jetsetwilly wrote:It's a tricky one to prove but the rule should be in place. In this case guilty until proven innocent ;) it should be relatively obvious if there was a tactical gain to be made from cheating. Case by case assessment is required but it's a rare thing and not a major overhead.
No, that will not work. Subjective rules lay in C&A domain, I will shy away from such things and try to make all the rules in CCup as clear as possible.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Just some things off the top of my head:
1. Reduce the number of batches per challenge so the process is speeded-up
This shouldn't be a hardship if the player quotas are reduced. No-one would be playing more than, say, eight games per batch (and that's a high estimate, the figure would more than likely be five).
I agree with that. 41 games are easy to send in 2 batches. 61 might be a bit harder but still doable. I like this suggestion so far.
Chariot of Fire wrote:2. Lower the quota per player, 10 games for a 41 game challenge, 15 for a 61 game challenge
Reward clans who have a broader player depth rather than those who depend on three or four players for results.
That's a good one as well. We should avoid 1-man clans (Bogan and BFM jump to mind) as much as we can. Reducing this to a normal amount should be ok. I will browse this cup war threads and see what was the normal amount of games played per player in various clans. I am sure we can find some nice info there.
Chariot of Fire wrote:3. Dispense with the play-in system - just pick the Top 32 seeds who are willing to participate
Why have the headache of play-ins? 32 clans are required to fill the bracket. If there's a clan outside that number then they are going to have to improve and join the next edition.
I was thinking about that as well but I'd like to keep this cup as open to everyone as possible.
Chariot of Fire wrote:4. A map may only be chosen once by each clan
We have 214 maps (non-beta) to choose from. Why not have clans have to play them instead of the repetitive selection of the same old maps challenge after challenge? A lot of the fun of the C.Cup comes from the prep & planning. Can you imagine the added level of excitement and risk if a clan wishes to reserve its better maps to use later against stronger opposition?
Round of 16 = 20 maps, Round of 8 = 20 maps, Qtr Finals = 30 maps, Semi Finals = 30 maps, Final = 40 maps. Total = 140 maps. The tiebreaker in every challenge (i.e. 41st, 61st or 81st game) is Classic trips, esc, chained, sunny.
That is too big of a change for such an event and will be a pain in the ass for clans to remember all the maps they have used. It will also be hard to monitor for each coming round to see what has been used in previous rounds. We can reduce it to every map once per challenge, I like that more.
Chariot of Fire wrote:5. Every game has a round limit
No harm in this. Keep the tourney moving along, so every game must have a 20 round limit. It also adds a new dimension to games and would also help end lengthy games, which may not be a bad thing if nukes & trench are being considered.
Aye, that is why I have introduced it in this set of rules ;).
The Voice wrote:I like both Vid_FISO's and Josko's ideas about a random draw for at least some portion of the seedings, and I would be content with either the old scenario or one of these scenarios.
HOWEVER, if we elect a scenario where there would be random assignments, I'd be concerned with anyone outside of my own clan in charge of randomly assigning the seedings. I know it sounds silly, but please here me out. For example, if Player X were in charge of randomly assigning seeds, people might be calling foul should Player X's clan find itself in what might be perceived to be an easy route to the finals.
My only suggestion to verify the veracity of the random assignments would be to have a few players from various clans viewing the screen of the person in charge of the assignments (using a program like TeamViewer) during the process.
I apologize if I've completely misunderstood how random assignments would work. With the F400, the seedings are indisputable. I don't believe that's the case if we adopt random assignments.
Sorry, I will not succumb to anyone's paranoia here. If you don't trust me or private seeders (if we choose to draw seeds blinded) then you should not enter this challenge at all.
chemefreak wrote:Dako wrote:Ok, I got it. I think we shall increase play-in round to 41 games then.
Those of us from lower ranked clans thank you Dako! Who knows, you may not even need a true "play-in" round if the #s work out right.
I doubt that we will have less than 33 clans signed-up. And anyway, the rules must be set before sign-ups are closed and I cannot foresee how many clans will join this event. Though I expect something around 38 or so.
chapcrap wrote:I'm going to say this again, since Dako put it in his rules and it seems that no one disagreed... No one should get 2 rounds of byes. Play in round counts as round 1. Anyone not playing in the first round has a bye. I do not think anyone should get more than one bye.
Ok, noted. Let's see what other clans have to say on that.
it should be relatively obvious if there was a tactical gain to be made from cheating. Case by case assessment is required but it's a rare thing and not a major overhead.
