Conquer Club

Round 1 has been completed.

j1mathman and t4mcr53s2 are the only 2 to go a perfect 7 for 7.
On the flip side, no one lost all of their games though there are 10 players with only 1 win.

2 more rounds to go until the field is cut to 96.

Round 2 will start soon.

Weirdly it looks like the round started on the tournament page but none of the games started

theelkspeaks wrote:Weirdly it looks like the round started on the tournament page but none of the games started

Has not started. Hoping to get update soon.

shoop76 wrote:

theelkspeaks wrote:Weirdly it looks like the round started on the tournament page but none of the games started

Has not started. Hoping to get update soon.

Thanks Sloop looking forward to improving my dismal 4/7 record so far.

Clanlord Carl wrote:

shoop76 wrote:

theelkspeaks wrote:Weirdly it looks like the round started on the tournament page but none of the games started

Has not started. Hoping to get update soon.

Thanks Sloop looking forward to improving my dismal 4/7 record so far.

That is better than me. Managed to win 2 after having only 1 start.

not sure if this is the place to say but there may be a bug with the auto-tournament stuff in the admin mail said I was only getting 1 new game when I correctly got 7 I know it is minor but worth mentioning

7 is correct. Not sure how those messages are produced. I think there might be another bug. As I mentioned last round I got 1 start, in this round I don’t have any.

shoop76 wrote:7 is correct. Not sure how those messages are produced. I think there might be another bug. As I mentioned last round I got 1 start, in this round I don’t have any.

Think that is just luck not a bug though I got 7 starts so maybe I got all of yours

Though both of us were at opposite sides of the bell curve. At a 0.78% odds

plurple wrote:

shoop76 wrote:7 is correct. Not sure how those messages are produced. I think there might be another bug. As I mentioned last round I got 1 start, in this round I don’t have any.

Think that is just luck not a bug though I got 7 starts so maybe I got all of yours

Though both of us were at opposite sides of the bell curve. At a 0.78% odds

wow, that's nasty

So, its been a while.


Will we be starting the next round?

Craig25 wrote:So, its been a while.


Will we be starting the next round?

Game 23715286 looks like there’s one final active game then the next round would start

TY for reply, but, 160 Players waiting on 1 game finishing???

That is the reason these Tournaments takes YEARS to complete.

When there are no KO's, the next Round could start immediately with no impact on the Tournament format.

IcePack wrote:

Craig25 wrote:So, its been a while.


Will we be starting the next round?

Game 23715286 looks like there’s one final active game then the next round would start

Craig25 wrote:TY for reply, but, 160 Players waiting on 1 game finishing???

That is the reason these Tournaments takes YEARS to complete.

When there are no KO's, the next Round could start immediately with no impact on the Tournament format.

IcePack wrote:

Craig25 wrote:So, its been a while.


Will we be starting the next round?

Game 23715286 looks like there’s one final active game then the next round would start

I don’t disagree, idk the auto tournament functionality. Just explaining why the next round hasn’t occurred because I had looked myself the other day and it was at 2 games.

I get that M8. Just very frustrating. A Tourney like this, if CC can't find someone to spend 5 minutes a day to make it run smoothly and efficiently, why bother running it at all?

There is not going to be more than 2000 Games in this Tournament. And it will run for a couple of years.

When other Tournaments are completing more than 2000 Games every 2 Weeks, maybe it's time to move to a more efficient way of doing things?

The whole site is falling apart and nothing appears to change on CC.

I would also say, this has nothing to do with the Tournament Team. They are doing a great job with the tools available to them.

Everything to do with lack of functionality on the CC Site. Not allowing Tournament Organisers to dictate who goes 1st in 2 player games is a classic.

Not being able to set up rounds at the press of a button also sucks. It leads to Tournaments taking YEARS!

Craig25 wrote:I get that M8. Just very frustrating. A Tourney like this, if CC can't find someone to spend 5 minutes a day to make it run smoothly and efficiently, why bother running it at all?

There is not going to be more than 2000 Games in this Tournament. And it will run for a couple of years.

When other Tournaments are completing more than 2000 Games every 2 Weeks, maybe it's time to move to a more efficient way of doing things?

The whole site is falling apart and nothing appears to change on CC.

Woo! Round 2 down, time for round 3, bring it on!

hi lindx and tournement team , thanks for setting this up

I have been greatly advantaged by the randomization process ; there are 20 groups of 9 and the first score reset comes at round 16
no disrespectto the competitors in my group but i think the winner of my group is likely to be in the top 16 of 20 group winners

while group 9 with 3 of the top 10 1v1 players will only send 0-1 competitors to the round of 16

i think the map marathon format would be better for the future; though it gave a leg up to those who played a higher % of 9 game series against a few weak opponents
which could be resolved by resetting the score at round of 16 if the format could then be changed to round robin...
but i suppose the cc coding might not allow a format switch

(As someone likely to get cut this round or at best barely squeak into the next) I actually like that we get such varied opponents, up to 21 different opponents - that really helps level out the randomness and you have three distinct groups of 7 opponents. It's unlucky to get a rough draw in 1 of the 3 rounds but you can make up for it if you do well enough in your other two groups - and in the future rounds - which also have more games and therefore have a greater impact on score.

IMO Map Marathon would have been even better if you had 9 distinct opponents in each round instead of nine game sets vs the same opponent.

I also like playing so many different people
1v1 with these settings massively levels the playing field
It gets crazy in the latter stages with huge game counts, but again, that does help minimise the randomness
I only had 3 first turns (iirc) this round, but won all 7, so it can be done

As someone who is getting absolutely crushed by a Brigadier, I too would have prefered to a variety of players.

I definitely think the randomization of opponents is key and what makes this event different than other events. No setup is perfect and there will always be people who want it different. We are always open to suggestions.

One of the things I was really wondering is if the game count in the first 3 rounds is enough. We lose about 1/3 of the field after round 3 but have played only 21 games. Maybe we need to raise this in the future.

shoop76 wrote:I definitely think the randomization of opponents is key and what makes this event different than other events. No setup is perfect and there will always be people who want it different. We are always open to suggestions.

One of the things I was really wondering is if the game count in the first 3 rounds is enough. We lose about 1/3 of the field after round 3 but have played only 21 games. Maybe we need to raise this in the future.

I like randomization of opponents. Maybe yes increase number of games before first elimination. Although you can also look at number and see that players with 10 or less wins out of 21 will be eliminated, which is statistically equal as playing best-of-21 where 11 wins grants advancement to the next round.

josko.ri wrote:

shoop76 wrote:I definitely think the randomization of opponents is key and what makes this event different than other events. No setup is perfect and there will always be people who want it different. We are always open to suggestions.

One of the things I was really wondering is if the game count in the first 3 rounds is enough. We lose about 1/3 of the field after round 3 but have played only 21 games. Maybe we need to raise this in the future.

I like randomization of opponents. Maybe yes increase number of games before first elimination. Although you can also look at number and see that players with 10 or less wins out of 21 will be eliminated, which is statistically equal as playing best-of-21 where 11 wins grants advancement to the next round.

I'm just thinking that the sample size might be a little low. Maybe 27 or 33 would be more fair.

shoop76 wrote:
I'm just thinking that the sample size might be a little low. Maybe 27 or 33 would be more fair.

100%, for a Tournament with HUGE Prizes like this. More Games played at a FASTER RATE.

The way you would do it is for the rounds where there are no KO's. Stagger the starts and Set Up the New Games whether all of the old games gave finished or not. As you know M8 that is what the Super League does and it works! 5,000 League Games being SCUDDED EVERY MONTH don't lie!

If CC took the opportunity to learn from the great stuff happening in the Super League it would make for CC being a better place.

Not everyone wants 1000 games in a short span. Different tournaments can accomplish different things, and that’s ok. One can be loaded with games and one can be slower paced.
Both appeal to different groups and can keep the entire player base happy vs catering to the one type of player