| Author | First Battle of the Clans Tournament |
|---|
Hm.
How many clans participating in tournament did 4 battles during last week? Only two, because they have children who stays at computer during whole weekend. Or i see bad in score table?? we are send most active clan in tournament:D LOL |
We are working ppl. So only at the evening we are available. And not all.
At the weekend we can play whole week end , but our opponents have week-end so there we no ppl to play. 4 battles in one week is too much. If u have RL:) and ur not younger than 18.
12 points as winning means 3v3 7 battles. Dont know if that can be in one week. Maybe in 4-5 weeks ok..but not in 1 or 2.
Almer, nobody forces you to play only during weekend. You can play during evenings as well as you already played. Or you can ask those who are online during evenings to organize themselves.
In my case, I cannot play but during the weekends (and not all of them). For the last weekend I promised Modi that we would play all the GB's, so, I kept my promise. I didn't have all the players, but we came to a common understanding in the Group Battles room on the spot. Yes, I admit, for me it was very tiresome, but pleasant in the same time. And I am not going to do it every weekend, but I will have my own weekends off when I can be replaced. |
to #182
It was no offend. Just explanation why we play just 2 fights. From opposite clan they have only few high lvl players and many lows ( we have many high lvl and almost no communicative low lvl players ). And most of high lvls are 25+ age, so evening are fine, but not weekends. Just matching timetables, ages and lvls are a bit complicated. And cant image how it can be with f.e. clan from opposite part of the world ( Malaysia, Australia etc ). |
to #182
In general we are real lifers. And it's just relax, so nothing which will be duty for us. |
| I understand you, Almer. Binghuo understood that as well and that's why we don't have any time limit to meet a certain clan. When you can have a GB, enter GB room from in-game chat. Teach your clanmates to do the same. It is impossible not to find a clan matching your clan if all the clans would do the same. I and Modi were able to find players for those GB's. But both of us had to ask our clanmates to enter the GB chat. It's just until it becomes a custom for the pvp players from the clans. |
....
Binghuo set out the minimum number of battles. 4 battles IF you did four 3 vs. 3 matches. We decided to play to first team to 12 points wins the series. It only counts as one win total. We put in the effort to play for the weekend and wanted to allow as many players as possible to be involved. Both clans agreed. Can I ask, why couldn't you get 4 battles done in a whole week?
.....
In my humble opinion,
This gray scoring system is exactly the cause of failure, you can neither say count it as 1 victory neither score unlimited number of battles.
Organisers should count the agreed first 12 points worth battles and opponents make as many battles for fun and practice as they like.
If we have not contacted the second battle, would you count it as 1 victory?
4-6 GB battles per week is a number that can be achieved through good will.
There are working people in the server - I am one of them.
Different battle types and levels give different advantages.
Time zones differ.
Any football W-D-L point system is condemned to fail.
Counting 0 to 12 points for each guild weekly based on specific opponent pairs and mutually agreed battle types and schedule is the only viable tracking system.
I think the so far results should be recorded as follows:
SoD 7 pts
Los 5 pts
WGW - EW and others 3pts etc
That way each guild is motivated to do the necessary battles and we have some real metrics. |
186 2009-10-05 17:19:08
....
Binghuo set out the minimum number of battles. 4 battles IF you did four 3 vs. 3 matches. We decided to play to first team to 12 points wins the series. It only counts as one win total. We put in the effort to play for the weekend and wanted to allow as many players as possible to be involved. Both clans agreed. Can I ask, why couldn't you get 4 battles done in a whole week?
.....
In my humble opinion,
This gray scoring system is exactly the cause of failure, you can neither say count it as 1 victory neither score unlimited number of battles.
Organisers should count the agreed first 12 points worth battles and opponents make as many battles for fun and practice as they like.
If we have not contacted the second battle, would you count it as 1 victory?
4-6 GB battles per week is a number that can be achieved through good will.
There are working people in the server - I am one of them.
Different battle types and levels give different advantages.
Time zones differ.
Any football W-D-L point system is condemned to fail.
Counting 0 to 12 points for each guild weekly based on specific opponent pairs and mutually agreed battle types and schedule is the only viable tracking system.
I think the so far results should be recorded as follows:
SoD 7 pts
Los 5 pts
WGW - EW and others 3pts etc
That way each guild is motivated to do the necessary battles and we have some real metrics.
Sorry dude but you aren't controlling our match agreement. We faced SOD and beat them with our own scoring totals. Bing set out a MINIMUM number of battles. We decided to play by total points to 12 from the start. All that matters to you is that LOS won the match. If we meet your clan and you want to play 4 3 vs 3 matches that is fine by us. Otherwise, do as you will to find a victor between the two clans BUT there must be a minimum number of battles for sure. You aren't going to change the results of our round and CGS certainly agreed to our setup. It wasn't done on the fly. Don't try to penalize the clans who fought the most battles and were the only ones to complete our match. |
| As for the rest of the clans, your running score is there because nobody fought enough battles to declare a winner. When you do it will be a simple clan A beat clan B. |
to modi:
You missed the meaning of what I wanted to say, most probably I wasn't clear.
Of course Los beat fair and square SOD.
I don't challenge the fair victory.
I challenge the way you count score cause I think it is not helping the tournament.
And I propose:
Stick to the program Clan A vs Clan B for a week, calc results in number of victories (3+2 etc.)
If game is set to more than 12pts sum divide to meet 12 pts sum
If guilds don't complete program, not enough victories - not enough points
That was my to cents as improvement proposal of a great event in my humble opinion.
And I believe #365 will make the 12pts game set with Rivendale this week, too bad two famous guilds (#365 -#181) failed that last week ;-) |
I know from our sports playoffs system that it doesnt matter how many games you won or by how much but if you won the match. If you will be penalized for fighting a clan and doing poorly because your best players weren't able to match up levels and that hurts you later I do not think that is fair at all.
Say your clan is strong in high level players and has a very few level 8/9 but the clan you meet has 8/9s available. You send out what you have to be able to complete the match in good sport but get swept 4-0. Why should it hurt your clan if you played to the others stength? Thats why totals shouldnt be kept. Every new match should be zero zero and if you got smashed previously you just didnt get a tourney point for losing, not crippled down the line because you lost all 4 games. |
| I also want to remind clan leaders and war diplomats that if you see me, DEATHisNEAR or limustudotcom online and want a match, just PM us and we will do a clan mail to try to grab some fighters at any time. Not promising we can produce but we will place the call and do our best. |
4. The two clans meet together will fight for 4 battles of 3vs3. 3vs3 is recommended. If not enough players, could be 6 battles of 2vs2, or 2 battles of 3v3 + 3 battles of 2vs2. The winner side get 3 points from 3v3, 2 points from 2vs2. The lost side get 0 point.
I thought my proposal in #108 is clear enough. When clan A fight clan B, the total score produced by them are 12 (not 12 on one side). In LOS vs SOD 's case, the score should be 5:7.
Why it? It's to give every clan an equal chance.
I know some clans meet some problems (matched lvl players, online time difference...) in set up battles, so we don't restrict one clan face only another one clan each week. You can fight any clan at any time during the 11 weeks. |
| If clan A and B want to fight more than 4-6 battles as mentioned in post #108, they are encouraged to do it. But only the first 4 battles of 3vs3, or 6 battles of 2vs2, or 2 battles of 3v3 + 3 battles of 2vs2 will be considered in this tournament. |
Any summary info?
Thanks to Modi. he has created another thread for scoring:
"Battle of the Clans Tournament Scoring"
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1864869
Based on his scoring reported, I come up this report:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqnSTtrpSDLTdG1NTEpiVFhjUVo5RlM3WUUtOGRCaHc&hl=en
It includes each clan's won/lost scores and percentage. And also a link to every battles between each clan.
Hope it will give you an overall idea on how each clan doing so far. |
| Let me remind you of your yes votes for the tournament match that went outside the guidelines because both clans agreed. This is no different and we planned our matches for a long first team to 12 wins set. Furthermore when we saw nobody gaming, I talked to Visao and he said to fight as many battles as we could get in. Both clans agreed to go to 12 and LOS won't stand for anything less. |
Let me repost why we should not keep overall points other than 1 point for a clan win. You can't punish clans with a point system for the reasons below. Otherwise, why are you keeping a 12 point system after the match is over? The 12 point system works inside the clan vs clan match. The winner of the series should be awarded one tournament point.
I know from our sports playoffs system that it doesnt matter how many games you won or by how much but if you won the match. If you will be penalized for fighting a clan and doing poorly because your best players weren't able to match up levels and that hurts you later I do not think that is fair at all.
Say your clan is strong in high level players and has a very few level 8/9 but the clan you meet has 8/9s available. You send out what you have to be able to complete the match in good sport but get swept 4-0. Why should it hurt your clan if you played to the others stength? Thats why totals shouldnt be kept. Every new match should be zero zero and if you got smashed previously you just didnt get a tourney point for losing, not crippled down the line because you lost all 4 games. |
Let me remind you of your yes votes for the tournament match that went outside the guidelines because both clans agreed.
I was voting as 1 clan out of 12 clans.
When you planing for a big change like this, should you start a vote too? If most clans agree, I am ok. |
| Look, we already know that no other clan could even get 4 matches in over a whole week. We wanted a longer series and what does it matter as long as a winner was produced? Your point system was inner game in my mind,not tournament long. Why should Elite Warriors get punished if they face a clan with low level fighters and lose? They carry high level players and maybe have a few lower level players. Does pushing 2 or 3 lower level players to fight a clan show their power? No way and they shouldnt be punished for that. Using a running score is not a fair system at all. I would have protested that right away if I knew you intended that. Now tell me how it is fair from the example I posted? |
While I was not able to play in the SOD v's LoS battles because my level did not allow I was there for most of the matches.
Both our clans knew exactly what we were doing and had agreed how we were scoring before any battles were fought. All the battles were very fair with good sportsmanship and excellent tactics from both clans.
After the final match both clans left happy with the decision and with a lot of respect for their opponents.
Why others, who were not involved, suddenly feel they want to over-rides both SODs and LoSs agreement totally escapes me. |
ok, let's use #181 vs #365 as an example:
who will get the 1 tourney point? |
