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

[Leehar]

Seedings:
Perhaps mention that you'll be taking the latest F400 rankings as the seedings are made (I assume thats an arrangement that can be made with IcePack?)
I remember some consternation at the rankings that were taken for the last Cup, so hopefully that'll assuage The Packs concerns

I'm not sure how exactly it was decided that the top 4 will be the only ones to get a bye, but I guess thats your prerogative, tho it does give me some discomfort :/
(Would it be possible under this arrangement that Clan 4 could play clan 5 in the Round of 16?)
I don't think I piped up under the discussion earlier, but one of the concerns I have is that the Quarterfinals that we had in this CCup 3 was one of the most entertaining rounds I've been witness to, with all 4 wars being enthralling contests. I know some folks were lauding the FA Cup, but I'm personally not a fan of a bracket where 1 team (Man City) can thrash a team 5-0, while on the other side of the bracket we can have a close contest more deserving of a Final (Man U vs Chelsea; It doesn't really do them justice to be playing on a 4th round stage).
In essence, I'm worried we could still be having mis-matched contests in the latter sections of the tournament, rather than the more enticing battles we saw in the Quarters for CCup3, which I would have thought would be worthy of replicating.

Similarly, I think 61 games for the round of 16 is too much. Thats the first matches the top 4 will play, so a 45+ scoreline could be possible, & a battle that could very well be decided early on, and not encourage the excitement of uncertainty we've had in some of the recent CCup3 wars.
And only 2 batches per wars? I would think at least 3 batches for the 61 game wars would be more worthy? To stay on a more reliable 20 games per batch rather than 30? (Specially in the latter stages of the tournament where each game is more crucial, I'd assume people would dislike being overloaded?)


Then elsewhere, I think there's some inconsistency on the stances. In one section there's a prescriptive sentiment that such & such settings can not be changed by agreement (Things like game distribution, where I'd think if people wanted quads in the first batch it'd be perfectly acceptable), while on the other you're leaving the reins entirely in the hands of the respective clans to decide whether to replay games for site bugs etc.

In my mind, some of the appeal from the Conquerors Cup is that it is merely a collection of individual clan wars brought under the banner of a tournament, so to limit that unduly seems to detract from the enjoyment? (Tho I can understand some of the desire with the exigencies of time management, it shouldn't be to the detriment of the entire experience either?)

In some places you capture that nicely, in others I feel it's somewhat restricted, so I'm sure to get that balance could be tough.

There are some other concerns I have, specially with regards to some things like clan eligibility (15 members), player eligibility (where have we seen 5 top-notch players joining a clan before ), Settings (trench & round limit - Ahunda), Maps (what happened to 2 per war etc?), Game Exchange (summer downtimes etc?), Timing-out (CL's in-depth ruling is discarded?) etc once I've digested it a bit more
(Oh wait, I just mentioned most of them anyway lol - Can expand on it more later )


Edit: Josko, I can understand if you may be a bit miffed with Tofu, and thats perfectly ok, but try to at least stay polite with your discourse. I think you may have raised a valid point with the 18 clans thing (I haven't checked my numbers either ) But there's no need to alienate Dako from listening to your points of view either

[Dako]

I am leaving my work now and will reply in the evening or tomorrow. I might have did some math mistakes in the brackets, I will provide a picture for clarifications of what I mean when I get the time.

josko — if you will attack me and discuss this cup in that tone I will just ignore all your posts. Please stay civil and keep my personality and my clan out of your remarks.

[josko.ri]

Edit: Josko, I can understand if you may be a bit miffed with Tofu, and thats perfectly ok, but try to at least stay polite with your discourse. I think you may have raised a valid point with the 18 clans thing (I haven't checked my numbers either ) But there's no need to alienate Dako from listening to your points of view either

I think who suggest something has the right to make critics about what he suggested. So far I suggested:

1. Format
2. Semi-random draw
3. Not allow TO to decide issues about his own clan

#3 suggestion got well argumented response by Nicky, and #1 and #2 was topic of my criticism in previous post because I think the chosen Format&Draw principle is much worse than many suggestions which was presented for that. My critics are always connected with my suggestions, I do not criticize something without writing how it can be done better.

josko — if you will attack me and discuss this cup in that tone I will just ignore all your posts. Please stay civil and keep my personality and my clan out of your remarks.

Sorry but I do not see where I mentioned anything about your clan in previous post. I said the suggested format is nonsense. I commented negative about your work/decisions, not about your personality, and for whatever I criticized I explained why I disagree and how it can be done better. I know you would more like that everyone goes around and just say "clap clap Dako" but if you open something called "discussion topic" then you need to be ready to have disagreement comments together with agreement and clap clap comments.

[Chariot of Fire]

Very good post Leehar - I agree with almost all of your sentiments.

Josko - the format of your proposal is quite good, but maybe no need to be so rude to others. The title says 'Draft' so it's open to discussion, not ridicule.

My thoughts are:
- why favour the top seeds and allow them to join later in the tournament? Better to start with an even playing field, all on equal terms
- the cup-tied rule should still stand. Whilst leading players might not switch clans often, leading clans do occasionally stop being competitive (especially after a defeat), thus it is quite feasible for a clan to beat a prestigious clan and end-up facing the same players in the next round (look at the Thota example)
- Round of 16 would be better @ 41 games, followed by 61, 61 and 81.
- pity you didn't consider the 'map can only be used once per round' idea. 20 games from one clan could feature just 10 maps under the current rule. Boring

One question re trench. You say max 20% of games (i.e. 4 home games in early rounds, 6 in later) may be chosen by a clan. Then later you write under allowed changes "Trench games can be banned or have their limit changed". What do you mean banned? Is this by agreement of both clans (not just one)? If it is then they simply won't choose trench games will they, so no need to write the rule.

Other than that, great. Thanks for working on it.

[Qwert]

well i sugested these, but dont know if these incuded like option
>>The format proposal can also be adjusted without hard fixed seeding. Maybe semi-random, top half of clans in every round to be seeded, and bottom half to be random paired with seeds.
Example (for 32 clans):
R1: seeds 17-24 clans. random paired 25-32 clans
R2: seeds 9-16 clans. random paired winners from R1
R of 16: seeds 1-8 clans. random paired winers from R2
QF: seeds 1-4 clans. random paired other 4
SF: seeds 1-2 clans. random paired other 2<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
now i have few questions( to understand better)
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
(i think that criteria its to low, because from these any new clan whitouth any challenge before ,can play in CC4)


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
(can you tell me how much maps will be used per each round, or these rule apply for entire cup)


Tie-breaker format, such as map/settings and number of games it takes to break a tie
(i think that these it unesesary rule, because you all ready implement round limits of 30, so you eliminate any posibility for stalemate)

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.
(good rule)

[Foxglove]

- the cup-tied rule should still stand. Whilst leading players might not switch clans often, leading clans do occasionally stop being competitive (especially after a defeat), thus it is quite feasible for a clan to beat a prestigious clan and end-up facing the same players in the next round (look at the Thota example)

Maybe we can consider some kind of limited cup-tied rule, in which players can only play for a single clan during one round of the competition, and if they switch clans, they have to sit out the subsequent round.

[Chariot of Fire]

Yes Foxy, that would work I guess. It still doesn't really eliminate the possibility of top-flight players fighting again though, which seems a bit unfair. In all honesty once knocked out they should stay out until the following edition.

Achilles was killed at Troy. It wouldn't have done if he'd popped his head up again in the Greeks' next battle. That's the scenario I'm alluding to.

[ahunda]

And only 2 batches per wars? I would think at least 3 batches for the 61 game wars would be more worthy? To stay on a more reliable 20 games per batch rather than 30? (Specially in the latter stages of the tournament where each game is more crucial, I'd assume people would dislike being overloaded?)

+1

This here event will overlap with the Clan League, that has become quite heavy in terms of game-load itself.

The way things are going right now (more & more clan games all the time), we´ll soon need to have 30 members to be able to compete anymore ?

Also:

Timing-out (CL's in-depth ruling is discarded?)

I agree, that this rule should be in place. It sends a very clear signal, that timing out is seen as loop-hole abuse, and that this is not wanted in this tournament.

If you leave the rule out, it could be understood, that timing out is an acceptable strategy (which has been argued by quite a few people). Take a stand here !

And last, my personal thing:

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.

The obvious counter argument here is: If only 1 out of 500 games did go over 30 rounds, why would we need the limit then ?

I am imagining the rare occasion of a game lasting that long. And the even rarer circumstance of it being the last game in a 61 game challenge, which is currently tied at 30-30 (which would be the only time, where it would impact the overall schedule of the tournament). Let´s say a Conquer Rome Quad with No Spoils, where no team has a clear advantage yet.

Both clans & half of CC are watching the game and speculating about the outcome. The most dramatic finish to a challenge imaginable, the very thing, that will land a challenge on Bruces Top 10 list of most epic challenges ever. And you want to cut that game off by round 30 and declare the team with 5-10 more troops on the board the winner ? Seriously ?

[Keefie]

My changes to the draft would be:

Timing out should be against the rules and every instance should be looked into by the CD's

A map should only be used once per clan per war.

No game round limits.

[Dako]

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.

I based my idea on your interpretation (thank you for translation) of qwert's idea. However I changed it a bit. Unfortunately it is 11.30pm right now and I don't have time to draw the brackets as I see them. Believe me it will be all very clear once I show you the image tomorrow.
As for the seeding, you (as in plural you) asked for more equal seeding because nobody likes to watch #1 vs #32. Now you say that stronger opponent is bad and call my 4-pots idea nonsense. What do you want - equal more match-ups or less equal match-ups? Right now CCup3 had less equal match-ups in first round. I decided to change that based on your suggestions and then you say "hey, #5 will have more equal match-up and its bad!". I don't get it.

Seedings:
Perhaps mention that you'll be taking the latest F400 rankings as the seedings are made (I assume thats an arrangement that can be made with IcePack?)
I remember some consternation at the rankings that were taken for the last Cup, so hopefully that'll assuage The Packs concerns ;)

It already states that seeding will be done via F400 rankings. The first sentence after the "Seeding and brackets" header.

I'm not sure how exactly it was decided that the top 4 will be the only ones to get a bye, but I guess thats your prerogative, tho it does give me some discomfort :/
(Would it be possible under this arrangement that Clan 4 could play clan 5 in the Round of 16?)

This year top-1 spot had a bye, I decided to extend it to the top-4 as a courtesy. I can easily change that to no byes or to top-2 clans get byes if people are against my current proposition. And yes, as in draft #3 it is possible for clan 4 to play clan 5 in the round of 16 because of the random draws.

I don't think I piped up under the discussion earlier, but one of the concerns I have is that the Quarterfinals that we had in this CCup 3 was one of the most entertaining rounds I've been witness to, with all 4 wars being enthralling contests. I know some folks were lauding the FA Cup, but I'm personally not a fan of a bracket where 1 team (Man City) can thrash a team 5-0, while on the other side of the bracket we can have a close contest more deserving of a Final (Man U vs Chelsea; It doesn't really do them justice to be playing on a 4th round stage).
In essence, I'm worried we could still be having mis-matched contests in the latter sections of the tournament, rather than the more enticing battles we saw in the Quarters for CCup3, which I would have thought would be worthy of replicating.

I don't think we will have less entertaining matches because if you managed to win vs #6 clan and get to the Quarterfinals, well, it means you are that good. Look at OSA - they were seeded very low but proved that they worth a lot. So no, I think your fears are not groundless.

Similarly, I think 61 games for the round of 16 is too much. Thats the first matches the top 4 will play, so a 45+ scoreline could be possible, & a battle that could very well be decided early on, and not encourage the excitement of uncertainty we've had in some of the recent CCup3 wars.

Ok, let's see what other think. I am ok with 61 or 41.

And only 2 batches per wars? I would think at least 3 batches for the 61 game wars would be more worthy? To stay on a more reliable 20 games per batch rather than 30? (Specially in the latter stages of the tournament where each game is more crucial, I'd assume people would dislike being overloaded?)

I understand what you mean but this is not that hard. 10 extra games are not that hard to fill. Again, let's wait what more people will say on this matter.

Then elsewhere, I think there's some inconsistency on the stances. In one section there's a prescriptive sentiment that such & such settings can not be changed by agreement (Things like game distribution, where I'd think if people wanted quads in the first batch it'd be perfectly acceptable), while on the other you're leaving the reins entirely in the hands of the respective clans to decide whether to replay games for site bugs etc.

In my mind, some of the appeal from the Conquerors Cup is that it is merely a collection of individual clan wars brought under the banner of a tournament, so to limit that unduly seems to detract from the enjoyment? (Tho I can understand some of the desire with the exigencies of time management, it shouldn't be to the detriment of the entire experience either?)

In some places you capture that nicely, in others I feel it's somewhat restricted, so I'm sure to get that balance could be tough.

Just to be clear - by game distribution I mean the game types ratio dubs/trips/quads over the war. I will not put rules on game distribution between batches.
As for the whole idea, I would like CCup to be a collection of wars that share similar rules over the whole tournament. But on the other hand I'd like to keep it flexible and adjustable on some minor things to make it more enjoyable for everyone.

There are some other concerns I have, specially with regards to some things like clan eligibility (15 members), player eligibility (where have we seen 5 top-notch players joining a clan before :P ), Settings (trench & round limit - Ahunda), Maps (what happened to 2 per war etc?), Game Exchange (summer downtimes etc?), Timing-out (CL's in-depth ruling is discarded?) etc once I've digested it a bit more :)
(Oh wait, I just mentioned most of them anyway lol - Can expand on it more later :D )

You can expand on them later - we have plenty of time. I will not answer on them right now because I don't want to put words in your mouth. I will answer them once you formulate them and post your questions here.

My thoughts are:
- why favour the top seeds and allow them to join later in the tournament? Better to start with an even playing field, all on equal terms
- the cup-tied rule should still stand. Whilst leading players might not switch clans often, leading clans do occasionally stop being competitive (especially after a defeat), thus it is quite feasible for a clan to beat a prestigious clan and end-up facing the same players in the next round (look at the Thota example)
- Round of 16 would be better @ 41 games, followed by 61, 61 and 81.
- pity you didn't consider the 'map can only be used once per round' idea. 20 games from one clan could feature just 10 maps under the current rule. Boring

Top clans (AFOS and AOC to be precise) wanted a break between CCups. I would not like to add extra time in between for all the other clans, but I introduced byes for those top clans to satisfy their request (which seems very reasonable to me).
Nobody used cup-tied rule anyway, every clan allowed cup-tied players to play this time. Tell me then why do we need this rule?
I would like to hear more from people on games per round. 81 for finals seems tempting as well, that would be really grand.
I did consider 'map can only be used once per round' but I will run a vote in CD&F on that because it's a bit controversial so I would like the majority to decide on that.

One question re trench. You say max 20% of games (i.e. 4 home games in early rounds, 6 in later) may be chosen by a clan. Then later you write under allowed changes "Trench games can be banned or have their limit changed". What do you mean banned? Is this by agreement of both clans (not just one)? If it is then they simply won't choose trench games will they, so no need to write the rule.

Yes, you got it right. If both clans would like to drop trench altogether they are free to do so upon mutual agreement. It does seem excessive a bit so I will rephrase it a bit. Thanks.

now i have few questions( to understand better)
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
(i think that criteria its to low, because from these any new clan whitouth any challenge before ,can play in CC4)

We cannot up this criteria any more qwert, 15 is a high enough number. If clan cannot fill the games with that number of players they will forfeit games on delay.

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
(can you tell me how much maps will be used per each round, or these rule apply for entire cup)

Those rules apply for every round of the whole cup. It means after each round you can re-use maps in the next round.

Tie-breaker format, such as map/settings and number of games it takes to break a tie
(i think that these it unesesary rule, because you all ready implement round limits of 30, so you eliminate any posibility for stalemate)

I left it there so clans can change it to best-of-3 tie-breaker if they want to, or change the map to a smaller one or change it to escalating. If both clans would like to play another 41-st or 61-st game I don't mind.



=========

Unfortunately I don't have time to reply to others right now. I will get back to this thread tomorrow.

[Qwert]

its look that we have misunderstanding here.
for first -Clan Eligibility--- i meant to ask, are you dont going to add minimum of 2 clan chalenges?
and for Tie break format--Now if in some game start 29 round ,then clan can decide to play new game?? i mean what you have 30 round limit if clan can decide to change these ,like they want? Its only prolonging duration of games.

[jetsetwilly]

My changes to the draft would be:

Timing out should be against the rules and every instance should be looked into by the CD's

A map should only be used once per clan per war.

No game round limits.

Picking up on these points.

Also a agree on the time out rule staying as stated previously.

One map use per clan war is also more interesting. I would go so far as 1 use per cup but I don't think that's everyone's cup of tea Anyway I think as you say that's a good one to run a vote on.

Game round limits. Trench is here which is great, have we completed enough analysis of trench games to confirm that a round limit is also not necessary here ?

I think the draw and seeding question might need a vote too as we've seen a number of different opinions on it.

Overall though I think most things under discussion above can be thrashed out pretty easily and it looks good, nice work

[Qwert]

well sometime picture say more then words, so here scheme with random draws.

Click image to enlarge.

[josko.ri]

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.

I based my idea on your interpretation (thank you for translation) of qwert's idea. However I changed it a bit. Unfortunately it is 11.30pm right now and I don't have time to draw the brackets as I see them. Believe me it will be all very clear once I show you the image tomorrow.
As for the seeding, you (as in plural you) asked for more equal seeding because nobody likes to watch #1 vs #32. Now you say that stronger opponent is bad and call my 4-pots idea nonsense. What do you want - equal more match-ups or less equal match-ups? Right now CCup3 had less equal match-ups in first round. I decided to change that based on your suggestions and then you say "hey, #5 will have more equal match-up and its bad!". I don't get it.

Since you mention here that I just translated qwert's idea, I must say that is untrue. Truth is that he sent me pm with his idea on our language, but that was done like 30 minutes after I posted my idea, and those ideas happened to be very similar, but still have differences. Ok, I am expecting to see brackets then, maybe I misunderstood word interpretation.
This second argument of equal seeding is just funny. Well, why not make it then #5vs#6, #7vs#8 etc, it will be the most equal playing field then? You could just make match ups like that and say "that is what josko asked, now we have the most possible equal playing field so blame josko if it is not good".

I wanted more equal match ups, but I put suggestion how to do it without penalizing top seeded clan in the draw by giving him by default stronger opponent than #18 seed will get. And the suggestion is totally different that how you interpreted it. At first, my suggestion gave more equal playing field at first by bracket format (clans lower than #17 in round 1, or call it play-in round if easier), and at second by draw format, in which half seeds play vs half non-seeds.

This is something very similar to my idea, he just made a mistake, this is example for 32 clans so I walled him to fix the mistake (mistake=17~24 are 8 clans, and 25~36 are 12 clans so 8 clans cannot play vs 12 clans. That said, lower pot should be clans 25~32):
viewtopic.php?f=438&t=186880&p=4095271#p4095068

[jghost7]

My changes to the draft would be:

Timing out should be against the rules and every instance should be looked into by the CD's

A map should only be used once per clan per war.

No game round limits.

Picking up on these points.

Also a agree on the time out rule staying as stated previously.

One map use per clan war is also more interesting. I would go so far as 1 use per cup but I don't think that's everyone's cup of tea Anyway I think as you say that's a good one to run a vote on.

Game round limits. Trench is here which is great, have we completed enough analysis of trench games to confirm that a round limit is also not necessary here ?

I think the draw and seeding question might need a vote too as we've seen a number of different opinions on it.

Overall though I think most things under discussion above can be thrashed out pretty easily and it looks good, nice work

Also on these points...

Agree with the time out rule...

The twice per war scenario should remain as it is. Just about every war I have seen has played them this way, and as stated before, the idea is to keep this like a collection of regular clan wars brought together into a bracket tournament.

Definitely NO round limits. Either trench can, or cannot be played in the war. But if round limit must be used for them then they should not be played.

Thanks,

J

[benga]

Regarding maps, maybe twice per event?

but only once per war

[Qwert]

its look that people are confused
josko proposed format with classic draw
viewtopic.php?f=438&t=186880&start=60#p4085818
then i proposed random draw, who are diferent from josko original post (only draw seeding part
viewtopic.php?f=438&t=186880&start=60#p4085875
then josko translate
viewtopic.php?f=438&t=186880&start=60#p4085887
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So actualy you have two sugestion abouth draws-
Josko classic draw (17-vs 32-16 vs 31-15 vs 30) its fixed draw so winner from 17 vs 32 will play against clan 16
Qwert random draws ( from 17 to 24 random paired with 25 to 32), its each round random draw so its not possibile to know in advance who will play against who, so each winner from round 1 will be in one pot ,and teams from 9 to 16 will be in another pot.

Maybe these make some confusions, then i decide to show picture of mine random draw sugestion( for 32 clan bracked, i will fix mistakes in pictures).

[chemefreak]

I am really liking how this is progressing. Very well done Dako.

As for the game #s in the Round of 16, I think either way will work. Heck, to speed the whole thing up, perhaps 41 games for every round except the semi-finals and finals. Either way I think it all looks pretty damn good.

[Qwert]

ok ,i fix sceme -these its scheme for 32 teams- random draw
also its look that i will translate mine self random draw explanation
(original post)
-R1- prvi sesir timovi od 17 do 24 mesta--drugi sesir timovi od 25 do 32 mesta.Uparuje se tako sto se izvlace prvo jedan iz prvog sesira pa onda jedan iz drugog sesira,i tako dok se ne dobiju svi parovi. Interesantno i zanimljivo.
-R2-prvi sesir timovi od 9 do 16 mesta--drugi sesir pobednici iz R1, isti sistem izvlacenja kao u R1
-R3-prvi sesir timovi od 1 do 8 mesta---drugi sesir pobednici iz R2,isti sistem izvlacenja kao u R1
-R4- jedan sesir sa 8 pobednika iz R3 ,izvlace se cetvrtfinalni parovi
-R5- Polufinale , 4 pobednika is R4, izvlace se polufinalni parovi
-R6-Finale-dva pobednika iz R5
Mislim da ovo daje jos vecu sansu i slabijima da prodju sto dalje, a sa druge strane opet stiti ove jace iz prvih 8 da se sretnu tek u cetvrtfinalu, tako da i jedni i drugi imaju podjednake sanse za visok plasman, do sada u svim prethodnim, ipak su top klanovi imali vise privilegija, a sad ce svi imati podjednake sanse.

translate by mine self
Example (for 32 clans):
R1: seeds 17-24 clans. random paired 25-32 clans
R2: seeds 9-16 clans. random paired winners from R1
R of 16: seeds 1-8 clans. random paired winers from R2
QF: 8 winners random paired
SF: 4 winners random paired
F: 2 winners from Semifinal
I think these give chance for low ranked clans to make biger advance, and from other side protect high ranked to start meet in QuarterFinal, so then bouth teams have equal chance for high positions. In previous cups high ranked had better starts, and these will be much equal.

these its mine original idea, so dako,if you have question please ask.

[Doc_Brown]

It seems like there is a lot of support for some number of teams getting a bye to the round of 16. Is this finally decided? And if so, how many teams should get a bye? I've seen 4 and 8 tossed around, and Josko had a nice proposal for a variable number based on the number of clans that sign up. One thought that comes to mind: One of main purposes for the bye was that AFOS, AOC, TOFU, and KORT are all playing intensive wars in the last two rounds of CCup3. Is there a possibility that one or more of those 4 could end up in 5th or 6th place in the rankings going into CCup4? The scenario I'm thinking of is if the 3rd place war (I'm guessing it will be KORT vs. AOC) is very close and goes down to the very end, but the losing team falls just enough in the rankings to end up in 5th place. Then they have to immediately turn around, face a random draw and could end up facing a 6th ranked team to start CCup4. The emotional drain after two very close wars that end in losses would put that team at a disadvantage going into the next round.

For that reason, I suggest that the top 8 clans get a bye to the round of 16. I think qwert's proposal has a lot of merits, but I'd like to see everything from round 2 on be seeded. Round 1 would be a random draw, and then the round 1 winners would either be randomly assigned to seeds 17-24, or you could seed them based on margin of victory in round 1. e.g. A team that won in round 1 by a single game would face the 9th seed, while the team that had the largest margin of victory (say 35-6) would face the 16th seed in round 2.

Part of the motivation for this is uncertainty in the rankings the farther down you go. I'm not familiar with the F400 ranking system to say for sure, but I do know that in some sports that rely on rankings, it's pretty easy to rank the top 10-20% of the teams, but once you get towards the bottom it's much more difficult to distinguish one from another. I definitely don't want this to sound elitist by any stretch, but as an honest question, is there a big difference in skill level between say the 25th and the 29th ranked clans? (I ask this without any idea which clans are in those spots.) Would the 25th ranked clan be as heavy a favorite over the 29th as would the 5th ranked clan facing the 9th?

[josko.ri]

A team that won in round 1 by a single game would face the 9th seed, while the team that had the largest margin of victory (say 35-6) would face the 16th seed in round 2.

Something similar I suggested. Not judging seeds by margin of win (because someone got easier opponent in previous round, and automatically because of that will win by higher margin, so that clan is benefited twice, easier draw in round 1, and higher possibility to catch seed place in round 2. )

My suggestion similar to his one was that draw of next round is made after results of previous round are updated. On that way it can happen the same like Doc Brown said, who wins by high margin, his rank will go high and he will catch better place in next round draw, but not according to margin of the win but rather according to F400 at the time of draw.

If this suggestion was used in previous edition, then it would not happen that #1 and #2, who are placed in those ranks with huge gap against #3, play in semis, it would be prolonged for finals if draw was made how I suggest here. This would much more value real time successes of clans and margins of their wins, rather than their performance in just a single moment of time, before the tournament started.

In addition, this suggestion would raise adrenaline level, everyone are curious how draw would look like. With this, we would be curious and excited 5 times, before every round, not only one time before the tournament starts.

[chapcrap]

I still don't think that 8 teams deserve a 2 round bye. I don't really think any teams deserve a 2 round bye. And why are all the figures being stated for only 32 teams? We're going to end up with more than that.

[IcePack]

I've seen a few people mention that lower clans just walked over etc by other clans.
I know it may sound "elitist" but I do think minimum F400 score for entry should be discussed to ensure a reasonable amount of competitiveness.
There are other avenues / events catered to BUILDING clans and finding improvement (and may help those events build better / bigger niche).

I'm not say go crazy and limit the field hugely. But maybe slightly lower score, like 750 or 800? It gives lower/struggling clans something to shot for and doesn't unnecessarily lengthen the event with clans that would likely get "blown out" like others have mentioned.

Note: 750 or 800 was just an example of what could be established.

[Chariot of Fire]

I like the system of the draw that qwert has illustrated in his diagram. Very sensible and logical.

[Keefie]

I'm totally against exclusion of any kind apart from the current minimum requirement.