Well it has come to my attention that some clowns think we may be scared of them We are willing to meet you any where any time bring it on!!!!!

Count us in on this clan battle tournament, however i haven't confirmed it with all my clan, i am sure they share the same thoughts as i!!!!


I AM NOT SCARED OF NO CLOWNS

You will be

ok, so are we saying that if one clan puts 9 players in and another clan puts 5 then the 1st clan has 4 wins automatically??

No, BigAmigo, that is not what we're saying.

We're saying that if a clan with 5 TOTAL ACTIVE MEMBERS wants to join the tournament, then the clan with 9 must select 5 of their players to make it even.

If the clan you're speaking of has 9 active members, but only 5 good battlers...tough. You have to field the 4 who aren't that good anyways. The only way to NOT participate is to be inactive.

The whole purpose of this is to encourage clans to have lots of good battlers...as the top battle clan should have.

No we are saying that if one clan has nine active members and another one has 5 active members, the larger clan will choose which of its members will battle the smaller clan. It will then be the best of five.

I'll say this again:

This is to prove which clan is the top battle clan and establish the clans battle rank, not which clan has the top battlers. All active members in a clan are expected to participate.

So if you have seven active members, but only five of them battle, you might want to take some time to teach
the other two how to battle.

So far the list of participating clans is:
Crusaders
Clowns of Chaos

I'll add to it as more clans sign up.

ok so a minimum of 5 is required to play or if you have less do you start with an auto loss. If you have only 4 then your already 1 game down? Just in case other clans want to try it. Just a thought.

FSA is a very high maybe.

Some clans might think it would be ok to have players leave temporarily or go inactive, so they can minimize the possible losses and to maximize their wins. So five active members are required.

If a clan has to use cheap tactics to have a chance at winning then they aren't really the top battle clan are they?

CoC - 8 active members (entire clan)
BoS - 10 active members (entire clan)
KoW - 1 active member
+=> - 8 active members
AAA - 8 active members
IJA - 9 active players (entire clan)
FSA - 8 active members
(k) - 3 active players
TWQ - 9 active playes (entire clan)
CIA - 5 active players

Looks like the only clans that have to worry about the 5 person rule are KoW and (k). FSA is safe, BA, no worries

I'd rather like it if the number of active members in ANY clan would stay the same between now and the start of the tourney. I'd be rather suspicious if all of a sudden 2 or 3 clans lose half of their active players so they only have to field 5

well for fsa 3 of its active member dont current play battle games....

Well are you really the top battle clan then?

If you want to prove which clan has the top battlers a tournament can always be started for that later. This is to prove which clan deserves the ranking of top battle clan. Not just a few of the members who happen to be good at it.

Not all of the crusaders players are good battlers, but they are all participating. That is how one team proves it is better than another by allowing all of its members to participate.

Like Ghengis said, Raptor, if almost half of your players don't play battle games, you aren't the top battle clan.

ok what will the rules be for this clan set them forward

yea look you cant just say if you have an active member they HAVE to play. Say 5 players or what ever, not the whole clan. Looks to me like your just trying to validate CoC as the "top battle clan" which is not true as I think we can take a 5 vs 5 and fsa can beat you 3 games. Your not the top battle clan just because you have 9 battle players, you have to beat someone too.

BA you only want to use 5 members of your clan. What five? Would it happen to be the same five members that you have been using in the camp tourney. If a majority of your clan isn't willing to prove that your the top battle clan, then you aren't the top battle clan.

Have all of your clan members participated in the camp tourney? If you have been leaving some out, then why are they in your clan?

You guys whine about a rule that seems to stack the tournament in CoC's favor. Well you are right, it does stack the tournament in their favor. But that is because their clan has focused on having battlers. The crusaders have joined up and all of our clan is not battlers. What you are doing is acknowledging that CoC is the top battle clan, by saying that the only way you can defeat their clan is by using only your good players and leaving everybody else out of it.

We are not trying to prove which clan has the top battlers!

We are trying to prove which clan deserves to be ranked first, second, third... I think you get the Idea. How can you establish that rank with only half of your clan?

While chatting in IRC, it was discussed allowing only 80% of the clan to participate and rounding up.

Well Sage might hate me for this, but this is all of the consession I am willing to give. There is a minimum of 5 players required, 80% of your active members must participate. Rounding will be done just as it is for math, in other words a clan with 9 active members would have to field a minimum of 7 of their players, unless their opponent couldn't field that many. A clan with seven active members would have to field 6 players. If a clan only has 5 members then you field 5.

That is as far as I am willing to concede. If your clan can't win the tournament with 80% of you members then they aren't the top battle clan.

Yes as far as I know every member of our clan has participated in the clan tourney or a clan game. Isolde not in the tourney because of other issues that have kept her inactive, Tack joined us late or I would have used him in the early rounds. And Dorw will play in the next game. So 7 of the 9 have in the tourney and all 9 have played in clan games including 2 former members.

So I am still not getting the issue here. Are we playing 5 games of battle per clan of the whole clan HAS to play?

Just thoughts I'd chime in here for no other reason than to just because...

No Ghengis the FSA battle team would not be the same as the '1st string of campaign players'. That would hardly be fair cause I'd dominate seeing as how I have never lost points in a battle game .

Last Edited : Wednesday, 22 September 2004 - 10:18

80% of the active clan members have to play. That means if you have 9 members, 7 of them have to participate in the clan match each round. The only way 7 of them wouldn't have to participate is if you battle a clan that can only field 5 or 6 players. If you battle a larger clan and you have the players then all of them can battle if they want to.

All battles should be played, even if a clan has a decisive victory early, like 4 out of the first 7 players win their match. This is also to establish clan ranking and I am sure that people will want to track the battles between the clans.

OK, as much as I hate to admit it, as I've read and considered this concept, I have to go with the argument that a Top Battle Clan would be that which holds the best overall battle record. Inherently, this would mean the greater percentage of the clan members are good at the Battle Game side of WOL. In light of this, a tourney for the almighty label of "Top Battle Clan" ought to have the involvement of ALL members of a clan. Personally, I've never won a battle game. OK, so I've only played three, and two of those were against Mal for poops and giggles. I really don't even consider the Battle Game side, as it does require a time commitment that stretches the tolerance of Mrs. Grump, if you get my drift. Worse than that, I find that the time frame popular for most battles does not fit my availability. Still, if my clan were to accept the invite, I would make effort to clear my schedule and give it my best to not lose in too horrible a fashion. Before my clan accepts, however, there must be some EXTREMELY hard and fast rules, set out prior, so that there is absolutely NO misunderstandings. In the interest of being part of the solution, here are a few of my thoughts on rules.

1) Use Auto Battles only. Not that I could find anything other, mind you, in my last check of the Battle Game realm. Still, it seems the only environment which requires the ability to work with what you are given (a test of skill) rather than the ability to pick better than your opponent (a test of luck). This has basically been set forth at this point.

2) Use realistic deadlines for completing matches. I know that for me it will be difficult to schedule a match, especially if I were to be paired against someone from the other side of the globe. If I were required to have it completed in a day or two, it ain't happening. As I recall, someone did mention giving a week, and that seems equitable to me.

3) Take into account time zones. As I mentioned above, I know that I would be the fortunate one who gets to battle against a player from Opposite Earthland, whose availability would require that I be up at 3:00 AM playing a game. You can imagine how THAT would be viewed around the Grumpyhome. Sadly, the nature of WOL being a global community means that such an event could happen. As difficult as it may be to do, I would suggest that such events be avoided. How? Damned if I can figure it completely, other than having each clan submit a listing of each member's time zone and availability, which could be used as a secondary measure when making up pairings.

4) Make 'em ALL play. Yes, I said it, make 'em ALL play. Even me. [groans at the thought] This begs the ongoing question of how to 'balance' things out when one clan has 5 actives and another has 10. Some deeply covered recess of my aged, slowly deteriorating brain recalls that I once was a member of a bowling team, and when we faced a team with greater members there was some mechanism by which things were 'balanced out' at the beginning of a match. Something like a proxy member of the short-member team being added by using the average of the long-member team as a score. Or something. Let me see if I can explain:

Team A has 10 members, avg BG score of 45
Team B has 6 members, avg BG score of 40
Team B would add 180 points (45 x 4 missing members created with Team A avg) to the end BG score, while 4 Team A members paired against the proxies would add their avg BG points to the end score.

Granted, this would require some effort, and math skills, but it might alleviate the uneven teams problem. It might not even be the best solution, but it gets closer than what I've seen so far.

If I think of anything else, I'll post...

Thank you grumpalot for being a non battler who agrees that the entire clan should participate. Unfortunately some of the members of the "first and second tier clans" have been whining that it is unfair to expect all of their members to have to participate in a battle tournament, against battle players.

I do not agree that novice games are a test of luck. The players who like novice games understand the concepts of picking a well ballanced army. I have been in several novice matches with good players all were close. While my troop selection was important, what was more important was my opponents failure to tactically capitalize on their troops capabilities versus my troops. I have yet to play a novice match where my troop selection has garaunteed me a win. When I tried a swarm technique that had been unsuccessfully used against me, I won because my opponent chose to stand his ground when he was being assaulted from the front, while another force flanked him from the left. The next round the third force came in against his right flank and he did not have enough melee units to protect his ranged units. Even then, it was still a close match. So unless one person takes all knights, and another person takes all HC, tactics and maneuvering are still more important than the so called luck of troop selection.

Your second point is addressed in the rules, which I will post again, that are on the previous page.

As for your third point, that is harder, and should be worked out between the clans leaders or the clan member who selects who will play who.

As for the fourth point I think I understand what you are saying but I am not positive. My suggestion for a clan competing against a smaller clan would be they get to select which members will play that clan. If in a future match they play another small clan then the members that sat out in the first match must play in this match while some of the members that played in the first match sit out. This would force larger clans to use all of their players instead of just their top members when they can get away with it.

Well I think your going to be hard pressed to validate this tourney, and no ghengis, it does not go to any clan rankings, sorry.

I think if you say 5 members then thats the way it goes, what your doing is saying that to be the top battle clan then you cant have members that don't like to battle. So if I had only 5 members and all 5 played and we won all 5 matches then we would be the top battle clan but if I had other members, say 9 total, and the same 5 as above played then you are not the top battle clan because all your members dont battle? Thats just stupid.

For instance here, what if I had 10 members, 5 liked to play battles and 5 liked to play campaigns. So why cant I be the best battle and camp clan? I got enough for the camps and I think 5 is more than enough for the battles. Not no 80% crap. your going to have like 4 clans participate at this rate. I think the point of your rules is to disqualify opponents so you have a lesser chance to loose.

Play this thing head to head 5 players each 1v1 each and who ever wins 3 of them moves on. Play it your way and it done even make sense. As a matter of fact, if you play it your way, FSA will host our own battle clan tourney using my rules. Take a vote from the clan leaders or something.

80% have to play? What the hell? Thats nuts. pick a number for god's sake.