Conquer Club

How about this- someone organize a tournament invited only players in the top, say, 15-25 on the scoreboard to compete. It could include a variety of settings/maps to rule out chance, and the winner could be crowned the real conqueror. This could help to eliminate all the ranting about 'you suck- you're a noob farmer you don't deserve more than 1000 points' yatta yatta. I'm no good with deciding settings, but if someone is they should totally start organizing it, send out the PMs, and see who's really got the biggest balls of them all

It would count as a private tournament therefore couldn't be run with tournament privileges.

Night Strike wrote:It would count as a private tournament therefore couldn't be run with tournament privileges.

Ah... shucks.

Would it be possible for it to be 'CC' hosted? Something organized by the mods as a treat for the entire site? I know at least our current conqueror is into it.

You can tell the current Conquerer to put it all on the line and join an open tournament here in these forums to claim the true best of the best prize. But anything like that being sponsored by CC is not in the foreseeable future (mainly b/c both Steel and I are way too busy).

Night Strike wrote:You can tell the current Conquerer to put it all on the line and join an open tournament here in these forums to claim the true best of the best prize. But anything like that being sponsored by CC is not in the foreseeable future (mainly b/c both Steel and I are way too busy).

Perfectly understandbale =) Thanks for the quick responses.

It can't be made as you suggested but if somebody decides to run a tournament where they set entrance requirement minimum 3500 points then it's allowed with current tournament rules and then the top 25 can have a competition

amazzony wrote:It can't be made as you suggested but if somebody decides to run a tournament where they set entrance requirement minimum 3500 points then it's allowed with current tournament rules and then the top 25 can have a competition

I wouldn't count on that. Even point restricted tournaments have to have enough people for it to be considered public. Allowing a 3500+ points tournament would be the same thing as allowing The Farmers Guild to get tournament privileges for their clan. About the same amount of people but not going to happen.

Night Strike wrote:

amazzony wrote:It can't be made as you suggested but if somebody decides to run a tournament where they set entrance requirement minimum 3500 points then it's allowed with current tournament rules and then the top 25 can have a competition

I wouldn't count on that. Even point restricted tournaments have to have enough people for it to be considered public. Allowing a 3500+ points tournament would be the same thing as allowing The Farmers Guild to get tournament privileges for their clan. About the same amount of people but not going to happen.

Ahha, so there aren't any certain rules about point restriction tournaments but TDs have a right not to give privs if they feel like it? Better than nothing I guess. Maybe somebody should try and see where are the boundaries

amazzony wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

amazzony wrote:It can't be made as you suggested but if somebody decides to run a tournament where they set entrance requirement minimum 3500 points then it's allowed with current tournament rules and then the top 25 can have a competition

I wouldn't count on that. Even point restricted tournaments have to have enough people for it to be considered public. Allowing a 3500+ points tournament would be the same thing as allowing The Farmers Guild to get tournament privileges for their clan. About the same amount of people but not going to happen.

Ahha, so there aren't any certain rules about point restriction tournaments but TDs have a right not to give privs if they feel like it? Better than nothing I guess. Maybe somebody should try and see where are the boundaries

Indeed. Very vague line there. I've seen some rather high req. tournaments run here. What's the minimum number of people necessary to be deemed 'public'?

lgoasklucyl wrote:

amazzony wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

amazzony wrote:It can't be made as you suggested but if somebody decides to run a tournament where they set entrance requirement minimum 3500 points then it's allowed with current tournament rules and then the top 25 can have a competition

I wouldn't count on that. Even point restricted tournaments have to have enough people for it to be considered public. Allowing a 3500+ points tournament would be the same thing as allowing The Farmers Guild to get tournament privileges for their clan. About the same amount of people but not going to happen.

Ahha, so there aren't any certain rules about point restriction tournaments but TDs have a right not to give privs if they feel like it? Better than nothing I guess. Maybe somebody should try and see where are the boundaries

Indeed. Very vague line there. I've seen some rather high req. tournaments run here. What's the minimum number of people necessary to be deemed 'public'?

50% of the spots must be open to the public for a tournament to get privs.

Gilligan wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:

amazzony wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

amazzony wrote:It can't be made as you suggested but if somebody decides to run a tournament where they set entrance requirement minimum 3500 points then it's allowed with current tournament rules and then the top 25 can have a competition

I wouldn't count on that. Even point restricted tournaments have to have enough people for it to be considered public. Allowing a 3500+ points tournament would be the same thing as allowing The Farmers Guild to get tournament privileges for their clan. About the same amount of people but not going to happen.

Ahha, so there aren't any certain rules about point restriction tournaments but TDs have a right not to give privs if they feel like it? Better than nothing I guess. Maybe somebody should try and see where are the boundaries

Indeed. Very vague line there. I've seen some rather high req. tournaments run here. What's the minimum number of people necessary to be deemed 'public'?

50% of the spots must be open to the public for a tournament to get privs.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't invite privately. For instance, for my latest tournament which had 64 slots, it was open to everyone but I did send out private invitations to the top...I don't remember...50 players or so. Since all of the slots are basically public (first come, first served), it still counts but I did get a pretty fair number of the big boys. So now I know which of them aren't chickeneous. <smile>

They may just not have liked the format you set, gotten to it late, etc...

Also, that many private invitations violated the *spirit* of the 50% rule, if not the letter.


Currently, the 50% mark, according to the scoreboard would be inviting a level of 1088 and up.

Question for the TDs... how does this permit ANY tournament with a restricted point range, unless a set of tournaments is created covering EVERY point range at the same time?

I'm reasonably sure less than half the 20704 players on the scoreboard are premium, for example.

Kinnison wrote:I'm reasonably sure less than half the 20704 players on the scoreboard are premium, for example.

This is an interesting point.

Gozar wrote:

Kinnison wrote:I'm reasonably sure less than half the 20704 players on the scoreboard are premium, for example.

This is an interesting point.

Yes a very interesting point.
But as with all statistics it all depends on how you count.
I keep all my tournaments open for freemium including a low game-load: still the majority of the people joining my tournaments are premium.

Kinnison wrote: Currently, the 50% mark, according to the scoreboard would be inviting a level of 1088 and up.

Another interesting point.
I also don't use point restrictions, simply because I don't like it. Since I need the score of my customers for the setup I know that at the start of each tournament less then 8% of them had a score below 1088.

Since these numbers are based on 300 values, it has basically a rather high statistical convidence level.
However all my tournament games up to now had 5 to 8 players and therefore the population I used is also not reflecting the complete community of potential tournament players.
To get some real correct numbers will be very, very difficult. Are you going to exclude tournaments that were open for only premium? Are you going to exclude tournaments with point restrictions.

Night Strike wrote:But anything like that being sponsored by CC is not in the foreseeable future (mainly b/c both Steel and I are way too busy).

How about Nate or Gilly?

PaulusH wrote:

Kinnison wrote:I'm reasonably sure less than half the 20704 players on the scoreboard are premium, for example.

I keep all my tournaments open for freemium including a low game-load: still the majority of the people joining my tournaments are premium.

Kinnison wrote: Currently, the 50% mark, according to the scoreboard would be inviting a level of 1088 and up.

I also don't use point restrictions, simply because I don't like it. Since I need the score of my customers for the setup I know that at the start of each tournament less then 8% of them had a score below 1088.

Since these numbers are based on 300 values, it has basically a rather high statistical convidence level.
Are you going to exclude tournaments that were open for only premium? Are you going to exclude tournaments with point restrictions.

1> 300 of 20700+ is NOT a statistically rigid sample.
2> I'm not suggesting that tournaments featuring a portion of the scoreboard, or tournaments featuring premium only, be banned. I'm suggesting that perhaps the wording of the rulebook on % of the playerbase be modified or clarified.

To open all tournaments to any point level will alienate a number of high-score players, because of the risk/reward ratio. The point-level tournaments currently get a group of players into tournaments that would otherwise not compete in that setting, and that's a good thing.

On a different but related point, the premium-only tournaments allow for a different kind of tournament scheduling. The tournaments I've been/am hoping to run could NOT be run in any reasonable length of time with freemium restriction on one or several players. Many of the tournaments I'm in now would collapse under delays (one may, in fact) given the maximum freemium game load.

So, if those tournaments are acceptable to the TDs and CC management, obviously that line in the tournament handbook is not quite intended to be taken LITERALLY. Under another reading, it implies that 50% of the spots in a tournament cannot be whitelisted with prior invitees... they need to be filled on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Kinnison wrote:1> 300 of 20700+ is NOT a statistically rigid sample.

Sorry but your statement "1>" is incorrect.
In case the 300 would have been a random selection out of the 20700 the outcome of the calculation would be correct. Furthermore for the convidence level it makes no difference how large the total population is, the only thing that counts there is how large the sample size is (in my case 300).

More important is that the number of 20700 is much too high, most active people at CC are not active at tournaments.
Just as a wild guess I expect 10% to 20% of them has ever been part of any tournament, so somewhere between 2000 and 4000. In fact it would be nice to get a good picture about this group (all kind of things not only the size).
Although the 300 is a reasonable amount compared to all tournament players, the selection is clearly not random. In case you would like to get a realistic picture you could take all players of the 600+ tournament games that are waiting for players to join; also that is not completely random but it would give you an impression within a few hours. Better to study would be the over 3000 active tournament games.
With "only" 3000+ active tournament games even my 2000 active tournament players might be an overestimation. Because in many of those games you can find the same people playing (like acores2005 who has been in 3000+ tournament games).

I don't want to discuss about all arguments of point "2>". The only point I disagree is the risk/reward ratio for high-score players, which is basically only a big risk for 1v1 games (and still some risk for some other settings). In 5+ multiplayer games with all kind of ranks this is hardly a problem. None of my customers have ever complained about this risk, also not the 3000+ score people. There are more possibilities to reduce this effect, also for tournaments with games with low number of players without using point restrictions.

Kinnison wrote: Under another reading, it implies that 50% of the spots in a tournament cannot be whitelisted with prior invitees... they need to be filled on a first-come, first-serve basis.

So by this definition one could have a 3500+ tournament, and just not invite anyone specifically.....

Gozar wrote:

Kinnison wrote: Under another reading, it implies that 50% of the spots in a tournament cannot be whitelisted with prior invitees... they need to be filled on a first-come, first-serve basis.

So by this definition one could have a 3500+ tournament, and just not invite anyone specifically.....

Right, but it's rules-lawyering. I'd like a clarification from, oh... anyone with authority to clarify this.

Indeed.

Where did all the mods go?

Has anyone seen the Tournament Directors?

Gozar wrote:Has anyone seen the Tournament Directors?

Helllllllllllllllllo Gozar.

So by this definition one could have a 3500+ tournament, and just not invite anyone specifically.....

When we are dealing with that large amount of points, it is probably best to run a private tournament.

Gilligan wrote:

Gozar wrote:Has anyone seen the Tournament Directors?

Helllllllllllllllllo Gozar.

So by this definition one could have a 3500+ tournament, and just not invite anyone specifically.....

When we are dealing with that large amount of points, it is probably best to run a private tournament.

And that is the question. Where is the cutoff? And by probably best, do you mean it is technically allowed?

Gozar wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

Gozar wrote:Has anyone seen the Tournament Directors?

Helllllllllllllllllo Gozar.

So by this definition one could have a 3500+ tournament, and just not invite anyone specifically.....

When we are dealing with that large amount of points, it is probably best to run a private tournament.

And that is the question. Where is the cutoff? And by probably best, do you mean it is technically allowed?

Technically point restriction tournaments are allowed... but it's not smiled upon.

Gilligan wrote: Technically point restriction tournaments are allowed... but it's not smiled upon.

So how does this fit with the required 50% public invites? If point restrictions are allowed why not, say, tournament organiser only tournaments? They could certainly be filled 'publicly'.