I would like to propose a clan battle tournament. This would be double elemination and allow clan rankings for battles to be established.

The players of the two clans matched up would battle. The side with the most wins would advance, while the other side goes into the looser bracket. Winning side is determined by most battles won.

Last Edited : Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 23:54

can i join?

It's the entire clan that plays not one person from within the clan.

no not the entire clan thatīs not possible i would say 3 players.
so we can play best of three...

Last Edited : Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 16:21

Too many transient players.

I just saw the suggestion for clan battles.

Here are the rules

the clan leaders will determine how many of their members will battle. Should be a minimum of four perferably the entire clan.

the type of battle is determined by the players (auto, novice)

Either clan leaders can choose who will play who, or the players can choose based off of who is battling and who is on line.

Once clans are matched up in the bracket, there will be a two week time period max to complete the battles.

When agreeing to a battle time with your opponent, use WOL time to prevent misunderstandings. WOL time is eastern american time.

First of all, the number of players battling from each clan should be uniform for everybody. What if one clan can only field 4 players (your minimum) but one of the more populous clans can field 9 players? The 9 would win automatically.

However, having a small number of players from each clan (3 or 4) wouldn't work either...that would just determine which clan has the best top 3. A clan that is overall better would lose according to this system.

The ONLY way to do a clan battle tournament correctly would be as I will now lay out:

Entire clans battle. If one clan has more players than the other, the more populated clan will drop the according number of players. They can choose any players they wish to drop from that round. Then, when both clans are fielding the same number of players, the battles would take place. The number one player from Clan A would battle the number one player from Clan B. Number 2 battles number 2, and so on. If a tie should occur (four wins for clan A and four wins for clan B) then a sudden death match shall occur. Each clan puts forward one player to battle for the title. All sudden death matches should be medieval auto battles (to be fair to the people who rarely battle).

This would obviously take a long time, which is why it would not be good for an all-including tournament. While we COULD do that, COULD set up a bracket...it would take forever to finish. What would be better would to have two clans just go at it, similar to a non-tournament clan game. We could keep track of wins and losses.

The above plan is less biased towards clans that have a few really good players who can beat anybody, and more fair towards overall good clans.

Sage that is why in the rules I laid out, the clan leaders determine how many players battle. That way if one clan only has 4 players and another clan has 9, the clan with nine players will choose what four will battle. In other words the clan with more active members matches the clan with fewer active members. It also allows for clans with inactive members to say we can only field x number of players. Once the 2 clan leaders have agreed to the number of players, they then determine who will battle who.

Saying that the #1 battler from each team has to battle each other really isn't fair to all clans. Example: you have boe and pimp who can beat just about anybody they battle. thier clan is matched up against a new clan that only has two semi-skilled battlers and three beginners. Forcing the two semi-skilled battlers to fight boe and pimp who will likely beat whomever they play, wouldn't give the new clan a fair chance in the tournament. Allowing the leaders or the participating players to determine who will fight each other is more fair.

I like the idea of a tie breaker battle,but not a one on one, it makes it to unfair for a clan that may have a really good battler. I would say a tie breaker is battled off with the clans top person and lowest person who particicpated in the battle joining in a novice four player game.

A two week time limit for a clan to complete the battles is in my oppinion a bit much. It allows leeway for the players to set a time and go at it. If a player misses the set time it will be up to the opponent to determine if it is a forfiet or if they will give their opponent another chance to battle. If possible the battles should be finished in the first week to allow for the possibility of a tie occuring.

The time limit also allows for an actual tournament and not just the clans bashing on one another. Which while lots of fun, isn't as exciting as having something to battle for. The #1 battling clan of the year claim. At the end of two weeks the tournament continues. If one clan has been screwing around and not completing their battles then it forfiets.

I could agree to that...if ALL active members of the clan had to battle. How fair would it be for BoS to say "ok, only Pimp, Boe, Overlord, and Fulcrum will battle." That's not representing the whole of BoS, they have to field some of their mediocre battlers as well.

Make it so once your clan signs up for the tourney, the only way for an individual player to get out of it is to be inactive.

Edit: Wait, thats kinda what you said. So if, for example, CoC fielded 8 battlers against BoS, BoS would have to match it if they had 8 active players...right?

I also think the minimum should be 5...seeing as how 5 is the definition of an active clan.

However, I think it's ONLY FAIR to have the top battlers from each clan battle. You say its not fair because nobody can beat pimp and boe...I would think that if a clan wants ANY chance of beating Pimp and boe, they had better field their BEST battlers against them. To field Pimp or Boe against one of their worse battlers is practically giving them a free win.

"Allowing the leaders or the participating players to determine who will fight each other is more fair"

No, that will just slow things down. What if they can't agree?

"I would say a tie breaker is battled off with the clans top person and lowest person who particicpated in the battle joining in a novice four player game."

A few questions:

(1. What? I don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that the tie breaker match actually be TWO matches? What happens if THAT ties?

(2. Why a novice 4?

"The #1 battling clan of the year claim."

Not of the year, just until the next tournament

i donīt agree. which clan has so many active battlers?

Last Edited : Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 20:25

The type of clan that deserves the title: Top Battle Clan?

It should be easy to get 5 active players together...if you can't get at least 5 active players...then your clan is in sad shape.

CoC could field a team.
BoS could field a team.
Crusaders could field a team.
IJA could field a team.
AAA could (I think) field a team.
FSA could field a team.

Plus some other clans that I'm undoubtedly forgetting. 5 players isn't that hard to get. Maybe you don't have 5 great battlers...that could quite possibly be true. But if you don't have at least 5 decent battlers, your clan doesn't deserve the title "Number One Battle Clan" anyways!

Last Edited : Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 21:33

Sage I meant a four player novice game (novice 41 or 42)

The leaders determining who plays against another player isn't that hard. One leader names one of thier players the other then names the opponent. Then the leader who named the opponent, names the next player, and the other leader names the opponent.

But I believe you are wrong about saying the top player from each clan has to play each other. By saying that you garauntee that some clans won't have a chance. Some clans don't have any really skilled battlers.

Let me try this as an example:

clan A has 5 battlers levels 20, 35, 47, 60, and 150
clan B has 5 battlers levels 20, 20, 44, 50, and 62
The top battler in clan B would have a slim chance of defeating the top battler of clan A, but he would have an even or beter than average chance of defaeting the other battlers. In this case it would be better for clan B to have one of their 20 level guys fight clan A 150 level guy, his chances of winning are almost as good as their best member in the clan. It also gives clan B best battler a better chance of achieving a win. Yes you could say they are handing a win to the top guy, but it is a sacrifice in order to hopefully achieve victory.

This has been done to me multiple times in foosball league. When the other team gets to choose, they always put their worst player against me. Like their best player he could get lucky and win, but it gives their team a better chance of winning for the night, by not having their best player shut down by me. I understand your point, I like to play the best as well. When it is my choice that is who I go after. But this is a tournament and to be fair to all teams they need to have some choice in who their players will battle.

Now let the clan leaders start posting for who will participate.

Last Edited : Friday, 17 September 2004 - 00:10

we (ija) would have a problem to field a team of 5 cause some of our battlers were only able to play practice games now practice battles startat level 40 and they even canīt play them. *moving to suggestion forum*

In that case, Vivache, IJA obviously isn't the top battle clan, if you don't even have 5 battlers.

You said that some clans don't have any skilled battlers. If that's the case...they aren't going to win anyways. Don't make it UNFAIR for the good clans.

(1. I wouldn't want to play a Novice 41 or 42 game...those are bugged. Everybody loses points when they play those.

(2. I don't like that system. I still think there'd be problems.

(3. It looks to me like Clan A is a better battle clan than clan B. Clan A either ties or exceeds the levels of all of Clan B's players. You say that the system I proposed isn't fair for worse battle clans? IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR. You shouldn't make things HARD for the good battle clans.

If your players are consistently lower level than their opponents, as they are in Clan B, then obviously Clan A should win...unless Clan B manages an upset. I know that even if I wasn't the top battler in CoC, I would want our top battler to face boe...just so we'd have a chance.

I don't like the way we seem to be going about this. But we need to lay out the rules. Do we agree on some things?

(1. If you have the active players required, you have to match the numbers fielded by your opponent. (ie: if your opponent fields 6 fighters, and you have 10 active players, you ALSO have to field 6 fighters. If you only have 5 good battlers...tough cookies, put in a noob.)

(2. Ties will be broken by a sudden death match of some sort.

Things to be worked out:

(1. Method of pairing up opponents

>In that case, Vivache, IJA obviously isn't the top battle >clan, if you don't even have 5 battlers.

we have even more.But most of them donīt have the time to play 2 hour-battles.

letīs choose practise games.
I am sure even top clans(top 8) canīt send 5 players to practise games.

So every player who isnīt ranked level 40 or higher has lost his battle automatically.

>1. If you have the active players required, you have to match the numbers fielded by your opponent. (ie: if your opponent fields 6 fighters, and you have 10 active players, you ALSO have to field 6 fighters. If you only have 5 good battlers...tough cookies, put in a noob.)


I am sure such a tourney will die right at the beginning.

Yes, we agree on number 1. All active members of a clan should participate. Anyone can play an autobattle, according to what I heard they are "fair". This is to determine the top battling clan, so all active members should participate.

The battles are the players choice, providing both players are abe to play that type of battle.

I didn't know the 4 player novice matches were bugged. So the tie breaker is a sinlge battle match, type of match chosen by the lower level player.

The choice of who is to play each other is the clan leaders. So if they want to use your suggestion of #1 battler against #1 battler to save some time on determining who is to battle who, that is their right. My method is ballanced and quickly finished by sending messages back and forth to each other.

I am not making things hard on the good battle clan sage, as you said clan A should win no matter what. What I am proposing gives clan B a fair start. My method allows clan B a slim chance, clan A should still win. Your idea will only get a couple of clans that have battlers in them. After all why would a clan that has mostly players that campaign, want to enter a tournament where they are not even given a chance at being able to compete? My method allows the start to be as even as possible, after that it falls to the players to prove their worth. We are out to prove which clan is the top battle clan. Not which clan has the top battlers.

I have played in novice and autobattle games and none of them have taken more than 1 hour and 15 min. Players have up to 2 weeks to get their match scheduled and done. The main reason I avioded battles is because people kept saying how long they took. Battles are very quick, and with one or two games a campaigner can become a serious threat.

So sign up this should be a great time.

KR

"letīs choose practise games."

Do you know how long the tournament would last!?!??!

"I am sure such a tourney will die right at the beginning."

Perhaps. But it really is the only fair way to decide who is the top battle clan.

Suppose Clan A has 5 really, really, really good battlers and 5 really, really bad ones. If Clan A only put forward their good 5...they're not representing the clan correctly, and they'd probably win because of those really good 5. However, if there's the bad 5 in there too...the whole clan is represented, and the ohter clans have a chance.

Of course, if both clans DECIDE that they want to disclude some players, example: Clan A and Clan B both have 10 active members, but each decide only to field 7. That'd be ok. But how fair would it be for a clan to have 10 good, active battlers...and then another clan who has 5 really good and 5 bad, to have to disclude 5 of their members just because the 2nd clan didn't want to play their bad players?

Ghengis is right...anybody can play an autobattle. They're extremely fair and balanced.

I'm happy you changed your mind about the 4 player matches! I hate those things The only match I will ever do (I haven't yet) would be me and Lonestorm versus Pimp and Boe. That'd be great

I'll concede about the leaders picking the teamups. I'm too apathetic about that to argue any more. I'm sure I'll be back here screaming when my clan gets screwed over by that rule

I guess we're just going to disagree on one thing though. You see pairing a weak player against a strong player as a sort of sacrifice, give the strong player a free win and hope YOUR strong player gets another win, to even it out. I see it as destroying your clan's only hope to defeat that strong player.

"We are out to prove which clan is the top battle clan. Not which clan has the top battlers."

I love this quote! This is exactly why the entire (active) clan should fight, rather than only 4 or 5.

"I have played in novice and autobattle games and none of them have taken more than 1 hour and 15 min"

Amen. My battles usually end up lasting about an hour.

As long as CoC's major request is kept (all active members battle, rather than the top 4 or 5) than you can count CoC in for this tournament.

Who will challenge us?

Alright, now that the rules have been decided who wants to tale a shot at the title of top battle clan?

already is:
CoC

To summarize the rules:

Here are the rules

A minimum of five active players is required to enter the tournament.

The type of battle is determined by the players (auto, novice)

Clan leaders can work out together who will play against who.

Once clans are matched up in the bracket, there will be a two week time period max to complete the battles.

When agreeing to a battle time with your opponent, use WOL time to prevent misunderstandings. WOL time is eastern american time.

Both clans must field the same number of players. ALL active players in the clan must battle, unless the opposing clan has fewer active battlers than you do. In that case, the clan leader may pick which players battle. However, if your opponent clan fields 7 players, and your clan has at least 7 active players, you will have to match that number, even if you only have 5 good battlers. The only way to get out of this tournament once your clan signs up is to be inactive.

Anything I'm forgetting?

Last Edited : Friday, 17 September 2004 - 18:52