1st GG Clan Tourney (WINNER: Anonymous Clan) [Concluded]

jesusfuentesh · (This post was last modified: 08-25-2013 01:35 AM by jesusfuentesh.)

(08-25-2013 12:54 AM)Thrutchy Wrote:
(08-24-2013 09:42 PM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:
(08-24-2013 05:43 PM)Thrutchy Wrote: I'd like to make another suggestion about the "meeting" games: a different player should captain in each game for a clan. And the leader should not be used for any of these so they can focus on the overall. This should enable different clan members to drive each meeting game in parallel when that phase is reached.

When we've reached this phase of this tournament, these captains can be named just like has been done for the others games.

What do you mean by "should not be used"? The leaders can't share thoughts about "the meeting" or the leaders shouldn't manage any meeting?

What do you mean by "can be named"?

I am sorry that I don't understand well

Note that i am using the term "captain" just like america vs eurasia. I am just suggesting the captain is a different clan member for each meeting game (to better allow parallel play). The overall clan leader for the tournament shouldnt be a captain in any of these games because they have enough coordination to do (especially you as also the host of the entire tournament).

Oh ok I got it. I am sorry. I'm still learning English.

As for your sugestion, I typed:

Quote:The meeting: (it's recommended to play one by one against each clan)

Type: Group. The player in charge in this match has to publish the match (with screenshots) on their own private forum. [AvE style]

I put "the player in charge" to mean that they can choose whoever player they want. If the leader wants (if it's not a problem) to play "the meeting" and they agree, they can. It's up to them.

Thrutchy · 08-25-2013, 02:36 AM

I think you should suggest that different members be captains for different meeting games. This will allow meeting games to be played efficiently in parallel (after other games are finished). At some point the captain also needs to be announced to the other side to know who to challenge or who to expect a challenge from.

The meeting games will likely be the long pole of the tournament, so i don think you should leave it up to chance for them to be run efficiently as reasonable.

jesusfuentesh · 08-25-2013, 03:20 AM

Your attention PLEASE:

- Whoever member of the clan could manage "The meeting" gameplay mode and they can play them in pararell (2 at the same time). They'll have to arrange the matches on their clan-war thread when they think it's the proper time and by mutual agreement.
- Please, cooperate with the time so this tournament can finish as soon as possible. The time it takes will depend on your cooperation. Thanks

.Memories. · (This post was last modified: 08-25-2013 04:12 AM by .Memories..)

I don't know if this has come up yet, so stop me of it's been taken care of.

I'm not trying to whine at all here, but is there any advantage given to teams with more participants? Take Diamond vs iPro for example: it's 13 vs 6, which means they'll be able to match up their Top 200 players with both our Top 200 players and non-Top 200 players. I don't doubt the skill of our entire clan, but this just seems a bit unfair. Theoretically, we could have limited our player sign-ups to have a better chance at coming out on top.

Just something to think about, Jesus.

Mag!cGuy · 08-25-2013, 04:09 AM

I do agree with memories, especially against ipro team! Smile

jesusfuentesh · 08-25-2013, 04:21 AM

(08-25-2013 03:59 AM).Memories. Wrote: I don't know if this has come up yet, so stop me of it's been taken care of.

I'm not trying to whine at all here, but is there any advantage given to teams with more participants? Take Diamond vs iPro for example: it's 13 vs 6, which means they'll be able to match up their Top 200 players with both our Top 200 players and non-Top 200 players. I don't doubt the skill of our entire clan, but this just seems a bit unfair. Theoretically, we could have limited our player sign-ups to have a better chance at coming out on top.

Just something to think about, Jesus.

Hi Memories. The rule that says "one player can't play more than three times" makes the match fair since you might just use 6 players if the leader wants. If so, it would be 6 vs 6. It's up to the leader making the member take part in.

For example, in a soccer match not all of them play. Some of them sometimes stay on the bench.

Yet, I understand your point.

amoffett11 · 08-25-2013, 04:26 AM

(08-25-2013 04:21 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:
(08-25-2013 03:59 AM).Memories. Wrote: I don't know if this has come up yet, so stop me of it's been taken care of.

I'm not trying to whine at all here, but is there any advantage given to teams with more participants? Take Diamond vs iPro for example: it's 13 vs 6, which means they'll be able to match up their Top 200 players with both our Top 200 players and non-Top 200 players. I don't doubt the skill of our entire clan, but this just seems a bit unfair. Theoretically, we could have limited our player sign-ups to have a better chance at coming out on top.

Just something to think about, Jesus.

Hi Memories. The rule that says "one player can't play more than three times" makes the match fair since you might just use 6 players if the leader wants. If so, it would be 6 vs 6. It's up to the leader making the member take part in.

For example, in a soccer match not all of them play. Some of them sometimes stay on the bench.

Yet, I understand your point.

And I was aware of this before the match setting started. I wanted to use our players evenly though, at least for the round robin. It would seem like poor clansmanship not to give everyone who signed up a chance to play and just run our best guys out there again and again.

[PETA] Doodat · 08-25-2013, 04:32 AM

(08-25-2013 04:26 AM)amoffett Wrote:
(08-25-2013 04:21 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote:
(08-25-2013 03:59 AM).Memories. Wrote: I don't know if this has come up yet, so stop me of it's been taken care of.

I'm not trying to whine at all here, but is there any advantage given to teams with more participants? Take Diamond vs iPro for example: it's 13 vs 6, which means they'll be able to match up their Top 200 players with both our Top 200 players and non-Top 200 players. I don't doubt the skill of our entire clan, but this just seems a bit unfair. Theoretically, we could have limited our player sign-ups to have a better chance at coming out on top.

Just something to think about, Jesus.

Hi Memories. The rule that says "one player can't play more than three times" makes the match fair since you might just use 6 players if the leader wants. If so, it would be 6 vs 6. It's up to the leader making the member take part in.

For example, in a soccer match not all of them play. Some of them sometimes stay on the bench.

Yet, I understand your point.

And I was aware of this before the match setting started. I wanted to use our players evenly though, at least for the round robin. It would seem like poor clansmanship not to give everyone who signed up a chance to play and just run our best guys out there again and again.

Same here. But, it should be fun regardless^^

Gf!sh · (This post was last modified: 08-25-2013 04:34 AM by Gf!sh.)

I would disagree with that. While it is true what you say, this also means for iPro that each of their players would have 12 simultanious matches going on. That's a lot. Not to mention, they will also have only 6 players for the group games.

(Regarding Memories' original statement)

.Memories. · 08-25-2013, 05:18 AM

(08-25-2013 04:21 AM)jesusfuentesh Wrote: Hi Memories. The rule that says "one player can't play more than three times" makes the match fair since you might just use 6 players if the leader wants. If so, it would be 6 vs 6. It's up to the leader making the member take part in it.

Sounds good. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Smile