I think the aim of MoTD and Beren by doing this was to decrease the load that upper level players had to deal with if the games had started all at once. Even after picking, especially for some of the smaller rosters playing a player three times, it can be quite difficult for players, especially considering the seriousness that players approach these games.

I understand where you are coming from Aura. However, this only decreases the load for 1v1 players who also play in a 2v2 or 3v3 tournament. What about those who play in three 1v1 tournaments?

Edit: That is, unless the 1v1 tournaments do not start at the same time.

Edited 3/18/2017 04:10:27

I disagree with the idea that 1v1 games should be delayed until 50-60% of team games are completed. Otherwise, they won't start until May or June... A player who is available to play during the Winter may not be able to play during the Summer. I believe all the games should have started at the same time.

We'll just have to disagree then. Clan league ends in a very timid fashion. Delaying 1v1s helps spread games over the course of the season.

However, this only decreases the load for 1v1 players who also play in a 2v2 or 3v3 tournament. What about those who play in three 1v1 tournaments?

Like I said, the 1v1s will also start in a staggered fashion(one every 3 days).

Based on my experience in the last 2 CL's I approve of the delay on the 1v1 starts. The 1v1's end so much faster than the 2v2/s and 3v3's. Starting them later makes it way more interesting at the finish.

And for those complaining about having enough time, clearly everyone knows that each clan league typically last 4-5 months. You can't find just a 3-4 week period that is going to work. Players that sign up for clan league and play team games have always had to make a 5 month commitment, not sure why it needs be different for 1v1.

I like the new setup a lot. Kudos to MoTD and Beren.

@MotD: Did you consider releasing 1v1 games in stages? So that they start at the beginning of the league as a whole, then once N games have been started you don't create any new ones until a certain date has been reached? It seems like this could be an extension of the current staggering setup.

If you prefer that to the current set up but think it's too much of a hassle to implement, let me know and I might get around to submitting a PR or something.

EDIT: MotD likely won't see this since I'm on his blacklist. But if anyone else who's been part of the design/decision-making process for the new CLOT could fill me in, I'd appreciate it. I'm just asking to determine whether a PR implementing this change has a chance of getting merged, since it seems like it would appease both sides.

Edited 3/18/2017 04:37:16

clearly everyone knows that each clan league typically last 4-5 months. You can't find just a 3-4 week period that is going to work. Players that sign up for clan league and play team games have always had to make a 5 month commitment, not sure why it needs be different for 1v1

That is why some signup for 1v1, and only 1v1 games. Then you have ~1 month of games, which is very nice.

I agree with Knyte's thinking. That having some sort of seasonal ladder system to it might work better. Where a game is made after a set parameter has been met.

@MotD: Did you consider releasing 1v1 games in stages? So that they start at the beginning of the league as a whole, then once N games have been started you don't create any new ones until a certain date has been reached? It seems like this could be an extension of the current staggering setup.

If you prefer that to the current set up but think it's too much of a hassle to implement, let me know and I might get around to submitting a PR or something.

We did consider this approach. But there are not enough games to make this work in my opinion. Historically, if you look at 1v1s in CL, they finish quite quickly.

Your suggestion will eventually run into the same problem, as there will be a time period when no games are created. We just felt that people would like to play their 1v1 tournament over the period of a month, rather than drag that out. I don't think anyone enjoys playing games over months in general. But sadly, that's just the nature of team games when you support vacations.

Edited 3/18/2017 06:28:19

The usual suspects found something new to complain about. Lather, rinse, repeat. Thanks for interrupting our reasonably drama free thread.

You know what grinds my gears? Cilantro. Tastes like shit. I wish it were more considerate.

Edited 3/18/2017 06:03:07

edit : nvm that's pointless

Edited 3/18/2017 11:17:12

@motd... If I knew what drama this would cause i would have messaged you in private.. My apologies.

I didnt complain about the 1vs1 games being delayed. If it can make the ending of clan league more exciting i am in favor of this. Just the uncertainty of the start date is whats bugging me. I know its hard to predict how fast the teamgames will go but it would be a good idea to set a date which will be the earliest the 1vs1 games will start. 3 days before that date you check if the league has advanced enough. If not you set a new date and make an announcement. It could prevent unneeded replacements. Ideally we have mike playing the strat 1vs1 so if he has enough time when the 1vs1 actually starts we might switch him back in. Then it has cost us 2 replacements while nothing changed. With the limited amount of replacements (which i support to make people not to lazy) I think some sort of deadlines need to be known.

There is no problem here , Clan leagues lasts for months anyways. It's a commitment and I don't see it lame as Quicksilver says. I'm actually happy Motd and Beren have realised the 1v1s can be started later and be finished at the same time of team games finishing! (Hopefully)

This helps players who are on 3 tournaments because team games are a huge communication game requiring constant team co-ordination , You have to work harder here. So to make a person in this scenarios CL experience a bit easier is a welcomed move .

However , I have to understand Ollie concern , You will have players who are available such a time and not and for a organiser to always pay constant attention to a situation is tedious. There should be date to help the organisers of clans.

I think the solution that will be helpful to all would be for Beren and Motd to put a date where they think 50-60% team games will be done. I know this is hard due to the variable of vacations but putting a date makes it fair and it makes organising easier and it avoids inefficient wasting of replacements in Ollie's case.

Classic Ollie. Ruining CL for everyone.

Classic Deadman. Ruling CL for everyone.

Classic Deadman, Rigging CL for Masters and Apprentice

The claim of Ollie seems legit.

The will to postpone 1v1s until 50-60% of the team games were complete start from a good idea, but I think it desavantage some clans: the less active one.

The 1v1s can be delayed, but a date should be fixed, not possibly delayed again and again. In fact, it's not respectfull for players that accepted to play for their clan but that are not active in general (as Niko or 125ch209 in FC). This will just lead to more boots, or unnecessary replacements, that desavantage the clan.

Furthermore, I think for any great tournament, dates should be clear for people you asked to play.

Edited 3/18/2017 15:43:30

I agree that 1v1s usually finish so quickly that they can start a bit later than other templates. But problem is that roster is months old at this point, and it might indeed cause some headaches for line-up organizers in clans. Especially when we still don't know when they actually will start! Also, if it's delayed so much, they might actually finish later than the team games, which is just unacceptable.

If it's meant to give more excitement towards the end of season and balance gameload over time, starts of each 1v1 "tournament" could have simply be more spread out, like 4-5 days between starts of them. So far div A and B are so boring to watch 6 weeks in to be frank. :P

If you want the league to speed up a bit there might be a need to put restrictions on what templates can be chosen. There are a lot of people happy (and unhappy :P) that there is finally a Rise of Rome template chosen. However, if we compare both 3vs3 templates.

- Europe has 206 territories vs 273 territories for RoR
- Both templates have 4x4 starts, meaning a bit less map cover on RoR but not that significant I think.
- If we look at the amount of possible starts: Both templates use random warlord distribution but Europe has 32 bonuses while RoR has 83!!
More then double the amount of possible starts with same amount of initial picks.
- Europe map in play is smaller then the amount of territories, Bonusses like germany, turkey, greece, sweden, northwestern russia, spain, france, romania, ukraine, etc only get picked if they are in a good position to counter. The actual part of the map that will be important to fight is because of that significantly smaller. RoR barely has poor territory/income ratio areas which makes nearly the whole map playable. The 10 wastelands of 5 armies are to few to make the map significantly smaller and to small to not get taken down if it gives enough income advantage. Taking down a wasteland of 5 is an easy choice if it gives a superbonus of at least 5 additional income.
- Looking at amount of finished games. League A and B combined have 8 Europe games finished and only 4 RoR games. Taking into account that 2 of those RoR only finished because GG had a player not joining in time it seems obvious the RoR template is significantly slower then the Europe template
- Amount of turns taken in finished games. In 8 Europe games only 1 game went over 10 turns (11 to be precise), shortest was 2 turns and 3 out of 8 games finished in less then 5 turns. In the two RoR games that were actually played the shortest was 8 turns and the longest 13. The lack of finishing games doesn't speak in favor of short games on RoR either.

Only point of debate is the fact that Europe started 5 days earlier then RoR. Still i don't get the feeling RoR will suddenly catch up the Europe in the next 5 days. Curious to hear what other people think about what templates should be allowed. Should there be restrictions or just accept that the league takes ages to finish anyway?

Edited 3/18/2017 18:23:37

I'm actually pretty happy, that the 1vs1 didn't started yet. I imagine that if i would have to play 6 games at the same time i would have been really busy with playing these games, especially on picking stage. That would have be a horror.

That's a personal view. In general it seems to make indeed a lot of sense to delay the start of the 1vs1. Especially after my first experiences on the team games, who are taking very long. For almost every turn on the 2vs2 and 3vs3 we need 3 days so ofc these games are very slow. So it makes sense to wait with the start of the 1vs1 until the first waive, so the first 2 teamgames are finished for most of the clans. Since that seems to be a good time to start the 1vs1 so they will finish maybe only 1 month before the last teamgames will be finished.

Vacations are playing a role as well. But not only in teamgames, but also 1vs1. So commiting to play in CL means as well to commit a possible activity on WL for multiple months as well. So i don't think it's actually such a big problem to delay the start of the 1vs1 in general.

I also don't think it's worth it to announce a fix starting time for 1vs1 before the season starts, since i really think it should depend on the end dates of the first 2 team games of most of the clans and ofc u aren't able to prognose when they will finish.

Edited 3/18/2017 18:48:42

Wake up!
We need a date not a percentage!

Wake up!
We need a date not a percentage!

Since you know how to write, I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume you can read as well. I hope you find what you need.