Conquer Club

I have made some of the most famous clans in internet history... you can google them and get a few results...



Im retiring here to CC, and am enjoying seeing the developing clan system.. I think I can help some things.


In my clans first battle, Ive noticed one thing.. it is really on how you match up against the other clan.. other than overall beating another clan..


For example, I tryed to play my good guys against their good guys, and even my good guys against theirs that did not seem so good.


Im not sure if this is fair when its small clans against large clans..



so let me introduce an Idea.


A neutral third party sets up the format like this..


1) Game 1 2 vs 2
2) game 2 2 vs 2
3) etc
4) etc
5) etc 1vs 1
6) ..

ok so you have the criteria set.... so now its time to randomly plug in names..

http://random.org/lists/


put each guilds list of names into this... and you get a random order... then the battle mod just plugs in the matchups..


1) game 1 ..person 1 and 2 clan A .. vs person 1 and 2 clan b




see what i mean? randomly generated matchups to get a clans worth from bottom to top.

right? isnt a team only as strong as its weakest unit?

Interesting thought, however, I know many players who would rather not be placed on a random map that they don't know or play.

Why do you say

Im not sure if this is fair when its small clans against large clans..

?

Some of the best clans on here have very few members.

not randow map/// each sidfe gets to pick X number of of maps and settings... before they arre random;y filled

army of nobunaga wrote:not randow map/// each sidfe gets to pick X number of of maps and settings... before they arre random;y filled

why would i want to randomly play with people that aren't my regular partners? that makes no sense. my main partner has been my friend for over 20 years, and we play almost all our games together... team play takes a long time to develop and understand what each other are doing, and to know when communication is necessary. i am not interested in playing a game on a map with a random partner or partners. just a horrible idea. instead of trying to make it easier for your clan to compete by doing this, why don't you develop teams and play games with/against each other and others on the site to develop better team play? seems alot easier than trying to make all of us adhere to a formula to give your clan a shot... or how about recruiting better players?!! that always works, too... the black jesus has spoken...-0

but what do you do when your clan only has superb players?

man, that's just not fair to everyone else.....

army of nobunaga wrote:I have made some of the most famous clans in internet history... you can google them and get a few results...

Are we supposed to be impressed?

Cowboyz, while silly and a little funny, don't veer this off topic.

AoN, we do have some opportunities with clans and challenges (many are discussed within the Clan Leaders Association) but I'm not sure your suggestion is fixing any problem. One of my concerns with your current challenge (with IB) is that it resembles more of a tournament as you are playing all games on one map.

lol, guess it is kind of funny, but im proud of them




back on topic, I think once the match-ups were selected you could put the names of the players in the ramizer and let it select who creates the games..


or jsut put the map names in the randomizer, and let it randomly select maps to the matchups

army of nobunaga wrote:
see what i mean? randomly generated matchups to get a clans worth from bottom to top.

right? isnt a team only as strong as its weakest unit?

here is whats wrong with this. first of all, a random matchup can screw one clan over just the way that a bad drop or bad dice would.

and the smart way to do a clan war, is have your men join against maps that they are good against. ie: if we were in a clan war against another clan that decided to have world 2.1 as their home map in one of the games. wouldnt the most fair option be for our best world 2.1 team to take that map. i mean their best on that map, against our best on that map. how can you be more fair than that? random seems like its gonna give a 50/50 chance that the other clan is gonna start with an advantage. because if it was random 1 team is DEFINATELY gonna have an advantage.

the beauty of randomness is that it is the only way to compare apples to apples when saying which team is better than another.

One map may give an edge to a team through random design... but 15 - 30 matches? Statistics tells you that if you flip a coin 100 times you will get at least 40 heads 90% of the time... But if you flip that couin like 4 times, of course you can get heads 3 or 4 times and making it a statistical lopside.


So you see what I mean? your complaint about it being unfair may apply to that one match, but it would be fair over 15-30 matches overall.

It is more fair than how its done right now.

In my current clan war the ppl that are good at the map are in 70% of the games for both sides. It really came down to whomever sat down (me for my team) and planned out who would have a better shot against whom and on what map. rather than just having all ppl from both sides go at each other.

I dunno, I would like to experiment with this if any other clan is willing to give it a go

army of nobunaga wrote:the beauty of randomness is that it is the only way to compare apples to apples when saying which team is better than another.

One map may give an edge to a team through random design... but 15 - 30 matches? Statistics tells you that if you flip a coin 100 times you will get at least 40 heads 90% of the time... But if you flip that couin like 4 times, of course you can get heads 3 or 4 times and making it a statistical lopside.


So you see what I mean? your complaint about it being unfair may apply to that one match, but it would be fair over 15-30 matches overall.

It is more fair than how its done right now.

In my current clan war the ppl that are good at the map are in 70% of the games for both sides. It really came down to whomever sat down (me for my team) and planned out who would have a better shot against whom and on what map. rather than just having all ppl from both sides go at each other.

I dunno, I would like to experiment with this if any other clan is willing to give it a go

who has clan wars that involve only 1 match? did i misunderstand you. in my opinion a clan war is inaccurate unless there are at least 30 matches.

hwhrhett wrote:

army of nobunaga wrote:
see what i mean? randomly generated matchups to get a clans worth from bottom to top.

right? isnt a team only as strong as its weakest unit?

here is whats wrong with this. first of all, a random matchup can screw one clan over just the way that a bad drop or bad dice would.

random seems like its gonna give a 50/50 chance that the other clan is gonna start with an advantage. because if it was random 1 team is DEFINATELY gonna have an advantage.

I was answering this... yes 30 matches at random settings, no team has an advantage... not a statistical one, IF you make it random like im proposing.

Its like college football.. which conf. is the best? Well the pac10 and big 12 have some of the best teams... but you wouldnt know the best conf, unless you let ALL the teams in each conf match up against another conf.

I think we'll have our answer of where clans stand after these 1350 games are completed......

viewtopic.php?f=274&t=72893

army of nobunaga wrote:

hwhrhett wrote:

army of nobunaga wrote:
see what i mean? randomly generated matchups to get a clans worth from bottom to top.

right? isnt a team only as strong as its weakest unit?

here is whats wrong with this. first of all, a random matchup can screw one clan over just the way that a bad drop or bad dice would.

random seems like its gonna give a 50/50 chance that the other clan is gonna start with an advantage. because if it was random 1 team is DEFINATELY gonna have an advantage.

I was answering this... yes 30 matches at random settings, no team has an advantage... not a statistical one, IF you make it random like im proposing.

Its like college football.. which conf. is the best? Well the pac10 and big 12 have some of the best teams... but you wouldnt know the best conf, unless you let ALL the teams in each conf match up against another conf.

you are correct in assuming that if all teams play all other teams then the results will be more accurate, but that IS NOT what you are suggesting here.......

and its kinda unlikely, i mean i have 10-15 teams in dragoons, if we played another clan that was the same size, then we would have to play 225 games in order for every team to play every other team. seems impractical...

hwhrhett wrote:

army of nobunaga wrote:
see what i mean? randomly generated matchups to get a clans worth from bottom to top.

right? isnt a team only as strong as its weakest unit?

here is whats wrong with this. first of all, a random matchup can screw one clan over just the way that a bad drop or bad dice would.

and the smart way to do a clan war, is have your men join against maps that they are good against. ie: if we were in a clan war against another clan that decided to have world 2.1 as their home map in one of the games. wouldnt the most fair option be for our best world 2.1 team to take that map. i mean their best on that map, against our best on that map. how can you be more fair than that? random seems like its gonna give a 50/50 chance that the other clan is gonna start with an advantage. because if it was random 1 team is DEFINATELY gonna have an advantage.

I dont see how that is unfair to one team..unless you have some noobs in your clan that are god awful at a certain map.

jpcloet wrote:I think we'll have our answer of where clans stand after these 1350 games are completed......

viewtopic.php?f=274&t=72893

That will tell ya who is the best at doubles but thats about it.

I actually like the idea of random matchups
People with true skill should be able to compete on maps that they are not familiar with and figure out a good strategy to win.

army of nobunaga wrote:
In my current clan war the ppl that are good at the map are in 70% of the games for both sides. It really came down to whomever sat down (me for my team) and planned out who would have a better shot against whom and on what map. rather than just having all ppl from both sides go at each other.

There's the issue. Putting a cap on how many games someone can play in a challenge eliminates that problem. That's actually my one and only complaint in the CLA league right now. I have at least 15 different members competing every week, whereas two of the clans we've faced have had 6 members covering all 10 of the games. It's not a true test of the clan.

Lubawski wrote:There's the issue. Putting a cap on how many games someone can play in a challenge eliminates that problem. That's actually my one and only complaint in the CLA league right now. I have at least 15 different members competing every week, whereas two of the clans we've faced have had 6 members covering all 10 of the games. It's not a true test of the clan.

some clans are structured differently than yours is. in my clan, we've just started with competitions, and not everyone is involved. nobody was recruited into our clan due to rank or skill. we are all real life friends augmented by a colorful assortment of CC people we have met and befriended over our years here. there are people in our clan that don't even play games anymore or only play every so often due to real life issues (like running their own restaraunts, being on tour, being on the road for work, etc...). so why should they have to play games in a clan challenge if they aren't at all interested? thus, i think making all members have to randomly compete would just not work. however, i do understand what you are saying, and a cap on how many games each player in a clan can compete in sounds like a great idea. just not randomly making members of clans compete. the black jesus has spoken...-0

You can always try new things out if you can find a clan to go along with it. The key is to be flexible. Clan wars have brought new aspects into clan challenges all the time

The invention of:

Singles5 - Best of 5 1v1's for 1 point (IMO should have bonus point for 5-0 sweep)
Point systems - Games that count as 1, and some that count as less (or more) (Currently using this to get new players some experience)
Single Map Challenges
No repeat map challenges
Fixed roster challenges
non-ladder counting challenges (friendlies)

just to name a few.....

owenshooter wrote:

Lubawski wrote:There's the issue. Putting a cap on how many games someone can play in a challenge eliminates that problem. That's actually my one and only complaint in the CLA league right now. I have at least 15 different members competing every week, whereas two of the clans we've faced have had 6 members covering all 10 of the games. It's not a true test of the clan.

some clans are structured differently than yours is. in my clan, we've just started with competitions, and not everyone is involved. nobody was recruited into our clan due to rank or skill. we are all real life friends augmented by a colorful assortment of CC people we have met and befriended over our years here. there are people in our clan that don't even play games anymore or only play every so often due to real life issues (like running their own restaraunts, being on tour, being on the road for work, etc...). so why should they have to play games in a clan challenge if they aren't at all interested? thus, i think making all members have to randomly compete would just not work. however, i do understand what you are saying, and a cap on how many games each player in a clan can compete in sounds like a great idea. just not randomly making members of clans compete. the black jesus has spoken...-0

I wasn't saying all members should have to compete. I also don't like the idea of random match-ups. All I was saying is that if you are going to have a challenge, most of your group should be into it, not just 6 members of the group. If a clan has 25 members, but only 6 are competing, it might be time to drop some. Part of being a COMPETITIVE clan is being competitive. I've "kicked out" members of my family from my clan because they weren't active enough in games. If you want to be competitive, you need to actually compete. The BPB seem far more social than competitive, though it is nice to see you guys starting to compete as well. That's off topic though.
AoN seems to be looking to even things up for his clan. Practice new maps and get established teams. That's the only way to go. If you look at any elite clan, they have guys who are constantly teaming up with one another.

Lubawski wrote:

army of nobunaga wrote:
In my current clan war the ppl that are good at the map are in 70% of the games for both sides. It really came down to whomever sat down (me for my team) and planned out who would have a better shot against whom and on what map. rather than just having all ppl from both sides go at each other.

There's the issue. Putting a cap on how many games someone can play in a challenge eliminates that problem. That's actually my one and only complaint in the CLA league right now. I have at least 15 different members competing every week, whereas two of the clans we've faced have had 6 members covering all 10 of the games. It's not a true test of the clan.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

thats why i brought up this solution... randomize it~! make them all p[lay

That's a really bad idea IMO. If all members had to play, my top 10-15 would likely ask to kick the rest out. I have several players who are not the greatest team game players, but bring a lot to the clan in other ways. At one point, I had 3 different classes of clan war teams.

I will post a thread in the CLA about a minimum number of players.

We have 80+ members in our clan and most do compete in clan events. While we do not require our mates to participate in events we do get a solid turnout time and again. Sure we could seperate our clan into divisions, the thought has crossed our minds, but we felt that it would limit us.

When we established our clan we looked out how other successfull clans looked (from the outside) and are attempting to mimic them. Players in THOTA play consistantly together and know one anothers tactics well. Gen 1 players can compete on any map and are technically sound. LoD is larger and seems well orginized. Dragoons seem to have good disipline.

I think that's the point of home games. You set your best players up on the maps you want. When you do away games you fill in the players in your clan who can best play those settings/maps.

Theoretically everybody from the clan should be participating, or at least have the opportunity should they want to.

I think this system is fine.

you guys have actually changed my Mind... thanx for the discussion.

hiddendragon wrote:We have 80+ members in our clan and most do compete in clan events. While we do not require our mates to participate in events we do get a solid turnout time and again. Sure we could seperate our clan into divisions, the thought has crossed our minds, but we felt that it would limit us.

When we established our clan we looked out how other successfull clans looked (from the outside) and are attempting to mimic them. Players in THOTA play consistantly together and know one anothers tactics well. Gen 1 players can compete on any map and are technically sound. LoD is larger and seems well orginized. Dragoons seem to have good disipline.

MasterGuns is down to play in any blacksheep clan wars (inside or outside of clan), whoever is in charge of organizing? please send me an email with links to multiple games and I'll join. Also, as a clan I would like to us all get better, play in more challenges and move up the Unofficial Clan Ladder: viewtopic.php?f=274&t=65969&hilit=clan+ladder.

however, since i have joined this clan, I have not received one invite to play with or against any clan members except by gcwca, but we've played as teammates long before i joined the clan.