Yes CTD this has been discussed already on page 2. But I'll address it again.

Is there a 20 player map out there that would allow two clans to compete? Oh wait most clans don't have 10 active players.

Each clan varies in size, so what is a fair way to allow them to compete against each other in a campaign? Would 9 members of one clan competing against 6 members of another clan be fair? Probably not.
Would 6 members of the larger clan, competing against the 6 members of the smaller clan be fair? Yes.
In my opponion if a clan is competing in a campaign tournament like this, any clan members that sat out one round, should be required to play in the next round.

Are there currently maps that would allow for 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 players? Not that I know of.

I thought people joined a clan to be part of a group and have fun. If the majority of my clan were to say hey we want to participate in this, then as a clan member I would feel obligated to join in and help the clan to the best of my ability.

Alright BA as you so liberally copy and pasted my rules for your tournament I am going to borrow one of yours. So you should have no reason to complain any more.

New Rule:

11. 80% of your active clan is required to participate. If you are unable to get 80% of your active clan to participate you may still play, but you will take forfietures for the missing players.

Using FSA as an example:
FSA has 9 active players, so 80% of their clan is 7 active players. FSA is only able to get 5 players to compete so they have two spots that are forfietures. Playing another clan of equal or larger size they will automatically take two losses against that clan. So they still must win 4 of their matches while the other clan only needs to win 2.

I will now explain how rule 10, which nobody has made any complaints about, will affect the clan matches.

going from the above example of FSA:

FSA has 5 players and 2 forfeits, they are going up against a clan that only has 5 players (80% of the clan) in it. FSA chooses to have the 2 forfiets sit out and all 5 of their players compete. In another round, FSA is playing a clan that has 5 players and 1 forfiet(80% of the clan) in it. As FSA had their two forfiets sit out in the previous match up against a smaller clan they are now required to play them, and one of their active players must sit out. FSA is fortunate that their opponents have forfiet as well, cancelling one of the forfiets out. FSA needs to win three of their matches while their opponent only needs to win two of theirs.

I am not picking on FSA here, the clan made a good example based off of the info that needed to be explained.

The only way I will not include rule 10, is if there is a majority vote from all of the participating clans not to allow it.

I will be reposting all of the rules so they are together and not cluttered up.

*gets confused*

FSA wont join this tourney has awful rules....

That last part WAS a little complex. Ghengis, just remove the last part...don't make concessions for FSA, they're not a good enough battle clan for this tournament. Nothing we do will make them happy.

Raptor, the rules aren't awful.

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 17:23

Taht's just what I'm saying. Why should they have to field 7 here when 5 is ample enough, AND tried and tested, for any other clan game so far?
(and no-one has ruled clan campaigns unfair in that way

Rules:

1. 80% of a clans active members must compete. If you are unable to get 80% of your active clan to participate you may still play, but you will take forfietures for the missing players. Any clan that would like to, can use their entire clan.

2. The clan leaders (or person designated for the clan) will determine who gets to play whom. The lower seeded team will name one of their players, then the higher seeded team will name the opponent. Then the higher seeded team will name a player, and the lower seeded team will name the opponent. Then the process starts over until all players are matched. (Clan leaders please try and take into account your members timezones)

3. Battles are players choice (auto, novice, or practice) with the default battle type being auto. (meaning if two players can't agree on the battle type, then they play an auto)
4. Players can choose to use medieval or demi. But the default troop type is medieval. (players must both agree on the same type. They both use demi or they both use medieval. If they can't agree it is medieval)

5. If there is a tie, a single medieval autobattle game will be played between the 2 clans champions.

6. Once the clans are matched, there is a two week deadline for the matches to be finish. This includes any tie breakers.

7. When setting a time with your opponent use the WOL time as that should reduce communication errors about when to meet.

8. If a player misses two scheduled match times, it is up to the opponent to choose to forfiet them or give them a third chance.

9. This is a true tournament, and will be double elemination. Clans will be seeded based off of the current ranking system.

10. If any of a clans participating members has to sit out for a match due to the size of their opponent, the next time their clan faces a smaller opponent the members that sat out must be placed in the line-up, while some of the members that participated must sit out.

Yes, I KNOW you've chosen 80% over the 5-rule, but I asked WHY, when I know of no-one who's claimed that clan campaigns are unfair because not everyone plays
Well...I SUPPOSE you could play double-trouble on the 40-map, but the odds of you getting all 10 players on the field, for BOTH clans, is extraordinarily low...

I just don't see why you have to invent new conflict-scale rules when the existing ones not only work, but are tried, tested and accepted. It would be like asking people to start making clone clans again (BoP, BoP2, BoP3) because for some bizarre reason, BoP (my chosen example) want to recruit 30 players...?

Presumably you have some reason, I just haven't found it yet, be it through MY stupidity, or it not being given yet (or passed earlier )

"Taht's just what I'm saying. Why should they have to field 7 here when 5 is ample enough, AND tried and tested, for any other clan game so far?
(and no-one has ruled clan campaigns unfair in that way"

This isn't a campaign tournament, this is a battle tournament. They're different parts of the game, and different rules apply. I personally think if clan games would allow the entire clan to play, it'd be a better indication of the clans skill. I mean, if 5 player games are a true test of skill, than 8 player games must be an equal test of skill, if not better, wouldn't they? I don't see how requiring an entire clan to play is unfair. I really don't.

"Presumably you have some reason, I just haven't found it yet, be it through MY stupidity, or it not being given yet (or passed earlier )"

Our reason is that, if the entire clan didn't have to battle, a clan with only 3 good battlers could win the tournament. Look at BoS. Pimp, boe, and overlord. On any given day, those three could beat ANYBODY that they're up against. Now, lets say hypothetically that BoS had only those three, and no other good battlers. If those three all won their matches...they'd win the tourney. Even though they only have 3 good battlers.

By raising the number of required players, we also raise the number of GOOD battlers you need to have a chance at winning. If 10 players have to play, then you can't squeak by with 3 good battlers...you'd need them to win their matches, as WELL AS at least 2 other people (for a tie, 3 for a win). That's much harder to do, it depends on the REST OF THE CLAN rather than just on the top three.

Ghengis, why don't we just call off the whole tourney? I'm sick of being mocked for trying to make a good tournament. Their idea sucks and, while our idea sucks less, it still sucks...for the reasons they've pointed out. If you want, CoC and Crusaders can still have a PRIVATE match, with those rules you posted...but lets just quit with trying to make it a tournament.

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 17:40

It isn't unfair, it's simply impractical. Are you gonna tell me next Manchester United should play EVERY player in EVERY match, or that every baseball player should play at EVERY match, and if someone gets injured (our equivalent being reality calls ) - hard cheese, you're out of the clan...???

The only way that battles and campaigns differ in how many of the clan play, is what it MAKES POSSIBLE, not what is 'fair'
The way it stands, you don't have a choice but field 5 in campaigns. Only in battles are there the choice, and that assumes it even NEEDS be made.

You have a format, it works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Sage, your not trying to make a good tourney, your trying to make a tourney where a clan with 8 ot 9 players that like to battle will have the advantage. I see no reason why 5 players are not enough to claim to be the best battle tourney. In all cases that is at least half your clan in most cases it is over half your clan.

I think the issue MAY be that your trying to exclude FSA becasue you know that me, rap and Dorw can beat any 3 COC players and thus you guys loose in a best of 5 battle. So you have to throw in some players that cant beat anybody just so you can outnumber us and get free wins via a forfiet.

And maybe not just us, in reality I think your trying to do that to all the other clans and you plan on getting this win via a forfiet.

Like I said earlier, this is a tourney based on exclusion. If you can exclude more clans you increase your chances of winning.

Frankly, I think AAA might have trouble getting 8 players to play in your preferred time schedule. First you will have a go at us for fielding weak players, THEN you would likely disqualify us for not being able to get them all to fight within a week or two...

Perhaps I'm wrong and we COULD get 8 of our players up in time...but I know there have been days where we've struggled to get the -5- players online all at roughly the same time. That doesn't point us out as a weak clan, it points us out as human beings with other obligations

I'm pretty sure a LOT of clans would suffer this, too...

"Sage, your not trying to make a good tourney, your trying to make a tourney where a clan with 8 ot 9 players that like to battle will have the advantage"

Yes, we are. Because a clan with 8 or 9 good players is a better battle clan overall than a clan with 3 REALLY good players and 6 or 7 sucky ones.

"I see no reason why 5 players are not enough to claim to be the best battle tourney."

I see many reasons. You don't. We're both relatively biased towards our own clans, though. However, I think the testimonies of Grump and Ghengis (who admit that such a system would hurt their own clans) weigh heavily on my side of the arguement

"I think the issue MAY be that your trying to exclude FSA becasue you know that me, rap and Dorw can beat any 3 COC players and thus you guys loose in a best of 5 battle"

Truthfully, I was worried about BoS. FSA never crossed my mind. Now that you bring it up, I must say: I battled DoRW once before...admittedly it was when he was sorta rusty from just coming back, but I wasn't that impressed. He's probably gotten better, but if I remember correctly one (or was it two?) of my clan mates recently beat him, so I wouldn't be that worried about him. You, BigAmigo, I would be...moderately worried about. In a match of you versus me (in an auto battle, as I'm sure you would insist) I'd say its a toss up. I REALLY (please believe me!) didn't play my best against you in the past, and I've learned a lot more about how to win auto battles (since it really comes down to how first strike happens) and I'm confident I could beat you. I'd still call it 50-50, though. Raptor does have me worried, because I've never fought him, and from his campaign score I know he's a good player. So I tend to overestimate.

"Like I said earlier, this is a tourney based on exclusion. If you can exclude more clans you increase your chances of winning."

Our increased chances of winning came from the increased number of players. We're not really excluding any clans, they're choosing not to join because they feel they'd lose under these rules.

But I do agree, Ghengis's 'forfeit rule' is kinda screwy...

CTD, I agree with you that we shouldn't strictly enforce the time limit. There's too many players involved for that.

Ghengis, can we give up on the tourney and have a private CoC versus Crusaders game? Since nobody else wants to play.

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 18:04

Then enlighten me Sage, why, if the best we can field, for example, is 5 players ABLE to play at any given time - due to us actually wanting the matches played this century - should we not play in the tourney?

I mean...if we have 3 good players and 6 bad, fine - IF we can get 8 to play. But if we can't...are we a bad clan just because we simply can't spare the players?

Edit: short version - give me the reasons for why we MUST have 80%, and alternate players, when we certainly don't alternate players in the campaigns. Or perhaps we should, now the idea is out? Alternate players between campaign matches, that is

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 18:07

Ok, screw it. The tournament sucks. I'm sick of defending it, sick of repeating my arguements over and over. We can start the tournament again IF AND WHEN more clans spring up with enough devotion to battles to actually play them.

Ghengis, close this thread, I'm sick of it. We can start a new one for a CoC - +=> match if you like, but I don't want to be a part of this 'tournament' any more.

I think you're right. We need better ground-rules before we go any further. And I would suggest we immediately begin by discussing the alternation rule for any campaign tournaments, as it's a brand new idea.

First off calling it my forfiet idea isn't correct. I took it directly from BA's the other battle tourney thread, only I modified it for the requirements of this tourney.

Here is rule 1 from BA's thread, please note the lower half about if you have less than five players.

"1. The tourney will be ran in a Ryder Cup type format. Each clan team will play 5 games and must win 3 to progress ( best 3 out of 5). If you do not have 5 players then you may take a loss for the number of players you are short. So you can play with only 3, but you need to win them all because you will have 2 losses already. Please post your teams here, list their names and the clan's name, list the leader of the battle team first. The teams will be seeded based on the average of the 5 players any team short players will average in a 0 score for each missing player."

I love how it is ok for BA to attempt to arrange a tournament that does everything to favor his clan, but when somebody borrows one of his rules, so that FSA can play with their five members, it suddenly becomes a stupid rule. I believe that BA said they were complaining about not being able to play because they could only field five players.

So he is proven to be lying then, because by using one of HIS rules his clan can play. I am more than willing to drop rule 10 and allow a clan to field what ever members they want against a smaller opponent.

Yes Sage if the Crusaders are willing to agree with it, we can battle each other. Perhaps we can make it a part of the Calling out the Crusaders combat and not only have a clan campaign but a battle royal as well.

Sugar if AAA is interested, mayhaps we can have a three way combat. If nothing else it will be a good time and great experience. If you are interested message me or sage and we can work something out.

But I am closing this thread, because I am tired of listening to BA whine. I have played 3 of FSA's 5 battlers and honestly do not think they have what it takes to win a clan battle tournament. Even if only 5 members from each clan competed.

Edited to remove any insult to FSA. I also apologize to FSA for insulting them.

Last Edited : Thursday, 23 September 2004 - 21:26