January 2016 - Decade in Review

[CatchersMitt14]

Official Monthly Challenge for January 2016 - Decade in Review
Brought to you by Dukasaur and the Community Team

In honor of Conquer Club's 10th Birthday (CC10) the January Challenge will highlight major additions to the site over the past decade. Through these ten auto-tournaments we will feature new settings and maps which were released during each year. As with CC10, one new tournament will be released each day. In order to enter a tournament a corresponding CC10 token is required. We intend to run each auto-tournament once, so plan accordingly!

All tournaments have prizes for the top players in the form of gold, silver, and bronze challenge tokens in addition to participation ribbons for entering. These challenge tokens and ribbons are what will count towards your score for the January Challenge and are reflected on the Decade in Review Scoreboard. Additional prizes will be awarded in the spirit of CC10! Any game that starts as part of the Decade in Review Event will also have a chance of dropping CC10 Tokens.

Decade In Review Scoreboard

The Tournaments

• Friday, January 1 (CC10 01 Token):
  2006: The original. Classic map, 6-p, escalating, adjacent, freestyle
• Saturday, January 2 (CC10 02 Token):
  2007: Introducing 1v1 Games, Flat Rate, Fog
• Sunday, January 3 (CC10 03 Token):
  2008: The complex maps appear -- Waterloo, das Schloss, Prohibition Chicago, Battle for Iraq, WWII Ardennes, and Forbidden City
• Monday, January 4 (CC10 04 Token):
  2009: Manual Deployment and Nuclear Spoils
• Tuesday, January 5 (CC10 05 Token):
  2010: The Golden Age of the Foundry -- featuring glamorous maps from the period
• Wednesday, January 6 (CC10 06 Token):
  2011: Conquer Cup - In the anniversary spirit you can enter this Conquer Cup for real world prizes!
• Thursday, January 7 (CC10 07 Token):
  2012: Trench
• Friday, January 8 (CC10 08 Token):
  2013: Parachute & Polymorphic games
• Saturday, January 9 (CC10 09 Token):
  2014: The Bot Expansion
• Sunday, January 10 (CC10 10 Token):
  2015: Tribes

Medal Criteria
10 points are required for a Challenge Medal.

Each participation RIBBON is worth 1 point
Each BRONZE Token is worth 3 points
Each SILVER Token is worth 5 points
Each GOLD Token is worth 7 points

Decade in Review Prizes
* NOTE: The Conquer Cup (2011) Tournament has a prize in the form of an Amazon gift certificate.

For reaching the Challenge Goal of 10 POINTS you get one of the rarest medals on the site, the Challenge Medal. Challenges only come around once, if you miss it, you won't ever have another chance.

For winning the Decade in Review Challenge: 1 Red Conquer Star

For finishing in 2nd place in the Decade in Review Challenge: 1 Green Conquer Star

For those who finish in 3rd - 5th place in the Decade in Review Challenge: 1 Blue Conquer Star


Notes

• Any issues will be solved by me, CatchersMitt14, and my word is final.

[shoop76]

I think that 2013 has an error in it for the number of players advancing and starting the next round. I take it since its an auto tourney this would mess up the tournament.

[CatchersMitt14]

Haha, thanks for catching that shoop! That would make for an amusing tournament.

[gbd88]

Looks like only the top 60 participants (i.e. Round 1 winners) in the Decade In Review: 2011 Conquer Cup will receive a participation ribbon. Is this correct?

If that's correct, then that means you are not guaranteed a Challenge Medal even if you've participated in all 10 Decade In Review events. Damn...

[tokle]

All of the tokens that are set as prizes are december tokens. Is that correct?

[Dukasaur]

All of the tokens that are set as prizes are december tokens. Is that correct?

Nice catch! Thanks... Should be fixed now.

[dakky21]

BTW how is "monthly" challenge become "weekly" challenge? I mean, if you can't complete a challenge in a month, why is it called "monthly"?
From what I see, 5 tournaments are left and as someone who didn't play those tournaments, I would need to win two of them to get 10 points.
Not to say that there are 23 more days till the end of January.

[Dukasaur]

BTW how is "monthly" challenge become "weekly" challenge? I mean, if you can't complete a challenge in a month, why is it called "monthly"?
From what I see, 5 tournaments are left and as someone who didn't play those tournaments, I would need to win two of them to get 10 points.
Not to say that there are 23 more days till the end of January.

It's the Challenge for this month. Normally the Monthly Challenges allow you a month to join games. This one doesn't. It's still the Challenge for this month.

If you join the five tournaments left, that's five points right there, and if you come 2nd in just one of them, that's another 5 points, so no, you don't need to win two. You don't even need to win one....

[dakky21]

BTW how is "monthly" challenge become "weekly" challenge? I mean, if you can't complete a challenge in a month, why is it called "monthly"?
From what I see, 5 tournaments are left and as someone who didn't play those tournaments, I would need to win two of them to get 10 points.
Not to say that there are 23 more days till the end of January.

It's the Challenge for this month. Normally the Monthly Challenges allow you a month to join games. This one doesn't. It's still the Challenge for this month.

If you join the five tournaments left, that's five points right there, and if you come 2nd in just one of them, that's another 5 points, so no, you don't need to win two. You don't even need to win one....

I understand how this months' challenge works, but if you can't get a challenge medal after 10. January then it isn't a "monthly" challenge. Just saying that wording sucks. Imagine you've been on a vacation till Jan 11th ... How do you get a "monthly" challenge medal? You got 20 days left in a month and you can't make it. Just saying.

[josko.ri]

In the Tribal decade in review, how will it be counted cases where uneven number of players join from each tribe? There will be some tribes with only 1 player in while other tribes will have 3,4. Will score be counted per average player?

[CatchersMitt14]

In the Tribal decade in review, how will it be counted cases where uneven number of players join from each tribe? There will be some tribes with only 1 player in while other tribes will have 3,4. Will score be counted per average player?

I've asked for clarification of the tournament structure and here is my understanding.

Currently, each tribe is allowed two entrants. Depending on interest, either the amount of entries per tribe will be adjusted or the number of initial players. Elimination and ranking of players is based on the individual's performance in the games. Where tribe affiliation comes into play is after the completion of the tournament. Once the individual placements have been established, any player who earns a medal wins that medal for everyone in their tribe. This encourages and rewards good tribe management in deciding who will best represent your tribe in the tournament.

[josko.ri]

In the Tribal decade in review, how will it be counted cases where uneven number of players join from each tribe? There will be some tribes with only 1 player in while other tribes will have 3,4. Will score be counted per average player?

I've asked for clarification of the tournament structure and here is my understanding.

Currently, each tribe is allowed two entrants. Depending on interest, either the amount of entries per tribe will be adjusted or the number of initial players. Elimination and ranking of players is based on the individual's performance in the games. Where tribe affiliation comes into play is after the completion of the tournament. Once the individual placements have been established, any player who earns a medal wins that medal for everyone in their tribe. This encourages and rewards good tribe management in deciding who will best represent your tribe in the tournament.

Thanks for clarification. Any chance that Tribal medal can be added for 1st place? It is quite an achievement to win the tournament out of 32 Tribes.

[CatchersMitt14]

Thanks for clarification. Any chance that Tribal medal can be added for 1st place? It is quite an achievement to win the tournament out of 32 Tribes.

A tribal medal has been added for the top four clans (which will be the top eight players).

[josko.ri]

Thanks for clarification. Any chance that Tribal medal can be added for 1st place? It is quite an achievement to win the tournament out of 32 Tribes.

A tribal medal has been added for the top four clans (which will be the top eight players).

Thanks a lot. Now I see the system changed and it is not anymore 64 but is 56 players. And members from 31 tribes signed in which mean some tribes will have only 1 player. I think it is the best to return to original 64 players and send pms to tribes which are not fully in that we need 1 more or 2 players from their tribe.

[CatchersMitt14]

Thanks a lot. Now I see the system changed and it is not anymore 64 but is 56 players. And members from 31 tribes signed in which mean some tribes will have only 1 player. I think it is the best to return to original 64 players and send pms to tribes which are not fully in that we need 1 more or 2 players from their tribe.

viewtopic.php?f=786&t=216374#p4771804
Check my post, if you let it start with 56 members, there will be 31 Tribes and not every tribe will have 2 members. That will cause confusion in the tournament scoring. Better revert to original 64 players and send pms to Tribes which did not fully join to sign up their representatives.

Now you have members from 32 tribes signed in and 55 total. That is 23 tribes with 2 players and 9 tribes with 1 player. The way to go is to send pm to 9 players which are lone from their tribe to recruit 1 more member and make it 64 players. Otherwise with 56 players you will have 8 tribes with only 1 member and that will be mess up.

The tournament has been open for sign ups for over a week now. That is ample time for those interested to enter the tournament and for people to recruit their fellow tribe members to join. Even if we were to move the number of players back up to 64 there is still a possibility that not all clans will have two representatives a piece. I do not see how the discrepancy with number of players per clan will affect the scoreboard.

[josko.ri]

Thanks a lot. Now I see the system changed and it is not anymore 64 but is 56 players. And members from 31 tribes signed in which mean some tribes will have only 1 player. I think it is the best to return to original 64 players and send pms to tribes which are not fully in that we need 1 more or 2 players from their tribe.

viewtopic.php?f=786&t=216374#p4771804
Check my post, if you let it start with 56 members, there will be 31 Tribes and not every tribe will have 2 members. That will cause confusion in the tournament scoring. Better revert to original 64 players and send pms to Tribes which did not fully join to sign up their representatives.

Now you have members from 32 tribes signed in and 55 total. That is 23 tribes with 2 players and 9 tribes with 1 player. The way to go is to send pm to 9 players which are lone from their tribe to recruit 1 more member and make it 64 players. Otherwise with 56 players you will have 8 tribes with only 1 member and that will be mess up.

The tournament has been open for sign ups for over a week now. That is ample time for those interested to enter the tournament and for people to recruit their fellow tribe members to join. Even if we were to move the number of players back up to 64 there is still a possibility that not all clans will have two representatives a piece. I do not see how the discrepancy with number of players per clan will affect the scoreboard.

Because clans with 1 player will have harder time to achieve their wins compared to clans with 2 players. I respect your decision but wanted to double think about consequences of the discrepancy.

[CatchersMitt14]

Because clans with 1 player will have harder time to achieve their wins compared to clans with 2 players. I respect your decision but wanted to double think about consequences of the discrepancy.

Yes, I agree that those tribes have decreased odds of winning seeing as they have fewer participants but at its core, this is still an individual event with all the games being 1v1. As I stated earlier, where individuals place on the scoreboard is based on that one individual's performance. Each player stands by themselves in the games, whether or not there is another player from their tribe will not affect an individuals performance.

[josko.ri]

Each player stands by themselves in the games, whether or not there is another player from their tribe will not affect an individuals performance.

I think you are wrong with this, but let's see how it will play out. I think that final placement will be determined by Tribal score, i.e. score of both tribal players together, not individually.

[josko.ri]

I see you completely changed the format of the Decade in review 2015, now all 56 players will advance forward in every of 6 rounds, no elimination for bottom ones.

It can lead to the fact that we have many players with 6/6 wins at the end, because top players may not face each other in the end as it was the case with previous elimination format of the tournament.

Finally, the most important question is how will final standings be determined?

Will it be that Tribe of the first placed single player will get golden medal regardless of placement of the second player from the tribe?
Or will it be that cumulative score of both players from the tribe will be relevant for final placement?

I ask this because I see two scoreboards in the tournament tab, one of single players and one of tribes(clans) and I am wondering which one is relevant for the final placements in the tournament?

Also, in my opinion it is a pity that the format was changed from elimination style to everyone advances style, because winners will not face winners and determine the bests on this way. Someone may win all 6 games and still not be on top of the scoreboard with this format.
Also, the format was changed during the tournament which is unfair to participants. I remember having elimination style format when the tournament had started, with every round having double less tribes than previous round, ending with 2 the best tribes in the final.

[Keefie]

I totally agree with Josko's points here, can we have some clarity regarding the final standings.

I'd also like to bring to task whoever decided the allowable settings for this.

I'm currently in Game 16308794

Freestyle
Manual
Nuclear
No Forts
Fog Trench

Basically all skill removed and whoever went first would win, thankfully it was me.

[CatchersMitt14]

The original format with eliminations didn't work due to technical tribe tourney considerations. Tribe tourneys don't support eliminations.

Medals are based on tribe performance.... So all members of the leading tribe get a gold medal, etc. See the Tribes section of the forum for discussion of Tribe tournaments.

[shoop76]

So its total wins for a tribe? Not winning percentage?

[CatchersMitt14]

So its total wins for a tribe? Not winning percentage?

Yes, it is total number of wins for your tribe.

[Donelladan]

So its total wins for a tribe? Not winning percentage?

Yes, it is total number of wins for your tribe.

If it's true I think you should consider changing that. If it's total number of wins for a tribe, then a tribe with 2 players will very probably wins more games than a tribe with 1 players.

For example right now Spanked and Milked has a record of 2/2, 0 active games, 2 victory. But PACK is better ranked with a record of 3/4, 0 active games, 3 victory 1 defeat. Obviously not fair.

There is 2 way to fix it.
Best one would be to double the numbers of games for the tribes with only one player.
In my example it means give two more games for Spanked and Milk tribes.

Each round, tribe having 2 players, you give 1 game per player. Tribe with one player, give 2 games for this player.

Otherwise, you can change from total of wins to win %, which would make in my example S&M ranked first above PACK.

[josko.ri]

It is also true that the tournament was open for more than 10 days and due to lack of interest total number of players was changed from 64 to 56. Why? Because some of tribes did not put their second member into the tournament in more than 10 days. Shouldn't it be responsibility of tribe, not organizer, to sign up their two members in the tournament if they want to compete with 2 members?

It is much easier to score (doubled) 6/6 and win the tournament than to score 12/12, so the organizer would do a big undeserved favor to tribes with 1 member if he makes it the most winning % as deciding factor.

When it was signing up, I assured that my tribe has 2 players signed in, and that should be responsibility of every tribes' players in this type of tribal tournament. If they didn't do it in more than 10 days when tournament was accepting players, it is their loss.

just FYI, I was aware of this problem before the tournament even started and I had suggested to the organizer to send pms to tribes with 1 player asking to sign up 1 more player. But my proposal was not accepted by the organizer saying that more than 10 days was enough time for them to join with 2 players if they wanted so.