Conquer Club

Numbers are clearly going to keep falling off, and even clans like like S&M and TOFU have had to merge in order to keep up the numbers.

We're at a point in time where we risk multiple mergers and the clan scene just turning into 3-4 big clans. And that just seems less fun to me.

Things like CC and CL were designed when the numbers were much higher. Clans had 15-20 active members and recruitment of fresh players was common.

We aren't in that position anymore. These huge multi-game matches are a real stretch when you only have 10 active members.


Rather than watching clans have to merge to survive, at this point in time I'd like to see us recognise the game load problem in our current situation and adapt the competitions accordingly. I would recommend moving most of these competitions to about 70% of the current game volume per match.

If we don't do this we'll probably reduce the game load anyway by force! Because there will just be less rounds as there are less clans to fight against!

I think you're right on the CC game load. Perhaps make every round 41 games

IMO CL level of games is fine, if anything we should just spread the season out a little? Allow a one week break extra between rounds?

Numbers are clearly going to keep falling off, and even clans like like S&M and TOFU have had to merge in order to keep up the numbers.

TOFU maybe had to, but S&M didn't, they still had more than 20 actives members on their last war, and now they're probably the clan with the most active players.

Aren't just FALL and LHDD having issues with members at the moment ? ( after checking, LIONs seems in a tough spot as well, maybe DBD too)
Last war (number of players participating in the last war - except for clans where last war is more than a year old - then I picked a league match ) :

LHDD : 15 players
S&M: 23 players
FALL : 13 players
ACES : 21 players
A^ : 21 players
REP : 26 players
FOED: 24 players
RET: 22 players
LOW : 17 players
ATL : 17 players
GON: 35 players
AFOS: 22 players
RGV: 16 players
DBD : 14 players
LION: 12 players

IMO CL level of games is fine, if anything we should just spread the season out a little? Allow a one week break extra between rounds?

I do find that the CL amount of games is high. It used to be 8 games home, we went to 12. Which means the total went from 16 to 24.
I think we increased the number of games to reduce luck ?
But it can be a struggle now to fill them up when if you're slightly above 10 active members. One set of the CL is just as big as one set of a war ( or bigger than one set of a war if we're speaking about a 41 war games).

During the CC you have 40 to 60 games split in two sets. -> 20/30 games for one set. CL is 24 games every three weeks - so it's just about the same amount really.

I'd rather have the CL set smaller without increasing the spread personally.
Especially when we have overlap of CL with other events.

Donelladan wrote:

Numbers are clearly going to keep falling off, and even clans like like S&M and TOFU have had to merge in order to keep up the numbers.

TOFU maybe had to, but S&M didn't, they still had more than 20 actives members on their last war, and now they're probably the clan with the most active players.

FYI, dwindling numbers of active players isn't the only reason a clan may choose to merge. We needed more war leadership and planning bandwidth. Now we have more than one person to carry the load for those tasks.

As for the topic of game load, I agree that reducing that would help. That's a discussion that should happen regularly before various competitions start.

Donelladan wrote:I do find that the CL amount of games is high. It used to be 8 games home, we went to 12. Which means the total went from 16 to 24.
I think we increased the number of games to reduce luck ?
But it can be a struggle now to fill them up when if you're slightly above 10 active members. One set of the CL is just as big as one set of a war ( or bigger than one set of a war if we're speaking about a 41 war games).

If I remember correctly, that expansion of number of games in a round was accompanied by an increase in time between rounds, which went from 2 weeks to 3, in an effort to keep the overall gameload the same.

fishydance wrote:

Donelladan wrote:

Numbers are clearly going to keep falling off, and even clans like like S&M and TOFU have had to merge in order to keep up the numbers.

TOFU maybe had to, but S&M didn't, they still had more than 20 actives members on their last war, and now they're probably the clan with the most active players.

FYI, dwindling numbers of active players isn't the only reason a clan may choose to merge. We needed more war leadership and planning bandwidth. Now we have more than one person to carry the load for those tasks.

As for the topic of game load, I agree that reducing that would help. That's a discussion that should happen regularly before various competitions start.

Weakest point in every clan is Clan Tournament Organizer... A clan might have 15-20 members but can have 1 or 2 Clan Tournament Organizers. Players are far more replaceable than Clan Tournament Organizers. In a matter of fact One Clan Tournament Organizer can patch reduction of 5 clan members with acceptable reduction of performance. The same can not be said for the Clan Tournament Organizer. Lose the Clan Tournament Organizer, lose the clan. Lose the clan, lose the variety, lose the clan world, lose the game.

How much Conquer Club(and the owner) cares about Clan Tournament Organizers? Zero, Nada, Nothing!

I agree with SCuD's point that lower game loads are ideal with the current state of clan world.

I think the new CL format is an improvement (especially the longer lag between rounds, so at least some games are finished by the time the next round starts), but I'd prefer slightly fewer games per round to make it easier to keep more players at 2 per set (i.e., 2 home and 2 away), which we've come to view as the sweet spot in our clan. Overall, though, I think the new CL format is workable.

On Cup, I think the game counts per round are excessive, especially when there are other competitions that overlap, and even more especially in the advanced rounds. Ramping up the number of games in successive rounds may have made sense when clans had more active members, but we had serious burnout issues when we advanced to the finals in the Cup ending in January 2023. Many of our top players were requesting limited game loads, and I think the excessive number of games may have contributed to a couple retirements from our clan and a scaling back by others (we clan leaders bear some responsibility, of course, to be attuned to how people are feeling). The overlap and escalating game-count issues exacerbate each other because the advanced rounds in Cup with more games are also the ones that overlap with other competitions. So, in advance of Cup, I'm hopeful we'll continue this discussion about what game counts make sense.

mdhill wrote:I agree with SCuD's point that lower game loads are ideal with the current state of clan world.

I think the new CL format is an improvement (especially the longer lag between rounds, so at least some games are finished by the time the next round starts), but I'd prefer slightly fewer games per round to make it easier to keep more players at 2 per set (i.e., 2 home and 2 away), which we've come to view as the sweet spot in our clan. Overall, though, I think the new CL format is workable.

On Cup, I think the game counts per round are excessive, especially when there are other competitions that overlap, and even more especially in the advanced rounds. Ramping up the number of games in successive rounds may have made sense when clans had more active members, but we had serious burnout issues when we advanced to the finals in the Cup ending in January 2023. Many of our top players were requesting limited game loads, and I think the excessive number of games may have contributed to a couple retirements from our clan and a scaling back by others (we clan leaders bear some responsibility, of course, to be attuned to how people are feeling). The overlap and escalating game-count issues exacerbate each other because the advanced rounds in Cup with more games are also the ones that overlap with other competitions. So, in advance of Cup, I'm hopeful we'll continue this discussion about what game counts make sense.

The retiring issue is real.

I took a break one year after feeling like I was constantly on CC. Serious burnout occurred.

this is a little bit off the topic of whether to reduce games, but on topic of avoiding more mergers, making things more fun
i think planning wars is a big part of the problem.
become become the number of settings have mutiplied (trench , nucs, etc) and players have become more expert on favorite maps/settings there is an increasing burden on war planners to not only field then best home maps/teams /settings but also track which maps and settings are challenging for the opponents.
if all setings/maps were random the better teams would still have advantage , but making wars would be easier and in any given game more players might feel they have a chance ...
The burden on the war makers would decrease minimizing burnout or the need to merge to maintain enough war planners

that said i also favor fewer games

I guess I will throw my two cents in.

The actual game loads aren't too bad for me personally as LOW's main tournament organizer and game creator. However, I think it might help a little bit if the limit on times the map could be used in CL at least. So instead of three times, increase it to four or five times. I don't think any clan would use a majority of their maps 5 times, but they might have a map or two where they would use it 5 times. It might help an organizer not have to spend time finding that one last map they need to use to avoid the limit. Just an idea for CL17.

For CC what if the game count remained the same 21 games for each round? In my opinion there is a big game-load difference from round 1 to the finals.

GoranZ wrote:How much Conquer Club(and the owner) cares about Clan Tournament Organizers? Zero, Nada, Nothing!

Very disappointing and quite insulting that you say that considering how much the current CD team does for clans.

The CD team are fully aware of the pressure war planners are under. So all clans are contacted regularly and help that covers multiple things is offered. This includes,offering to assist with war planning, helping with player data/analysis, help with setting up wars and creating games, offering to pay players premium membership.

I totally understand that clans might be struggling due to fewer members around.

Clan League went from 120 games last season to 84 games this season so it was a considerable reduction already. On the other hand some clans find even less games would not allow to give enough games to their members. So having said so i think CL like this is a great impovement, we could see if something can be done about the CC.

Keefie wrote:

GoranZ wrote:How much Conquer Club(and the owner) cares about Clan Tournament Organizers? Zero, Nada, Nothing!

Very disappointing and quite insulting that you say that considering how much the current CD team does for clans.

The CD team are fully aware of the pressure war planners are under. So all clans are contacted regularly and help that covers multiple things is offered. This includes,offering to assist with war planning, helping with player data/analysis, help with setting up wars and creating games, offering to pay players premium membership.

Generally my post was not meant for CD team but for ConquerClub and the owner. Anyway when we are at that conversation...

1. In 2022 in CC12 Josko from S&M proposed a war timeline to us(FALL) so he can have time for his personal matters, and we agreed to it. The proposal wasn't honored by his clan(so he can have as many games as possible) and we had both rounds started in the last week of the war and we ended up inviting in the last day of the deadline. This was addressed in 2023 so it can not be repeated again.
2. In 2023 for CL15, we were literally outvoted when we asked for less games. This was addressed in CL16 to fix the same reason.
3. In December 2023 in the finals of CC13 rockfist forced us to use the defaults for CC(allowed by CC13 changes that fixed a previous issue) that were in the same time as with our CL15 match with S&M(TOFU had a bye) because as he said "they had more available players". They won the title by overwhelming us but in 2024 the Karma struck back and they lost in CC14 due to lack of active players. This lead to creation of Superclan afterwards.
4. In 2024 we have a creation of a Superclan because every current rule there is in the clan world is designed for different time and different volume of players.

What you guys are helping us is with the remedying the problems we as clans have, but you guys are not addressing the root issues. Most of the rules in the clan world are made when CC had over 20K players. We have 3.5K now, and we are shrinking.

I consider the CD team as "wiling to help but always late". Being on time for us is probably the greatest help that CD's can provide.

P.S. I know that you weren't part of CD team for everything I wrote, but you are now and maybe you will move the things towards the new reality for ConquerClub's clan world.

Goran, if your Clan is unhappy with some of the rules, then feel free to post them in the CAT forum for discussion.

The CD team is reading all of what is written here and we KNOW changes need to be made, but the sad reality is that it's not always easy to do this. We had people actively telling us they would not participate in CL16 unless we reduced the game load and we had very little time to get additional clan feedback and so we fast tracked the poll to reduce game load and we got ridiculed for that. Sometimes it's hard to find that healthy balance between keeping clans happy while also trying to maintain an ever dwindling clan scene, but please know we are trying.

I like that this discussion is happening outside of CAT so more people can give their thoughts. Please continue to let us know what you think should be changed or adjusted and we will do our very best to come to a balanced compromise for all clans.


GoranZ - Let's please try to look towards the future and improving things from here instead of the past mistakes or oversights. I promise you, we will do everything we can to not let those types of things occur again.

GoranZ wrote:3. In December 2023 in the finals of CC13 rockfist forced us to use the defaults for CC(allowed by CC13 changes that fixed a previous issue) that were in the same time as with our CL15 match with S&M(TOFU had a bye) because as he said "they had more available players". They won the title by overwhelming us but in 2024 the Karma struck back and they lost in CC14 due to lack of active players. This lead to creation of Superclan afterwards.

Since you're calling out TOFU, let me correct the record (and I can produce the PMs to back up all of this): First, I was the TOFU organizer in CC13, not rockfist. I tried reaching out to you multiple times very early to try to select earlier exchange dates and avoid conflicts for both clans. Those PMs were ignored. I gave a new offer, and you insisted on your own schedule and refused to budge from it. After a day of internal discussion, we agreed to accept YOUR proposed timeline. Then it took multiple PMs and reminders to get you to approve the schedule. After you approved it, you then almost immediately asked for a change to the schedule you proposed! We accepted the change and we sent our games in line with the schedule. You were several days late in sending the games (relative to the dates you demanded) with no communication about the delays. For the second batch, we had our games ready but waited until you sent yours (again multiple days late compared to the date you demanded). So because of YOUR delays and failure to communicate, we ended up with an effective later date for the second batch.

Potential Counter-Perspective: Using a Mathematical formula (using some easy math and some generalizations) to determine a Player's % Game Load for each individual Clan War:

Metrics Used: One R1 CC War Only.

• A. Average # Active Player Per Clan = 19.87
  Dependent on each individual clan, but for the sake of the entire Clan World, I am taking Don's Statistics at Face Value and performing an average:
  

  Donelladan wrote:LHDD : 15 players
  S&M: 23 players
  FALL : 13 players
  ACES : 21 players
  A^ : 21 players
  REP : 26 players
  FOED: 24 players
  RET: 22 players
  LOW : 17 players
  ATL : 17 players
  GON: 35 players
  AFOS: 22 players
  RGV: 16 players
  DBD : 14 players
  LION: 12 players

• B. # Clans Per Clan War = 2
  Only 2 Clans Per War (self-explanatory).
• C. Average # Player Required Per Game Per Clan = 3
  Doubles[2], Triples[3], and Quads[4] averaged together to get 3. This assumes that the number of Dubs, Trips, and Quads games are all the same per Clan War. The only way this number is not close to a small tolerance around 3 is if there is a heavier game tilt in Dubs or Quads.
• D. Average # Max Game Load Per Player = 10
  Assumes that the average Active Player will have a max 10 games before they start to feel overloaded. Generalized and subjective. Depends on player.
• E. Average # Weeks Per Game Per Player Per Clan War = 4
  Assumes that the average Clan Game takes around 4 weeks to complete. Generalized around Triples (Dubs finish faster, Quads finish slower).
• F. # of Games Per Clan War = 41
  Assuming 41 for the sake of a R1 CC War.
• G. Average # of Weeks Per Clan War = 8
  Assuming 8 weeks to finish most (if not all) Clan War games with Round Limits. By 8 weeks, generally speaking, most Clan War Games have been completed, and most of the time there is a clear picture on who is winning the Clan War. Obviously this is not the case for all Clan Wars, especially Clan Wars that have slight margins for victory.

End Result should be a formula % Player Game Load: F/G*E/A*C/D*B
End Result using generalized numbers above yields a 0.619127517 (62%) Player Game Load.

Takeaways:

• More Active Players, Average # of Weeks Per Clan War, and a higher Average # Max Game Load Per Player number mean a lower % Player Game Load.
• Less Active Players, # of Games Per Clan War, and a lower Average # Max Game Load Per Player number mean a higher % Player Game Load.
• Games still ongoing from prior Wars, Clan Leagues, or other non-Clan games could affect the Max Game Load Per Player and bring down the Max Game Load Per Player for the next Clan War.
• The Average # of Weeks Per Clan War will decrease the % Player Game Load. Wars could potentially be slower to finish (3 rounds of 14-1 instead of 2 rounds of 20+1, 4 rounds of 10+1 instead of 3 rounds, etc.).
• Depending on # Active Player Per Clan, Clan Wars could be faster to those Clans who could handle the higher # Max Game Load Per Player or slower for those Clans who need a lower # Max Game Load Per Player.