CC13 Discussion

[Keefie]

This will get locked again and it will stay locked if you guys can't play nicely.

[iAmCaffeine]

does anyone know why FALL don't attract new players? asking for a friend.

[Nut Shot Scott]

[Caymanmew]

As this is the only CC13 thread, and there are some very obvious marked deltas between CC12, where else would you like those of us who have questions to post?

Here.

The only real "delta" is an addition of a rule to have all games created by the 5 week mark. Technically this was already the case, but we've added specific penalties if this is not done. This rule was added because of issues from the last few Conqueror Cups.

• There will be a hard set deadline of 5 weeks to have all games created. If a clan does not have all home games created by the 5 week deadline, one game will be forfeited for every day that clan fails to create their games. If after 1 week there are still games that have not been created, the offending clan will be disqualified.
• A clan will ALWAYS be allowed 7 days to fill the other clan's home games. They will receive an extension to fill away games of however many days a home clan is late in creating. Which means if the other clan creates their home games 3 days late, the away clan will be given an extension of 3 days to fill those games without incurring penalties.
• If the games are created on time and the away clan fails to fill those games within the 6 week deadline, they will forfeit one game for every day they are late in filling. If after 1 week there are still games that have not been started, the offending clan will be disqualified.

To be eligible for the Clan Achievement Medal for the overall win of CC13 (or second place), a player must:

• Play in a minimum of 7% of their clans' total games
• Participate in a minimum of 2 rounds

To be eligible for the Clan Achievement Medal for the MVP of CC13, a player must:

• Play in a minimum of 20% of their clans' total games
• Play in all rounds of the tournament
• Have a clean record with regards to game abuse

Note: The winning clan chooses the MVP, who will receive an additional achievement award and 1200 CC Credits.

Here are all the highlighted deltas (at face value, assuming the highlighted items are the only thing that changed from CC12 to CC13 threads). These are pretty big deltas, especially since the highlighted language includes a statement about loss of games from the event, and about the criterion on a clan's ability to choose MVP.

Firstly, what specific examples from previous CC Events caused this change in the rules? Why deduct only one game per day if in one week the clan would be fully disqualified? Per Lindax's prior point, I don't remember having to disqualify a clan for not meeting the 6-week requirement.

Btw: There were never any issues with the 6 week deadline in my time.

Secondly, the winning clan would play in 208 complete games without a first round bye, and 165 with a first round bye.

• With 208 games, 20% minimum is 41.6 games to qualify for MVP. So will 41 games qualify or will 42 games need to be played?
• With 165 games, 20% minimum is 33 games.

What was the reasoning behind changing the MVP criterion from a solid number threshold to a percentage criterion? Was there any consideration to why potentially 10 games extra (from 32 in previous CCs) would have to be played for a player to be eligible for an MVP award? This could potentially punish a clan who had to play in the first round by extending the criterion to a percentage-based number. Is there a valid scenario where a clan wins CC but has no eligible members for an MVP award based off the new criterion you have enacted for CC13?

Was there any consideration to discuss these changes to CC in CAT before implementation?

Ok, so for the 6-week deadline.

Firstly the punishment is not new, this has been the punishment for a long time, I don't care to go back and check when it started but it isn't something new. Otherwise, we haven't actually changed the 6-week rule at all, we have simply rewritten it to provide clarity and to ensure everyone knows it will be enforced. The 5-week rule is, at least in our opinion, also not really new. We view it as a standard that a clan gets 1 week to fill games therefore making your games within the last week forces the other clan into a situation of less than a week to fill games or they go over the 6-week deadline. As such, to ensure clans have 1 week to fill games without breaking the 6-week deadline we are officially putting the hard rule of making all games by 5 weeks.

In terms of "specific examples from previous CC Events caused this change in the rules", both CC11 and CC12 had clans breaking the 6-week deadline, but both times the clan at fault went unpunished. Because we will now be enforcing the 6-week deadline we feel it is important to restate and clarify the rule so everyone fully understands what is expected.


With regard to the MVP percentages, due to fluctuation in clan numbers and clan entries in CC we felt it would be better to have a consistent number. We don't want clans who have played the extra round to potentially have what is effectively a different formula when determining who is eligible. In your example, you say currently a clan playing in the extra round would be at a disadvantage(in determining MVP), but if you consider a flat number, wouldn't a clan not playing in the first round be at a major disadvantage compared to a clan who did play the extra round? We feel percentage is generally most far as regardless of the number of wars the clan plays in you are still required to play approximately the same number of games per war. (adjusting a bit on the difference in game counter per war)

We believe 20% is close to the solid number that has been historically used but give us a bit of time and we will go through to ensure we got our math right. I'll let you know what our results are and how we are calculating it.


With regards to CAT, we don't feel these changes are actually changing anything but rather providing more clarity and consistency, as such, we don't feel the need to open CAT discussions on them.

[pmchugh]

Hey all, I have a question and want to voice it, I am not saying anything should be changed for this tournament or even at all, I just want to open a discussion. My question is, why are there so many restrictions on game types?

Default Rules & Settings:
1. All games must have automatic initial troop deploy (no manual)
2. All spoils are allowed except zombie spoils (negotiable)
3. All forts are allowed except "no forts" (negotiable)
4. Round limits are not allowed. (Negotiable for "no forts" and "Trench")
5. Trench is permitted in a maximum of 60% of home games (negotiable)

Rules 2 and 4 seem particularly strange (zombie is very similar to nuke and round limits seem better than no round limits), but I would be happy to see all of them removed.

If a clan wanted to, under the existing rules, create a set of games that were gimmicky, or highly luck based they could easily achieve it, so why restrict certain game types that someone might have found an interesting advantage in?

Maybe no one will use these settings anyway, but maybe we will find interesting new map+settings combos when they are allowed at the highest level.

[Extreme Ways]

Not a CD.

2 and 4 can be negotiated by clans among each other. I personally am of the opinion that zombie spoils is oftentimes just a lesser fun version of zombie, and round limits for non-trench games shouldn't be necessary. For trench, they are often implemented to bring a hard cap to the time it takes to finish a game but it does bring some strategies into the game (e.g. mc's feudal trench escalating games)

[pmchugh]

Not a CD.

2 and 4 can be negotiated by clans among each other. I personally am of the opinion that zombie spoils is oftentimes just a lesser fun version of zombie, and round limits for non-trench games shouldn't be necessary. For trench, they are often implemented to bring a hard cap to the time it takes to finish a game but it does bring some strategies into the game (e.g. mc's feudal trench escalating games)

Are zombie forts really that unlikable? I am sure there are players who would much rather play zombie on a regular map than playing say hive unlimited. Most clans will have someone happy to play hive, and most clans will have someone happy to play zombie. Fair enough if it was like, people were bringing Pot Mosebi trench zombie, that would be silly, but you can legally do that now with nukes.

[Donelladan]

Clans are unfortunately very conservative. Also each introduction of new settings needs apparently to be approved through (almost) unanimous vote from every clans.
And some clans just don't want stuff to change, so changes do not to get introduced because a few people are against it.
You can petition for a change in the CAT forum, maybe for next edition we'll be allowed 10% zombie or no fort game that way.

[Swimmerdude99]

2-5 could be and should be removed, imo. But 1 should never change. Manual and/or freestyle completely change the way the game is played and wouldn't make the clan scene a healthy environment imo.

[rockfist]

No forts is a godawful setting IMO.

Zombie or trench, speaking personally I could care less about (I like trench in fact).

[Caymanmew]

Hey all, I have a question and want to voice it, I am not saying anything should be changed for this tournament or even at all, I just want to open a discussion. My question is, why are there so many restrictions on game types?

Default Rules & Settings:
1. All games must have automatic initial troop deploy (no manual)
2. All spoils are allowed except zombie spoils (negotiable)
3. All forts are allowed except "no forts" (negotiable)
4. Round limits are not allowed. (Negotiable for "no forts" and "Trench")
5. Trench is permitted in a maximum of 60% of home games (negotiable)

Rules 2 and 4 seem particularly strange (zombie is very similar to nuke and round limits seem better than no round limits), but I would be happy to see all of them removed.

If a clan wanted to, under the existing rules, create a set of games that were gimmicky, or highly luck based they could easily achieve it, so why restrict certain game types that someone might have found an interesting advantage in?

Maybe no one will use these settings anyway, but maybe we will find interesting new map+settings combos when they are allowed at the highest level.

Hey, so good questions.

For the origins of the rules, honestly, I have no idea, I wasn't around when the rules where made. I've looked back and the current rules are roughly the same all the way back through CC5, although these types of rules predate even that, although they looked different before CC5. Here are CC5's default rules for example

show

These rules have been relatively unchanged over time and will likely remain so in the future. As Don said, clans are generally wanting the rules to stay the same, and given that, we feel as a CD team it is not our place to overrule in this situation. That being said, we are completely open to discussions on these rules, and should clans decide they want to change the rules, allowing for less(or more) restrictions on settings we will adjust the rules for future events. Discussions will need to take place in the CAT forum, any clan rep can start a thread to open discussions on this or any topic.

[rockfist]

Hey all, I have a question and want to voice it, I am not saying anything should be changed for this tournament or even at all, I just want to open a discussion. My question is, why are there so many restrictions on game types?

Default Rules & Settings:
1. All games must have automatic initial troop deploy (no manual)
2. All spoils are allowed except zombie spoils (negotiable)
3. All forts are allowed except "no forts" (negotiable)
4. Round limits are not allowed. (Negotiable for "no forts" and "Trench")
5. Trench is permitted in a maximum of 60% of home games (negotiable)

Rules 2 and 4 seem particularly strange (zombie is very similar to nuke and round limits seem better than no round limits), but I would be happy to see all of them removed.

If a clan wanted to, under the existing rules, create a set of games that were gimmicky, or highly luck based they could easily achieve it, so why restrict certain game types that someone might have found an interesting advantage in?

Maybe no one will use these settings anyway, but maybe we will find interesting new map+settings combos when they are allowed at the highest level.

Hey, so good questions.

For the origins of the rules, honestly, I have no idea, I wasn't around when the rules where made. I've looked back and the current rules are roughly the same all the way back through CC5, although these types of rules predate even that, although they looked different before CC5. Here are CC5's default rules for example

show

These rules have been relatively unchanged over time and will likely remain so in the future. As Don said, clans are generally wanting the rules to stay the same, and given that, we feel as a CD team it is not our place to overrule in this situation. That being said, we are completely open to discussions on these rules, and should clans decide they want to change the rules, allowing for less(or more) restrictions on settings we will adjust the rules for future events. Discussions will need to take place in the CAT forum, any clan rep can start a thread to open discussions on this or any topic.

No forts and parachute forts were not options at the time of CC5.

[iAmCaffeine]

no forts can change gameplay strategically with certain combinations of settings. i have no issue with it.

i dont see why we cant play zombie if we can play nuclear. even tho i think the setting itself is stupid.

manual should never be allowed. same as freestyle.

trench shouldnt be limited at all. round limits are good.

[rockfist]

No forts, like stack and blast maps, leads to boring game play that is all about math equations, not ability to read a drop or strategize beyond the math. Both should be banned for the sheer monotony of those games, but I have had no luck getting stack and blast banned so I imagine I will have no luck getting no forts banned.

[iAmCaffeine]

That’s why it depends on the settings you play. No forts without nuke or zombie is giga cringe.

[pmchugh]

I still think, most of what these rules try to limit can already be done. I'm sure there are boring settings without resorting to no forts. Even manual could be interesting with trench.

[SoN!c]

Looking forward kicking smelly coffeebeans ☠☠☠☠☠

And if its not ment to be - getting stronger for next time ☠☠☠☠☠