CCup 4 format discussion (ver 5, p. 28)

[IcePack]

The rules will not be amended for any events. To qualify for a medal you need 41 games or to be run as a tournament with the TO making ALL the games, or having a few helpers. Cheme is 100% correct.

Privaledges are only issued for clan tournaments or wars. So it falls under tournaments. CC4 falls under wars due to the size requirement being met.

Do not try to reason that this is the same as CL 5. We both want the same thing. CL 4 was ran by division directors who made all the games. It was decided that it was easier to give privs to 1 person per clan to speed up things. Same could be done here if the TO did not make all the games, but only medals given out would be to the winners of the whole thing.

So what does CL5 fall under to get Privaledges? Tournament or wars?

IcePack

Tournament which means only the winners get a medal.

So an exception to the rules were made to allow CL5 to give priv to clan leaders, instead of TO / DD creating all of them, correct?

IcePack

[Foxglove]

I think we should add some sort of statement or rule about what happens to games and challenges in the event that a player in those games is warned or banned by the C&A team.

I propose that nothing happen beyond whatever the natural consequences of the ruling happen to be. So, if a player is perma-banned and kicked from their games, the results of their games would stand. If a player is warned or temporarily banned and they can continue playing in their games, the results would stand.

Basically, I would like to avoid any type of situation where people feel entitled to call for the results of a challenge to change unless specific rules of the cup are violated.

Thoughts?

[chapcrap]

The rules will not be amended for any events. To qualify for a medal you need 41 games or to be run as a tournament with the TO making ALL the games, or having a few helpers. Cheme is 100% correct.

Privaledges are only issued for clan tournaments or wars. So it falls under tournaments. CC4 falls under wars due to the size requirement being met.

Do not try to reason that this is the same as CL 5. We both want the same thing. CL 4 was ran by division directors who made all the games. It was decided that it was easier to give privs to 1 person per clan to speed up things. Same could be done here if the TO did not make all the games, but only medals given out would be to the winners of the whole thing.

I'm happy to have privileges not given for an opening round that has less than 41 games, because I prefer it to be all wars, but I think IcePack has a point here. You say the rules won't be amended for any events, but they are for CL5, because there are separate privileges for all the Qualifying Groups and no medals will be awarded for it. Why can't it be like that for a small qualifying round here?

[Bruceswar]

The rules will not be amended for any events. To qualify for a medal you need 41 games or to be run as a tournament with the TO making ALL the games, or having a few helpers. Cheme is 100% correct.

Privaledges are only issued for clan tournaments or wars. So it falls under tournaments. CC4 falls under wars due to the size requirement being met.

Do not try to reason that this is the same as CL 5. We both want the same thing. CL 4 was ran by division directors who made all the games. It was decided that it was easier to give privs to 1 person per clan to speed up things. Same could be done here if the TO did not make all the games, but only medals given out would be to the winners of the whole thing.

I'm happy to have privileges not given for an opening round that has less than 41 games, because I prefer it to be all wars, but I think IcePack has a point here. You say the rules won't be amended for any events, but they are for CL5, because there are separate privileges for all the Qualifying Groups and no medals will be awarded for it. Why can't it be like that for a small qualifying round here?

Sorry just getting back to you. Last Season of the CL we had it where the DD's had game making rights. They made all the games, yet it was a big undertaking for those people. We went with splitting it up to help the even run smooth. DD's still overlook all games and can make games if needed. The only medals handed out will be to the winners.

[Dako]

I think we should add some sort of statement or rule about what happens to games and challenges in the event that a player in those games is warned or banned by the C&A team.

I propose that nothing happen beyond whatever the natural consequences of the ruling happen to be. So, if a player is perma-banned and kicked from their games, the results of their games would stand. If a player is warned or temporarily banned and they can continue playing in their games, the results would stand.

Basically, I would like to avoid any type of situation where people feel entitled to call for the results of a challenge to change unless specific rules of the cup are violated.

Thoughts?

Agree with you here. I think nothing special should happen due to C&A reports or any site/map bugs.

[Bruceswar]

I think we should add some sort of statement or rule about what happens to games and challenges in the event that a player in those games is warned or banned by the C&A team.

I propose that nothing happen beyond whatever the natural consequences of the ruling happen to be. So, if a player is perma-banned and kicked from their games, the results of their games would stand. If a player is warned or temporarily banned and they can continue playing in their games, the results would stand.

Basically, I would like to avoid any type of situation where people feel entitled to call for the results of a challenge to change unless specific rules of the cup are violated.

Thoughts?

Agree with you here. I think nothing special should happen due to C&A reports or any site/map bugs.

Site bugs are not the same as getting busted. I do not see foxy mentioning anything about site bugs.

[chemefreak]

This thread reeks of elitism. I hate it. The Cup should have no wars that do not qualify for medals. So there will be at least 41 games in any "play-in". If you can't see the differences between the CL5 and CCup then I feel bad for you. The "play-in" clans will be lower ranked, newer clans. By suggesting that they complete a war using the invite system or that they should play a smaller war to accommodate the schedule of the higher ranked clans is disgusting. Nothing like this will happen while I am around.

You know what? While we are at it, lose the 15 member bullshit. You only have to have 10 to have a clan. More elitist nonsense.

[Dako]

Tone it down cheme.

[IcePack]

It reeks of something but I smell something completely different...

[josko.ri]

I think we would not like to be on the event where only one person makes all decisions, especially when decisions are related to his clan. In that case the tournament organizer who has final decision can be very biased in favor of his clan and not in favor of fair play and common sense, which can be seen here and in following posts: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=183896&start=450#p4091798

That said, my suggestion is that final decision of any issue when tournament organizer is interested side (direct or indirect) of the issue, is needed to be done by third party, clan leaders (excluding clan leaders that are, also like tournament organizer, direct or indirect sides of the issue) or CL and Friends group, whoever is considered to be on the top level hierarchy of the clan world. Otherwise we will have biased tournament organizer which will make decisions in favor of his clan.

[Keefie]

+1 Chemefreak

[Chariot of Fire]

I think we would not like to be on the event where only one person makes all decisions, especially when decisions are related to his clan. In that case the tournament organizer who has final decision can be very biased in favor of his clan and not in favor of fair play and common sense, which can be seen here and in following posts: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=183896&start=450#p4091798

That said, my suggestion is that final decision of any issue when tournament organizer is interested side (direct or indirect) of the issue, is needed to be done by third party, clan leaders (excluding clan leaders that are, also like tournament organizer, direct or indirect sides of the issue) or CL and Friends group, whoever is considered to be on the top level hierarchy of the clan world. Otherwise we will have biased tournament organizer which will make decisions in favor of his clan.

Dako, I think Josko is calling your integrity into question despite what looked like a very fair comment (the link he quoted). Four editions of this Cup and no-one has ever had a problem with the TO. Now, all of a sudden, Josko has a problem with Dako being the custodian. And this. despite a a panel of CDs to whom one could turn (ironically Josko's clan mate being the head one, which we have absolutely no problem with as Bruce is a stand-up guy...just like Dako).

If you don't like it Josko, don't play. We won't mind, honest. I'll even buy a year's premium for your replacement.

[Dako]

Let him. This is an open discussion. If a lot of players from different clans think that I am not worthy to run the CCup I will gladly step down — what is the point in being a host when nobody likes me or trusts me?

And about the link he quoted — should I explain myself? No, I don't think so.

[josko.ri]

I think we would not like to be on the event where only one person makes all decisions, especially when decisions are related to his clan. In that case the tournament organizer who has final decision can be very biased in favor of his clan and not in favor of fair play and common sense, which can be seen here and in following posts: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=183896&start=450#p4091798

That said, my suggestion is that final decision of any issue when tournament organizer is interested side (direct or indirect) of the issue, is needed to be done by third party, clan leaders (excluding clan leaders that are, also like tournament organizer, direct or indirect sides of the issue) or CL and Friends group, whoever is considered to be on the top level hierarchy of the clan world. Otherwise we will have biased tournament organizer which will make decisions in favor of his clan.

Dako, I think Josko is calling your integrity into question despite what looked like a very fair comment (the link he quoted). Four editions of this Cup and no-one has ever had a problem with the TO. Now, all of a sudden, Josko has a problem with Dako being the custodian. And this. despite a a panel of CDs to whom one could turn (ironically Josko's clan mate being the head one, which we have absolutely no problem with as Bruce is a stand-up guy...just like Dako).

If you don't like it Josko, don't play. We won't mind, honest. I'll even buy a year's premium for your replacement.

This is thread for discussion about next cup and I put my proposal that TO does not make final decision when it is about his clan. Bruce has never made final decision as a CD in some all-clan event which was directly affected by his clan. And we have also other suggestions about changing something which was normal in last 3 editions so I do not see why this suggestion is any different. In addition, dako was TO during less than 0,5 of 3 Cups so I do not buy your argument that he is proven as good TO.

[Chariot of Fire]

I think we would not like to be on the event where only one person makes all decisions, especially when decisions are related to his clan. In that case the tournament organizer who has final decision can be very biased in favor of his clan and not in favor of fair play and common sense, which can be seen here and in following posts: viewtopic.php?f=441&t=183896&start=450#p4091798

That said, my suggestion is that final decision of any issue when tournament organizer is interested side (direct or indirect) of the issue, is needed to be done by third party, clan leaders (excluding clan leaders that are, also like tournament organizer, direct or indirect sides of the issue) or CL and Friends group, whoever is considered to be on the top level hierarchy of the clan world. Otherwise we will have biased tournament organizer which will make decisions in favor of his clan.

Dako, I think Josko is calling your integrity into question despite what looked like a very fair comment (the link he quoted). Four editions of this Cup and no-one has ever had a problem with the TO. Now, all of a sudden, Josko has a problem with Dako being the custodian. And this. despite a a panel of CDs to whom one could turn (ironically Josko's clan mate being the head one, which we have absolutely no problem with as Bruce is a stand-up guy...just like Dako).

If you don't like it Josko, don't play. We won't mind, honest. I'll even buy a year's premium for your replacement.

This is thread for discussion about next cup and I put my proposal that TO does not make final decision when it is about his clan. Bruce has never made final decision as a CD in some all-clan event which was directly affected by his clan. And we have also other suggestions about changing something which was normal in last 3 editions so I do not see why this suggestion is any different. In addition, dako was TO during less than 0,5 of 3 Cups so I do buy your argument that he is proven as good TO.

Thank you for buying my argument that he is a good TO, even though I never claimed that he was My argument was that you don't seem willing to give him a chance to prove himself and are questioning his impartiality.

Has any other reader here looked at any tournament and said "I would like it if the TO is not the individual responsible for tournament decisions"? I never have. I'm merely grateful that the TO does the job he or she does.

[josko.ri]

Thank you for buying my argument that he is a good TO, even though I never claimed that he was My argument was that you don't seem willing to give him a chance to prove himself and are questioning his impartiality.

Has any other reader here looked at any tournament and said "I would like it if the TO is not the individual responsible for tournament decisions"? I never have. I'm merely grateful that the TO does the job he or she does.

It was my typo writing from mobile. If I wanted to say I buy argument I would say "I buy" and not "I do buy" so it was more typing mistake by forgetting to put "not". now is edited.

He already had chance in CC3, and I am not satisfied how he used that chance when it was about to decide about his own clan. Therefore, I think his decisions are biased to his clan. I am not the only one who thinks so, You see in other thread there are comments from third parties saying that denying request of replay is not fair decision.

I do not know if any other reader did so, I know that I did. You know, some people are able to do innovative things that nobody did before. But you are obviously not able to understand that, it seems like being copycat and repeat actions from others is maximum what can be achieved by you

[Dako]

josko, I am very sorry, but you are totally wrong here. I haven't made any decisions about TOFU-KORT clan war and I am not going to make them because I am CCup host.

Stop hijacking all the threads you can reach and let your clan leaders deal with TOFU-KORT war if you are unhappy with it. If you will not stop and will continue to derail threads with your pointless accusations I will report your posts to CDs for trolling and baiting.

[josko.ri]

josko, I am very sorry, but you are totally wrong here. I haven't made any decisions about TOFU-KORT clan war and I am not going to make them because I am CCup host.

Stop hijacking all the threads you can reach and let your clan leaders deal with TOFU-KORT war if you are unhappy with it. If you will not stop and will continue to derail threads with your pointless accusations I will report your posts to CDs for trolling and baiting.

I posted suggestion, and I did not see your response about the suggestion. I consider that as pretty legal suggestion which it seems like ignored by you as no your response on that:

my suggestion is that final decision of any issue when tournament organizer is interested side (direct or indirect) of the issue, is needed to be done by third party, clan leaders (excluding clan leaders that are, also like tournament organizer, direct or indirect sides of the issue) or CL and Friends group, whoever is considered to be on the top level hierarchy of the clan world.

Other part of my posting is reasoning why I think my suggestion should be accepted. Isn't that what is this thread supposed to be for? (suggestion presented + discussion why presenter thinks his suggestion is good)

[Dako]

Yes, I saw your post. And I will not give you a reply this time as well.

[Nicky15]

If I can refer you to this thread. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=438&t=169989

How should I resolve disputes in my clan tournament?

The Clan Directors recommend that you first try to have the clans involved resolve their dispute. If this does not work you may make a ruling as a Tournament Organizer if the dispute is minor in nature or falls within a tournament rule. For all other issues, your ruling should be presented to the Clan Directors prior to issuance. The Clan Directors, through discussions with you, will make sure the ruling is fair and assist you with enforcement, if necessary. Of course, at any point during a dispute you may feel free to involve a Clan Director, in private if necessary, to assist in the determination of a dispute. This is especially important if the dispute potentially affects privileges or medals.

What happened in this cup was a site issue that the CD team have no power to resolve. So we cannot step in here. This is an admin issue. If there was an issue not relating to a site bug, then the tournament organiser would not be able to make rulings for his clan, and these disputes would be handled by the CD team.

Lets please try and let the site bug go and please submit a report to admin if you haven't already and let them decide. We are very keen that the unpleasantness does not spill over into other threads.

[Qwert]

well these problem with site bugs, could be resolve only if you build rules who decide what to do in these situations.

Site bugs rules: If in any games appear some site bugs who are interferer and not allowed player to play hes turn, these game will be repeated( or will not be repeated).
----------------------------------------------------------
I think that with these TD or CD and also all Clans will know rules before start of competition, so these will prevent any problems between clans in future.

[josko.ri]

Yes, I saw your post. And I will not give you a reply this time as well.

As I expected. We have this thread just to be called "discussion" while in essence regardless of discussion and arguments presented you will make decisions how it the best fits for your clan. In real discussion, reasoned question gets reasoned response from TO.

Fast edited: Thanks Nicky for the reasoned response. That clears my doubts about how strong is power of clan TO's decisions.

[Ace Rimmer]

I propose that there is a rule that regardless of how the seedings are done, KORT and TOFU should not meet before the finals. If everyone is lucky one of them will lose before then and they won't have to face each other.

[Dako]

Draft of CCup4 rules, ver. 3



Seeding and brackets

Clan ranks will be taken from F400. We will have a standard tournament bracket with some twist:

1. Top-4 clans as per F400 will start in predefined places in round of 16
2. If we will have more than 32 eligible clans, those at the bottom of the F400 rankings will play a play-in round to claim their spot in top-32
3. Clans ranked 5 — 32 will be divided in in 4 pots:
   
   1. Pot A — clans from 5 to 11
   2. Pot B — clans from 12 to 18
   3. Pot C — clans from 19 to 25
   4. Pot D — clans from 26 to 32
4. After that they will be randomly paired with the following idea: clan from Pot A vs clan from Pot C or clan from Pot B vs clan from Pot D

Note: This will give a bit of free time for top clan to rejuvenate. Random drawing will add small element of surprise and make match-ups more balanced even in round of 32.


Clan Eligibility

To sign-up for CCup your clan must meet the following criteria:

• Be a member of CD&F group
• Have at least 15 members

If your clan doesn't meet any or all of these points, don't worry — just PM me and I will talk it over with CD's; if your clan is worthy you will be given a spot in CCup and placed at the bottom of the ladder in alphabetical order.


Player Eligibility

There will be no cup-tied rule in this edition of the cup. Any player can play for any clan. However if I will see any shenanigans I will penalize offending clan and force them to exclude new members from playing CCup games.

Note: all requests in CCup3 concerning cup-tied players were met with classy sportsmanship and those players were allowed to play. That means there is no need to be a rule about that and I doubt anyone will abuse their clan's name by bringing 5 new top-notch players into the next round because they fear their opposition. Where will you find so many great players willing to switch a clan?


Allowed Settings

• Initial Troops - only Automatic
• Play Order - only Sequential
• Spoils - any
• Reinforcements - any
• Special Gameplay - any but Trench Warfare games cannot take more than 20% of home games of each clan
• Round Limit - only 30 Rounds
• Round Length - only 24 Hours

Fog of rule courtesy rule will be applied by default to all games.

Note: I have allowed trench because it is perfectly balanced game setting and involves even more strategy than normal games. 20% of home games means each side can send 6 games max per challenge of trench games for the later rounds. It is a normal amount of games I think. Nukes are fine as they are and there is no problem in people playing nuke games in challenges, look at Random League for example. As for the Round limit, I have browsed more than 500 games of CCup3 and found only 1 game that has lasted more than 30 rounds (Game 11039109). Round limit is there to prevent such games from stalling the competition. If you cannot win a game but Round 30 or get a definitive advantage you may as well flip a coin. I also think it will force people to play more bravely and take their chances when they see them.


Allowed maps

Any, excluding Beta maps



Clan wars

For all rounds:
- Each clan will pick the map and settings for exactly half of the games
- Each map can only be used twice per clan per clan war but can only be used once per game type (i.e. once for triples and once for quads)
- Each round will be played in two batches with exactly half of the games in each batch


Play-in round and Round of 32
- 41 total games
- 12 doubles, 14 triples, 14 quads with 31st game being Quads on World 2.1, sunny, chained, no spoils
- Each clan member can only participate in 12 games per clan war


Round of 16, Round of 8, semi-finals, finals
- 61 total games
- 20 doubles, 20 triples, 20 quads with 61st game being Quads on World 2.1, sunny, chained, no spoils
- Each clan member can only participate in 16 games per clan war


Sending games

We will stay on schedule this time and I will make sure the games are sent on time.
Penalty for being late sending or joining games will be one home game forfeiture per day unless opposing clan will agree to play the game out. Detailed schedule will be posted before each round in advance.


Timing out a turn

There will be no penalty for timing out a turn. If you think a clan abuses this for tactical advantage you can PM CD's and file a complaint.


Change of rules by mutual agreement

Clans are not allowed to invent new rules. Clans can tweak some rules for their round upon mutual agreement and my own confirmation

Clans can change:

• Allowed settings — trench games can be banned or have their limit changed
• Fog of war courtesy can be dropped
• Tie-breaker format, such as map/settings and number of games it takes to break a tie
• Games exchange date can be changed, but not for more than 1 week

Those cannot be changed:

• Allowed maps
• Allowed settings — initial troops, play order, spoils, reinforcements, round limit, round length
• Number of games per round and their distribution
• Player limit for each round

Site bugs, player bans and other unpredictable circumstances

Any game that has been crippled by some outer intervention can be replayed only if both clans agree to replay the game.




============


Notable changes from version #2:

• Seeding system
• Clan eligibility
• Clan wars — players limit, play-in # of games, batch distribution of the games
• Change of rules by mutual agreement
• Added section about timing out a turn
• Added section about site bugs and other shenanigans

Please discuss.
Dako.

[josko.ri]

Draft of CCup4 rules, ver. 3



Seeding and brackets

Clan ranks will be taken from F400. We will have a standard tournament bracket with some twist:

1. Top-4 clans as per F400 will start in predefined places in round of 16
2. If we will have more than 32 eligible clans, those at the bottom of the F400 rankings will play a play-in round to claim their spot in top-32
3. Clans ranked 5 — 32 will be divided in in 4 pots:
   
   1. Pot A — clans from 5 to 11
   2. Pot B — clans from 12 to 18
   3. Pot C — clans from 19 to 25
   4. Pot D — clans from 26 to 32
4. After that they will be randomly paired with the following idea: clan from Pot A vs clan from Pot C or clan from Pot B vs clan from Pot D

This is nonsense. In Round of 16 you will have 4 clans that got byes, and 14 clans winners of matches from 5 to 32. Is it round of 16 or round of 18? In next round then it will be 9 winners of those 18 clans. I cannot believe after so many discussions and many players putting their ideas, you finally come with idea in which 18 clans will be in round of 16? I think that shows enough how serious you are as tournament organizer and how serious you consider players' suggestions.
In addition playing level of the randomized draw is non-equal, clan #5 will be "awarded" for their rank with stronger opposition than clan #18.

Now compare it with this format idea:
viewtopic.php?f=438&t=186880&start=60#p4085818
Number of rounds stays the same just we used different names for rounds(my R1=Your play-in round, my R2=your Rof32, my Rof16=Your 'so called' Rof16) so there is no any difference in total number of rounds. And my format suggestion ensures lower clans will have more equal playing field than your suggestion.

And if you wish to go with semi-random draw, then put just 2 pots, upper pot (half better placed clans=seeds) and pair them with lower pot (half lower placed clans). On this way everyone will have starting position in honor of their rank and the luck will say its word. With your suggestion #5 clan will get FOR SURE stronger opponent than #18 clan, that is just nonsense.