Conquer Club

okay we as a group have talked about all the bs going on in C C and we are not renewing our membership enough is enough as popeye said i has all i can stands and cans stands no more and thats 10 players wow

The condescending attitude of some of the mods in this thread (though honestly not NS) have been displaying has been disappointing. Tourney organizers donate their own time to improve this site so instead of comparing them with unruly children in a classroom, how about volunteers that help keep you employed? I'm not a tournament organizer so I think I bring a fair degree of objectivity and if I was running a successful gaming community I would certainly not show such distain and disrespect for paying customers who help bring in other paying customers.

Night Strike wrote:What is bad about the 2000 point level? People still get their high-rank-only tournaments, but it keeps the point level from being too restrictive to other players. If you take a look through past tournaments, most of the tournaments run with a point restriction had that level at 2000.

This is lazy logic. If most tournaments have already fallen within the maximum point system then why create a new rule to squash an admittedly fractional number of tournaments? You're countering your own point there. Again, if someone can drum up enough for interest for a 2500+ tournament, then more power to them.

Amilam wrote:

Night Strike wrote:What is bad about the 2000 point level? People still get their high-rank-only tournaments, but it keeps the point level from being too restrictive to other players. If you take a look through past tournaments, most of the tournaments run with a point restriction had that level at 2000.

This is lazy logic. If most tournaments have already fallen within the maximum point system then why create a new rule to squash an admittedly fractional number of tournaments? You're countering your own point there. Again, if someone can drum up enough for interest for a 2500+ tournament, then more power to them.

The rule is needed because we already allow some point-restricted tournaments but not others. We have to include a rule to make the restrictions clear to organizers as well as cover ourselves as Directors as to when some restrictions aren't allowed. It removes some of the arbitrary nature of when some tournaments aren't allowed.

Night Strike wrote:The rule is needed because we already allow some point-restricted tournaments but not others. We have to include a rule to make the restrictions clear to organizers as well as cover ourselves as Directors as to when some restrictions aren't allowed. It removes some of the arbitrary nature of when some tournaments aren't allowed.

First, why have point restrictions in place at all? As you've already said, a large majority of the tournaments naturally fall into your desired specifications. Some TOs have already said they rarely do higher restriction tournaments because it's harder to drum up the numbers. The rules of supply are naturally countering the problem. Hypothetically, if you instituted a policy of no point restrictions on tournaments tomorrow what do you think would happen? Are there hundreds of 2500+ tournaments waiting to clog the pipes? Would it suddenly become even minutely more difficult for lower ranks to find tournaments? It's a solution in search of a problem.

Second, you stated that it would still be possible to appeal to have these rules waived or bent on a case by case basis. In other words, Directors will still have to make subjective decisions as to what will fly. It seems to me that you're maintaining the same hassles as before, while decreasing the options of TO all over what you admit is a minority of tournaments.

All Night Strike is doing here is limiting the fun we can have! Why make restrictions in the first place? To make things easier? I think not! There are a lot of tournament runners who enjoy the complex systems and whatnot that I don't understand. Night Strike is limiting the diversity and the options for the players who PAID to play here.

CC is a great place, but take your feud somewhere else! I want the MOST I can get with my $25 I paid. I don't want or need restrictions that limit us to what we do! We are doing no harm from having 40 player tournaments! Nor do we ruin anything if there are tournaments that restrict lower ranked players to join. If anything, those lower ranked players would feel the inspiration to work hard and rank higher in order to get into that tournament the next time around.

That's my say! This is not a monarchy, Night Strike, let us players and tournament runners do as we please..

No, by establishing a maximum allowed level for point restriction tournaments, we're putting the burden of proof on the organizer who wishes to run the high-point tournament to prove why the exception should be made. It's then our decision whether the proof is sufficient or not. Under the current system, we Directors have to justify why privileges were not given, which causes more accusations of favoritism and targeting certain organizers. With this new method, we're acting in a positive manner by granting exceptions rather than a negative manner by denying privileges.

Sandstorm1903 wrote:All Night Strike is doing here is limiting the fun we can have! Why make restrictions in the first place? To make things easier? I think not! There are a lot of tournament runners who enjoy the complex systems and whatnot that I don't understand. Night Strike is limiting the diversity and the options for the players who PAID to play here.

CC is a great place, but take your feud somewhere else! I want the MOST I can get with my $25 I paid. I don't want or need restrictions that limit us to what we do! We are doing no harm from having 40 player tournaments! Nor do we ruin anything if there are tournaments that restrict lower ranked players to join. If anything, those lower ranked players would feel the inspiration to work hard and rank higher in order to get into that tournament the next time around.

That's my say! This is not a monarchy, Night Strike, let us players and tournament runners do as we please..

You do realize that 40 player tournaments and tournaments that restrict players that have less than 2000 points will still be allowed, right? Does any one know exactly how many types of tournaments will actually be affected by these changes and how many actually-run tournaments wouldn't be able to be run. I can virtually guarantee that the number is far less than people are thinking as they flip out.

Well keep that attitude ns and you'll have nobody to watch maybe someone is smart enough we could start our own risk site as you are not a good anything , that being said i hope all have a good day .

Bones2484 wrote:

jpcloet wrote:

HighlanderAttack wrote:C. Running private tourneys is impossible because I cannot set the games up-you need privileges to do this.

Not impossible, and not necessarily hard to do if you are a good TO. Having game creation rights makes it easier to facilitate.

1. Clan League Season 1 - 1350 games and I created next to none of the games.
2. Conqueror's Cup - Lots of games and no game creation rights
3. Countless clan wars - again without game creation rights.
4. I've run almost 50 tournaments on this site, check my medal count, you should see 4 medals.

Yea. I've organized a half-dozen Clan Challenges that meet much more stringent guidelines than the ones outlined by Night Strike in the proposed changes for tournaments. And you know what? I've done each one without game creation privileges and have yet to not be successful.

Don't fall back on a crutch. If you truly want to play and host 16 player single elimination bracket tournaments, then nothing is stopping you from still organizing them other than yourself.

this is a blatant lie, if we are talking about freemiums organizers.

If you are premium you can kind of handle the issue by the methods that you mentioned, which it's silly, having the tools to make any tournament properly (tournaments privileges) , but being fremium, it's not. You are just closing the door to freemiums to have a decent short or small tournament.

i hate to say anything cause i might be red flagged and gagged so i will just say i am worried about my conquer club and its direction so think i will let membership expire and move on have fun and hope you get this worked out then i will think about rejoining

How about we just have a Conquer Club Referendum on see what the peoples of CC say about this issue. Then we will see if changes need to made or not.

sportsgod24 wrote:Edit: That is what they do on yahoo fantasy sports. You can run 4-8 team leagues but you don't get a trophy for winning.

Just thought I should mention that Yahoo! Fantasy Sports is an absolute joke. The updates are slow, players are not removed from the list on time and are not added on time. If you are looking at a minor league player you may as well not waste your time.... Yahoo! will not bring them into the pool until it's really late and they will do it with a front page article about how hot he is. You will be lucky to even get a look at him in FA. Brandon Funston is the last person to get the information and he clearly plays about as much baseball as he spends time in the gym. All-in-all, a total joke.

Now that I ranted off-topic let me get back on topic.

Tournament rules should be voted on. The participants should have all the say while the staff should sit there are give the players what they want. Unless you are Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Henry Kissinger, or any of the other fascists you hear so much about.

Amilam wrote:The condescending attitude of some of the mods in this thread (though honestly not NS) have been displaying has been disappointing. Tourney organizers donate their own time to improve this site so instead of comparing them with unruly children in a classroom, how about volunteers that help keep you employed? I'm not a tournament organizer so I think I bring a fair degree of objectivity and if I was running a successful gaming community I would certainly not show such distain and disrespect for paying customers who help bring in other paying customers.

Clarification: Tournament Directors and other TeamCC Members are volunteers too and do NOT get paid for donating their own time to Conquer Club. The only exceptions are the 3 admins.

Lx

Sorry, I just can't stay away without verifying and making my points.

What is the reasoning for not allowing one game per round in a 16 bracket 1v1 tourney?

What is the difference between a 16 bracket 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads-with the new rules:

1v1-16 bracket-must play three games per round
dubs-16 teams-allowed to play one game per round
Trips-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round
Quads-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round.

If you are going to change the criteria why would all of this not be the same?

This is how I believe the rules read. This would allow a quads team and many quads teams are great players to win three games to win a tourney. If there is an added amount of games to play it only means they have to win three series. To me this still makes the criteria unbalanced. If you are going to change criteria/formats it should be the same for 1v1, dubs, trips or quads in my opinion.

There is no difference in a bracket tourney that has 16 positions when you consider how it works. I think if changes are going to be made then make them consistent weather they are 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads. It is still a position and path on a chart to become a champion.

I hope this makes sense and I still hope 1v1 16 player tourneys can have a 1 game per round with a 3 games in the final so I can continue my Don't Blink series.

Frankly, my dear wrote:Tournament rules should be voted on. The participants should have all the say while the staff should sit there are give the players what they want. Unless you are Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Henry Kissinger, or any of the other fascists you hear so much about.

The tournament rules that were established 2 years ago weren't voted on, nor will these be. They have been tweaked no less than 5 times over the past 24 hours alone, so what you all have read will not be the final version (although the premises are still the same).

And you can keep calling me a fascist all you want, as long as you call every single business owner (which I'm not one on here) one as well when they change any policy at the store where you make your purchases.

Since this clearly became a public issue instead of the private discussion that Night Strike wanted, I feel I'll go ahead and make my thoughts known. I'm still fairly confident that my comments will be overlooked by the converging mob as I'm not grabbing a torch and pitchfork here, but there are a number of points that I feel many people posting here have overlooked.

First and foremost, this was a public discussion. There were a couple, actually. Many good ideas were thrown out and a good discussion was held, but, like most public discussions here at CC, there is a lot of trolling and flaming and baiting being thrown around, and the thread often gets derailed. You can read them, and post in them, here and here. Then, as I understand it, NightStrike took the best points out of those threads, picked the people he felt would be able to look at the proposed rules objectively, and took it to personal messages and the private moderator forums. He also didn't just contact his favourite tournament organizers, I was included in the message as a major tournament player, and HighlanderAttack was obviously included, which lends credit to NightStrike who obviously values HA's opinion on the matter.

It is absurd to say that this is vindictive behaviour by NightStrike towards some tournament organizers. While it may seem this way, this is only because of the ridiculous slant that HighlanderAttack has put on this thread with his posts and the personal messages he sent to many of his friends and supporters that linked them to this thread. The same thing happened with the previous threads, and it not only derails the discussion, it makes many people look like fools. I highly doubt that NS will trust HA in this manner again, nor should he.

Furthermore, I think HA's over-reaction to the whole event is equally absurd. While many of the proposed changes do significantly affect his tournaments, they are simply proposals. I know when I responded to NS, I had many different suggestions to the proposed rules and would like to see further discussion on some of them. Whether my comments carry any weight is ultimately up to NS and Optimus Prime and the other moderators here, but the rules posted here and the changes being touted are simply proposals at this point.

Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

Now, on to the actual discussion of the rules.

The current rules by which we play with were set up over 2 years ago. The medals that are now handed out for tournament organizers and tournament winners were implemented a little over a year ago. So we're currently playing for new prizes under old rules. The main point that I would like to make is that there needs to be a level of fairness, a certain guarantee that a player will have, that his medal is fairly won and is equal to the same medal as another player has received. Many of the proposed rule changes will not affect the majority of the tournaments currently in action, but will prevent medal hunters from coming in and running sub-par tournaments just for a quick medal. Granted, this is not a common occurrence, but the rules are rules for a reason.

In my opinion, the granting of medals all comes down to minimum standards which must be met. The best analogy that I can think of is the Olympics (and I tend to think it makes a great analogy). We've just seen the winter Olympics and there is a rather wide variety of sports and events being played. One can easily argue that figure skating is vastly different than alpine skiing, as it is, yet each sport is governed by a minimum level of competition and at the end the winner is granted the same medal. So setting up the minimum standards by which tournaments must be run ensures that there is a level of competition that will be met and that all medals are won fairly, just like setting up basic rules about the number of competitors and running drug tests in the Olympics.

Which means we just have to come up with the minimum standards. This is not to say that each tournament must be run exactly to these standards, but they must be run at least to these standards (so if the minimum number of players you must have for a singles tournament is 16, then you could run a tournament with 16 players, or 32, or 1000 if you wanted).

My opinion on the fairest way to determine these standards is by running some simple odds equations. There must be a maximum percentage chance that a player has to win a tournament, determined by two factors. Simply put, there must be a minimum number of players per medal awarded at the end of the tournament. I believe this number is 16, so that every player in the tournament has no better than a 1 in 16 chance of winning the tournament. It does not mean that you must have only 16 players in each tournament, but you must have at least 16. For doubles, where two medals are handed out, you must have at least 32 players (16 teams). The same can be said for triples (48players/16teams) and quadruples (64players/16teams), and even for quintuples if we ever get those (70players/16teams). This will not affect any singles tournaments currently being run as the current minimum is 16 players, but will drastically affect teams tournaments. Also note that this is simply my proposal, not the one currently tabled by NightStrike.

The other major point is the minimum games played by the eventual winner. I suggest that it should be 5 (for reasons stated in my response to NightStrike), but for the purposes of discussion here I will stay to the proposed 3. This proposal most significantly applies to singles tournaments in which you can win 2, or in some cases, a single game to be crowned champion. Especially considering escalating games in which many are won by a mistake made by another player, or luck with the cards, it is hardly fair to consider winning 1 or 2 games a significant enough margin of victory to crown one player champion over all others. By ensuring a 3 games (played, not won) minimum, it ensures that the winner will have to prove that he is indeed the best in the tournament, not the luckiest.

Again, this rule will not affect the majority of the tournaments posted, simply a few of the single player tournaments. The organizers will have to change how these are played, but given the creativity that most tournament organizers have shown, I do not see this as being a major hindrance.

The third major contested point is the minimum points limit for tournaments. I argue that there should be no points minimums allowed at all. If we look at a different rule, that all tournaments must be open to at least 50% of the public, which nobody has brought up in this thread as of yet, the no 2000+ tournaments rule is in direct conflict with this. With the current scores carried on ConquerClub, 50% of the players are at 1080 points or above. A 2000+ tournament is open only to about 5% of the players on CC. I realize the rules are applying in different circumstances, but to the letter of the law, this rule in itself breaks other rules.

Even were that not the case, I do not support point minimum tournaments. If higher ranked players want to play higher ranked players, they are free to go to callouts and find matches there. It is not fair to exclude 95% of the players on CC to ensure a "higher level of competition".

Finally, the last rule. 3 tournaments recruiting players by each organizer at one time. Again, this stipulation is to ensure a higher level of competition and a minimum standard. As was proven in the other threads, many of the tournaments that are put out by the same organizer at the same time have the same players, and this does not ensure that level of competition, or fairness to other tournament players. Keep in mind that this will not affect ongoing tournaments, but simply makes the create/join a tournament fairer to new players, new organizers, and altogether more objective and unbiased.

Obviously, the tournament directors are going to have that last clause where they have ultimate rule over everything. Every business in the world has that, so that is no surprise. That's just there to ensure a level of fairness over the entire competition and I don't foresee that ever being used.

Finally, I suggested this to NS in my PM, and it seems Bones and jpcloet came up with the same idea as well.

Don't limit any tournaments from running, simply don't grant them medals. Anyone can run any tournament they like with any rules and any number of players they like, it simply won't be sanctioned and neither the organizer or the winner will receive a medal. But any tournament must comply by those rules to receive medals at the end.

That's my opinions on the matter, for whoever wants to read them. It's a long post, so I'm not really anticipating anyone will read it. In fact, I expect that within a couple of hours there will be enough hate posts to bury this one, just like all the other posts with meaning in this and the other threads.

Just wanted to say that I read your post from top to bottom, Den! As always, great insight and well put, thank you, always a pleasant read

amazzony wrote:Just wanted to say that I read your post from top to bottom, Den! As always, great insight and well put, thank you, always a pleasant read

Agreed. You should put it into Bart's thread too. It'll get buried in the groupie hate here.

HighlanderAttack wrote:There is no difference in a bracket tourney that has 16 positions when you consider how it works. I think if changes are going to be made then make them consistent weather they are 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads. It is still a position and path on a chart to become a champion.

This is a good point. Why aren't all the req's best of three?

Night Strike wrote:

Frankly, my dear wrote:Tournament rules should be voted on. The participants should have all the say while the staff should sit there are give the players what they want. Unless you are Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Henry Kissinger, or any of the other fascists you hear so much about.

The tournament rules that were established 2 years ago weren't voted on, nor will these be. They have been tweaked no less than 5 times over the past 24 hours alone, so what you all have read will not be the final version (although the premises are still the same).

And you can keep calling me a fascist all you want, as long as you call every single business owner (which I'm not one on here) one as well when they change any policy at the store where you make your purchases.

I did not call you a fascist, I called a bunch of other people fascists. If you care to qualify yourself with the named group feel free; no need to alert me, I can see where you are standing from right here.

I run a family business that is owned by my grandmother next to be owned by me. My customers are always right no matter what the situation is. If a customer wants something done in a certain manner or time frame, as long as he is writing the check, I am wiping the brow. It's how you stay in business genius. Yes, I called you a genius.

I think we can have this discussion for years and never come up with a solution that makes ALL the players, organizers, moderators and admins happy, thats the nature of our life.

First of all, as I mentioned to HA, I think he made a mistake posting Night Strike PM here, since he clearly ask all of the ones included in as recipients of the message to keep it private. I know that at some point it will become public since right now its only a draft.

But I have to say that I agree with HA and most of the CC players and TO's, the new changes of rules will make the number of tournaments go down. We have different types and kinds of players here, and we need to provide them different options. Some of them like big tournaments with lots of games and lost of players, and some others like quick tourneys with less numbers of players where you can start playing in a day or two.

I have more that 50 organized tournaments in my list, and they are all different: big, medium and small tournaments. One thing that I found interesting about running tournaments is that my community (Club de Conquista) the spanish speaking players in CC are afraid to play in big tournaments and also in English speaking tourneys because of the communication problem. Also, the most of them are Freemiums and thats why I came up with tourneys only for the spanish speaking community to give them an option where they can feel happy.

So, I guess rules can be tweak a bit in order to comply with basic regulations, but keep in mind that there are very few TO's out there doing a hard work that dont get paid a penny. We are doing this because we love it, and the nice taste that finishing a tournament gave us, and the thing that keep us working is when somebody tell us: "Good job!, Nice idea!, Thanks for thinking about our community!, Nice organization!, etc" since we are not getting more medals because we already max-out the number of medals CC provides.

For me its ok whatever the rules are, but if I see that they will make me work more, and takes more time to complete the signup process, I will not create any more tournaments in the future since I already spend too much time here.

One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

How about creating a COMPETITION to provide new images for the tournament wins and organized ones? that will fix the problem dont you think?

jricart wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

How about creating a COMPETITION to provide new images for the tournament wins and organized ones? that will fix the problem dont you think?

No, because once the new limit has been saturated, people will want even more.

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.