josko.ri wrote:League then may be best of 8 (like it is now) or best of 10 per match.
another interesting idea came to my mind. if 2 different clans become winners of conqueror's cup and clan league then these clans may play supercup match (best of 80 or 60) which will decide who is the ultimate winner of that season.
stupid idea. CLA is basically 16 games clan challenge where half of the games are doubles, and we have situation where one clan have same team for every doubles, while CC is 40(and later 60) games challenge where no one can play more then 1/3 of the games. simple incomparable.
maybe it is stupid but it is idea from competitions from real life. in almost every country teams plays both league (round robin, average 28-32 games) and cup (2 games, winner advance). no matter that these are 2 very different formats, at the end of the season they play supercup (often 1 match) if different winners is from league and cup, which is an extra trophy. so, it is suggestion from real sports competitions, not something imaginare.
yeah, i know its rl situation. also, in rl nobody gives a rats ass about those super cups. as in footy, we all know who is CL winner while many doesnt even know there is super cup. not to mention, those super cups are played before next season starts, with completely different rosters.
waseemalim wrote:
waseemalim wrote:
freakns wrote:
josko.ri wrote:League then may be best of 8 (like it is now) or best of 10 per match.
another interesting idea came to my mind. if 2 different clans become winners of conqueror's cup and clan league then these clans may play supercup match (best of 80 or 60) which will decide who is the ultimate winner of that season.
stupid idea. CLA is basically 16 games clan challenge where half of the games are doubles, and we have situation where one clan have same team for every doubles, while CC is 40(and later 60) games challenge where no one can play more then 1/3 of the games. simple incomparable.
yes well, just because its theoretically possible to put the same team doesnt mean that people do that very often. There may be other reasons for not making these comparable, but this is a rather weak point imo.
also, want to take this opportunity to point out that I personally feel this maximum game limit is a pathetic waste of time. Firstly, if someone does want to take on 40 games, we should let them -- imo the burnout would be pretty high. The fact is, as you spread yourself across many games, you become ineffective, and that a clan simply can not win without depth. Secondly, people can quite easily determine the strategy of a particular game without being in the game -- it shouldnt take any more time and effort than actually playing the game.
while i didnt had this much work, i had around 70-80 active games. all against good teams as i dont play public games. and i had 3000+ points with 50+% success in team games... so yeah, 40 games can easily be managed by one person while being efficient. not to mention, if i play in doubles with lordnex, we dont even talk, no need. and you may look through CL or CC how efficient we are. and of course you can determine strategy in game you arent even in, but why on earth would you do that?!
Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous. Most people here do have a life. And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going. Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job. Most people just dont have that much freetime.
I had over 100 games at one point, and it was absolute hell. I can't imagine having 80 would be that much better. And while I managed to keep from missing any rounds, it seems obvious to me that there's no way I could have been as focused with 100 games as I can be with 20. There's a physical time constraint at play, here.
freakns wrote:and of course you can determine strategy in game you arent even in, but why on earth would you do that?!
for the same reason you would want to the same guy in all the games, and by extension a limit on how many games people can play.
Also, to be honest, I feel that your opposition would have an advantage if Nemesis put up 20 games with you. I know LoW's opposition would if we had 20 games with me (or even rabbiton).
p.s. Not a fan of supercup either. There's only as much a clan can do.
Life is what happens while you are busy playing Conquer Club.
pmchugh wrote:start the "tiebreak" at the very start of the challenge.
but the best part of your guys challenge was the epic BeNeLux game. At that point it was 20-19 THOTA. If the tiebreaker had been played at the beginning and had been won by THOTA, the epic BeNeLux game wouldn't mean anything
My clan and I are not affiliated with the Conqueror's Cup at all, so I don't exactly get a say, that's just my two cents
sjnap wrote:Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous. Most people here do have a life. And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going. Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job. Most people just dont have that much freetime.
for 80 games, it took me less then 2hrs per day as usually you dont get to play a move every day in 6-8players games. and i dont see a point of spending more then a minute to make a move in a game(unless its esc game where you need time to go with attack). it takes you maximum of 20sec to analyse situation, another 20 to decide what to play, and last 20 to actually play a move.
sjnap wrote:Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous. Most people here do have a life. And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going. Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job. Most people just dont have that much freetime.
I dont know why you all misunderstanding me, but I meant 80 games (or 60) in supercup played by ALL CLAN, not only one player. so if clan is well balanced it would be maybe 20-25 games per one player and it may be played in 3-4 batches so 6-7 games per player at once. I mentioned so lot number of games because I thought about it like great final to unite title of cup and league winners and have ultimate winner of the season. if some clan is so poor that one person must play all 80 games, it s their bad call, but nobody forced them to do that. also, it may be played in 4 batches of 20 games and/or may have maximum number of games per player, so then nobody would play 80 games.
pmchugh wrote:start the "tiebreak" at the very start of the challenge.
but the best part of your guys challenge was the epic BeNeLux game. At that point it was 20-19 THOTA. If the tiebreaker had been played at the beginning and had been won by THOTA, the epic BeNeLux game wouldn't mean anything
My clan and I are not affiliated with the Conqueror's Cup at all, so I don't exactly get a say, that's just my two cents
I suppose it makes a better spectator sport this way but its just that it creates problems later on in the challenge and could hold up the cup as it did in the early rounds. But the main problem was that because there was room for manouvere in the rules, some people got all worked up and disagreements insued. Just ask KORT, g1 or anyone who has tied a challenge, these things must be set in stone before the clan war starts and i think this goes for all challenges even outwith the CC.
As for how many games one person can play at a time, I think that varies. Freak is jsut a machine I remember the first time I went prem and i had like 15-20 games, me and my team took like 10 mins per turn and it ended up creating a bit of a headache
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
sjnap wrote:Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous. Most people here do have a life. And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going. Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job. Most people just dont have that much freetime.
for 80 games, it took me less then 2hrs per day as usually you dont get to play a move every day in 6-8players games. and i dont see a point of spending more then a minute to make a move in a game(unless its esc game where you need time to go with attack). it takes you maximum of 20sec to analyse situation, another 20 to decide what to play, and last 20 to actually play a move.
Apparently you play the same way I do, lol. I know there are people who enjoy spending 20 minutes on a turn, and every once in a long while I do it to, usually in a quads or trips game with spoils against excellent opposition.
Agree with jrh.....the tiebreakers should only come into play once it's a tie. It's good to add a bit of drama such as that just played out between THOTA & Nemesis.
and freakns......20 seconds, are you serious? Takes me 5-15 mins per move (but then I'm usually in a trips or quads game and I always estimate the sequence of moves before my next turn which takes a while). Was a bit of a full time occupation at one point when I regularly played 60-70 at a time, but as a semi-retired layabout all it ever did was keep me off the golf course. Am back to a more manageable 20-25 nowadays.
Back on topic though.....I'm all in favour of the player quota system as it challenges a clan's strength in depth.
sjnap wrote:Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous. Most people here do have a life. And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going. Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job. Most people just dont have that much freetime.
I dont know why you all misunderstanding me, but I meant 80 games (or 60) in supercup played by ALL CLAN, not only one player. so if clan is well balanced it would be maybe 20-25 games per one player and it may be played in 3-4 batches so 6-7 games per player at once. I mentioned so lot number of games because I thought about it like great final to unite title of cup and league winners and have ultimate winner of the season. if some clan is so poor that one person must play all 80 games, it s their bad call, but nobody forced them to do that. also, it may be played in 4 batches of 20 games and/or may have maximum number of games per player, so then nobody would play 80 games.
josko, snapo was replying to freakns, who said that she had 80 games going on at once.
freakns wrote:
sjnap wrote:Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous. Most people here do have a life. And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going. Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job. Most people just dont have that much freetime.
for 80 games, it took me less then 2hrs per day as usually you dont get to play a move every day in 6-8players games. and i dont see a point of spending more then a minute to make a move in a game(unless its esc game where you need time to go with attack). it takes you maximum of 20sec to analyse situation, another 20 to decide what to play, and last 20 to actually play a move.
You don't see the point in taking more than a minute for a move? Wow…in a clan game that matters, I usually spend around five minutes looking at the board before going to chat.
Lots of good discussion here. I can see and agree with both sides. I guess before the next tournament starts we can discuss these topics more and weigh pros and cons to each. I do like the excitement of those games at the end with the tie breaker not being played yet though. But it also does drag out the round longer that way...
I`m not sure why it`s such a problem if the challenge drags out. What`s the rush? Unless you`re trying to run more then one CC in a year (which would be a mistake IMO, because you have to let people take a rest from it, sometimes ), there is a plenty of time. Play-ins, round of 16 and round of 8 at spring. Semis and finals at fall. I can`t see how could you prolongue the cup much longer then that, if you stick to the current set of rules. Besides, clans playing finals usually woun`t be a part of play-ins, so I guess you can start one cup right after the other (or maybe even during the finals), and all clans will have a nice break between the two cups.
Agreed. It may be a few days though. I am on the road heading to Tunica to play in/around the World Poker Tour this weekend. I have my laptop so I may get it sometime here but it also may be after I get back.
Now that all of the challenges are done, What does THOTA, LOW, TOFU, and KoRT think about start days? Do you all want to say send first round games by August 15 which gives you 3-4 weeks before anything starts or would you like more time than that?
We are pretty burned out from the League win. And with THOTA's challenge going longer than expected, I imagine we could work something out to extend our challenge a week or two later. Shouldn't affect TOFU and KORT, who've been ready to go for some time now. Is having a delay between the two semifinal challenges' start date fine?
We at TOFU are happy to fit in around whatever schedule works best for everyone (being Chuck & KorT really, as the other side of the draw is immaterial). We don't suffer from burnout.
Mid August to have games ready to create seems reasonable enough, but will go with the flow.
We could use a break as well, so whenever LoW wants to get started, that's fine. The prospect of a month or so without any clan games is rather beguiling, since I think the last time I had zero clan games on my plate for that much time was a year and a half ago...
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
Chariot of Fire wrote:gl in your poker tourney Chuck
nah, luck wouldnt help him. you know Chuck. he will be leading the table until the middle of game, and then start all berserk when some fat mexican lose his shirt... strip poker against men just isnt his game
Incandenza wrote:We could use a break as well, so whenever LoW wants to get started, that's fine. The prospect of a month or so without any clan games is rather beguiling, since I think the last time I had zero clan games on my plate for that much time was a year and a half ago...
Ok. We will say that games don't need to be sent until August 22. That will give you a little more than a month until games actually start. TOFU and KoRT are more than welcome to start earlier as they have both expressed interest in doing so.
Good luck to everyone. I am excited to see the finish.
I remember the first time I went prem and i had like 15-20 games, me and my team took like 10 mins per turn and it ended up creating a bit of a headache 
), there is a plenty of time. Play-ins, round of 16 and round of 8 at spring. Semis and finals at fall. I can`t see how could you prolongue the cup much longer then that, if you stick to the current set of rules. Besides, clans playing finals usually woun`t be a part of play-ins, so I guess you can start one cup right after the other (or maybe even during the finals), and all clans will have a nice break between the two cups.
