competitive clan" site-wide rule we're told will be coming down.

So I'd like the ladder to be real simple.

Random starting positions for all competitive clans.

Any clan can challenge any clan above them on the ladder.

There will be two options for the challenger (this way smaller clans can have a go at it) to select: all out war, and skirmish

A skirmish would be 20 games, and would include 1v1: 5 1v1, 5 dubs, 5 trips, 5 quads.

An all-out war would be 40 games. 10-10-10-10

To mitigate the "luck" factor of an upset 1v1, the challenged team picks the settings for all 1v1 games. The rest would be 3 classic games (1 dub, 1 trip, 1 quad) with settings decided at random, and the rest divided equally for each clan to pick.

Also, there would be two levels of challenge: a challenge against the slot immediately above you in the ladder and a challenge against a clan that is more than 1 above you. In either case, a successful challenge means the challenger goes ahead of the losing clan, and everyone gets bumped down 1. In the event of a successful defense, the challenger of an adjacent challenge would just stay where it is, but the challenger of a "stretch" match that loses would fall to the bottom of the ladder.

And before you all whine that 1v1 shouldn't be included, remember a lot of people on this site play 1v1 and there are quite a few map-setting combination where it is actually about as much a test of skill as playing multi-player.

I want to see this in action... My system obv.

Ditto.
I just want to see an official ranking, with clan points. That's it. Let the clans continue to decide what games they'll play, and when.

Where the heck is MarVal with his insight?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Ditto.
I just want to see an official ranking, with clan points. That's it. Let the clans continue to decide what games they'll play, and when.

Where the heck is MarVal with his insight?

As far as I know, there's not going to be an official clan ranking system yet. Splitting those forums was just the first step in a long process. I'm pretty sure MarVal is wanting to put together a Clans Handbook (similar to the tournament one) with clan-relevant information, so this will be happening before any ranking system can be made.

We could do it ourselves (I know I've already said that)

max is gr8 wrote:We could do it ourselves (I know I've already said that)

I'm with you on that. I can keep track, but
A) I suck at math
B) I have no software for it

But like I said, If I can get some help, I can start keeping track...


But seriously though, I thought MarVal was checking out this thread?

viewtopic.php?f=274&t=65969&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Unofficial Ladder System

The verdict is in..Legends of War is the best Clan.