UPDATE #13 SATURDAY 29TH APRIL

Clan	      1v1    2v2  3v3	MP	TP	% Points       GP	GR	W	L	Win Rate

---

TJC	27	20	5	67	52	69.33%	22	3	15	7	68.18%								
Stat.	21	16	15	57	52	61.18%	24	1	14	10	58.33%								
App.	21	12	10	58	43	57.33%	22	3	12	10	54.55%								
101st	24	8	10	57	42	56.00%	22	3	12	10	54.55%								
HAWKS	21	4	5	35	30	35.29%	24	1	9	15	37.50%								
DWF	21	0	0	26	21	24.71%	24	1	7	17	29.17%			

---

Heading into this week we see that Apprentice has overtaken 101st for 3rd place! TJC are chilling in first place but Statisticians are not far behind! Overall the first 3-4 teams are quite close point wise, but HAWKS and DWF are still struggling

who will come out of this intense battle on top? We will see

cheers,
Apollo

Edited 5/7/2017 03:16:34

The possible scenario's
(There are 32 possible outcomes, but some of those lead to the same top 2. The number of possible scenario's are indicated between brackets.)

• (11) Stats win against Apprentice, TJC wins against 101st
  OR Stats win against Apprentice, 101st win against TJC, Apprentice wins against 101st, TJC doesn't lose both against DWF & Apprentice
  -> TJC & Stats advance
  
• (9) Apprentice wins against 101st & Stats, TJC doesn't lose out,
  OR Apprentice wins against Stats & TJC, TJC wins against 101st
  -> TJC & Apprentice advance
  
• (3) 101st wins out, TJC wins against DWF or Apprentice, Apprentice wins against Stats
  -> TJC & 101st advance
  
• (3) 101st and Stats win out, TJC wins against DWF & Apprentice
  OR Apprentice wins against Stats, TJC & 101st win against Apprentice, TJC wins against 101st
  -> TJC advance, tie for 2nd between 101st and Stats
  
• (2) 101st and Stats win out, TJC wins one out of two against DWF & Apprentice
  -> 3 way tie for first between TJC, Stats, 101st
  
• (1) TJC and Apprentice lose out
  -> 101st and Stats advance
  
• (1) TJC loses out, Apprentice wins against 101st, loses against Stats
  -> Apprentice and Stats advance
  
• (1) TJC loses out, Apprentice wins against Stats, loses against 101st
  -> Apprentice and 101st advance
  
• (1) TJC loses out, Apprentice wins out
  -> Apprentice advances, 3-way tie for second between TJC, Stats, 101st
  

Number of scenario's in which each team advances:
TJC: 26 (+ 3-way tie for 1st (2) & 3-way tie for 2nd (1))
Stats: 13 (+ 3-way tie for 1st (2) & 2-way tie for 2nd (3) & 3-way tie for 2nd (1))
Apprentice: 12
101st: 5 (+ 3-way tie for 1st (2) & 2-way tie for 2nd (3) & 3-way tie for 2nd (1))


So MotD & Beren, how did ties get broken again?
Number of scenario's resulting in a tie 6/32! (Some of those are pretty realistic!)

Edited 5/1/2017 21:49:37

Quoting from the Rules sheet (line 15):

"Scoring 3 pts 1v1, 4 pts 2v2, 5 pts 3v3. If there is a tie between clans, Head to Head is 1st tiebreaker, then Tournament wins. "

101st wins tiebreaker over Stats: 3-2

In 3-way tie:
TJC wins tiebreaker over 101st: 3-2* (3-1, but for tie to happen, 101st must win 3v3 vs TJC)
Stats wins tiebreaker over TJC: 3-2

If 3-way tie: 5-5.
Tournament wins in case of 3-way tie:
* TJC: 2
* Stats: 1
* 101st: 1 in the 3-way tie for first, 0 in the 3-way tie for 2nd

So: 101st wins 2-way tie over Stats, but 3-way tie is somewhat complicated.
Either way, my clan seems to be a little ****** if those ties happen.

We still are at a point where two 3v3 games have not yet started , this should add another month give or take onto Q3 before C has even started. C should last at least the amount of time Q3 has (few weeks more or less?) maybe finally giving A a rival for slowest division. Now it isn't so bad this season but might be something to think about the format.

Agreed. We already have two improvements planned.

Firstly, the game allocation algorithm can be improved to ensure that everyone gets 2 games in the first cycle(Apprentice didn't get any games while all the other clans got 2 games each in this division).

Secondly, we're going to explore the possibility of starting games on a schedule(instead of it being driven by completion of games). This will be similar to how the seasonal ladder allocates games and the slower clans will have to play more than 2 games at a time(in the later stages). This will encourage clans to be more proactive and finish their games quickly. We're still discussing the specifics and the scheduling algorithm. Ideally, we want to strike a balance between having a faster league and game load.

If anyone has other solutions, we will consider them as well.

I think that starting games on a schedule would be a notable improvement to Clan League. +1

Right now players have an incentive to play slow (so to get more intel on your opponents from their other games, give less intel to your opponents), but that just sucks.

Edited 5/2/2017 02:01:16

Secondly, we're going to explore the possibility of starting games on a schedule(instead of it being driven by completion of games). This will be similar to how the seasonal ladder allocates games and the slower clans will have to play more than 2 games at a time(in the later stages). This will encourage clans to be more proactive and finish their games quickly. We're still discussing the specifics and the scheduling algorithm. Ideally, we want to strike a balance between having a faster league and game load.

+1

This could especially increase game speed for team games. A lot of time is consumed by different online times.

I don't like the idea that games will be created after a schedule. U will be basically forced to play faster and i have some problems with that.

1. U will be most likely forced to play with players of your own timezone.

2. Team games afford more communication and especially if u play in 3 tournaments at once u need that 3 day boot time.

3. U only can affect your own play speed, not the one of your opponent. MotD u know how long our RoR game didn't started because of a vacation of Atom for nearly 1 month. In such a situation u can't do anything against it and u will probably be punished as an opponent with playing 3 games at once due to a schedule and a delay u're not responsible as a team for yourself. Playing 3 games at once is a disadvantage compared to playing 2 at once.

4. Basically u will get the same result with forcing players/teams to play faster than u would get if u reduce the boot time of 3 days to let's say 2 days f.ex. It sounds crazy but people have a life outside of WL and i think that's a good reason why reducing boot times in a bigger league in general were rejected by a majority of players.

5. All that will probably just lead to more boots and than the competitive part and exciting part of CL will be reduced if decisions of Promotion/Relegation/Championship are made by boots.

With all these problems i'm strongly disagreeing with your ideas. I'm playing in 3 tournaments atm and don't see any option to playing faster. There is so much going in Real Life, in the on going games and on WL in general that it's simply not possible to play faster if i wouldn't commit my entire free time for multiple months into CL. Nobody should be willing to do that, cause in the end it's still a game.

In case of a draw, how is head to head record calculated? You look at the number or wins or the number of points (between clans in question)?

I'm playing in 3 tournaments atm and don't see any option to playing faster.

I understand that, but that is something clans would have to decide when creating lineups: playing their best players as much as possible, or keeping them from getting overwhelmed with games. It may be in their interest not to max players out.

U only can affect your own play speed, not the one of your opponent.

I agree, and that is one drawback, but it will impact slow teams much more than it will affect their opponents. If you have a means of targeting only the slow team, we're happy to hear it.

Basically u will get the same result with forcing players/teams to play faster than u would get if u reduce the boot time of 3 days to let's say 2 days f.ex.

That's not true. 2 day boots will lead to players forgetting that the boot is sooner and getting booted. This will either encourage them to play quicker, or it will result in more games at a time, which will no doubt reduce their play quality, but shouldn't really induce more boots.

At the end of the day, it is in the interest of the competition for the different divisions to proceed at roughly the same pace. It's no fun for the clans in Q1 and Q2 to wait for so long for the result in Q3 to become clear. Similarly, B will finish the whole season not too long after C and D start at this rate. The simplest way to handle this is by scheduling the games.

Edited 5/2/2017 13:30:05

In case of a draw, how is head to head record calculated? You look at the number or wins or the number of points (between clans in question)?

It's based on the number of wins, not points. Sorry for the ambiguity. The Rules tab of the CL doc has been updated to reflect this.

I think there is a much easier solution, but it would need a larger change.

Get rid of the two-stage procedure all together and simply make one huge pool of clans who play all templates, like Division A and B, with the top 2 advancing.

The only difference (with A and B) would be that clans do not play every other clan on every template. If all clans play 6 games on every template (2 times 3v3, 3 times 2v2, 6 times 1v1), that's 66 games in total, like A and B, and will likely be enough to pit every clan against every other clan at least twice, but more likely (depending on the number of clans) three to four times in total. It should be relatively easy to balance all of this with a smart sampling scheme.

Main counter argument: some clans may play stronger opponents more often than others. But, let's be honest: Division Q3. It's still better.

Edited 5/2/2017 17:32:33

@Math Wolf, that is definitely something we will consider when we sit down and figure out what we want to change for CL10.

Second counter argument: clans waiting with finishing their games so that they pick opponents they want (=clans that don't have allocated games).

You'd need to find a way to prevent this.

@Rento, scheduled games (either with scheduled opponents or with randomly determined opponents) would solve that.

Edited 5/2/2017 18:21:26

I understand that, but that is something clans would have to decide when creating lineups: playing their best players as much as possible, or keeping them from getting overwhelmed with games. It may be in their interest not to max players out.

I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one playing 3 or others 2 tournaments who simply can't play more than that and who probably need to reduce their participation to 2 or 1 tournaments, with that change. That will cause new problems. U will need more players in the lineup. More players means automatically, that u have a higher chance of players taking vacations and more players also means a higher risk of getting booted. Therefore u might need to increase the subsitutions not only to 8, but maybe even to a higher number. So that 1 change could possibly lead to many more problems/changes, which aren't very good either.

I agree, and that is one drawback, but it will impact slow teams much more than it will affect their opponents. If you have a means of targeting only the slow team, we're happy to hear it.

Well u have a 3 day boot time for a reason. Why should u punish slow teams anyways? I see no sense in that. Try to work on reducing vacations, than pushing teams to play faster.

And i also see another problem with that. U definitely get punished as an opponent, even if u're not responsible for the delay. That also means u will have a time were u play 3 games at once. Obviously u play slower with 3 games at the same time, as u would with playing 2 games, so u could get into a cycle, in which u will stay on 3 games at once or maybe even can't handle that and go to 4 games at once. F.ex. also if your own teammate takes a vacation of 1 to 2 weeks. One longer vacation of your opponent especially at the beginning of the season can impact u for weeks and maybe even months.

From my point of view it's like the highest principle of law: An innocent person should never be punished for a crime, that he had nothing to do with.

That's not true. 2 day boots will lead to players forgetting that the boot is sooner and getting booted. This will either encourage them to play quicker, or it will result in more games at a time, which will no doubt reduce their play quality, but shouldn't really induce more boots.

At the end of the day, it is in the interest of the competition for the different divisions to proceed at roughly the same pace. It's no fun for the clans in Q1 and Q2 to wait for so long for the result in Q3 to become clear. Similarly, B will finish the whole season not too long after C and D start at this rate. The simplest way to handle this is by

I used that more as an example to explain, that u have to play your turns faster, so rather in 2 days than exhausting the 3-day boot time. I also don't think u can compare Divison A + B with the Qualifier Stages. At least not in cases of tournament numbers. U have way more people playing to their limits in A and B, than in the qualifier stages, due to the concept of it. And ofc u have a higher quality level in A and B and as an example also in this year Q3 than in Q1 or 2 so it's just logical that these divisions/groups take longer.

Wait one season and u should see, that with the current system the Qualifier groups should be more weighted in terms of quality, which should result in closer end dates for each qualifier group.


In the end i rather like to have a slower Clan League, in which everybody has the possibility to participate without investing to much free time to the competition, than having a Clan League that forces u to play fast and punishes u if u're playing slow, even if u're not responsible for it.

U should try to reducing the length of a season by reducing vacations or limit vacations on a certain number of days. With that change and a more weighted qualifier stage the problem might solve at least to a certain ammount to itself. Probably not completely, but at least to a certain amount, where u're not forced to make these drastic changes.

@Edge,
I know opinion is going to be divided on this issue. Like I said, we haven't worked out the details yet. Once we do, we can revisit the conversation. We have other plans to handle the vacation problem as well. So the issue of getting punished for someone else holding your games up will be reduced in my opinion.

At any rate, you can rest assured that we will think this through before proposing radical changes. Both of us are well aware of all the issues you raise, as we face them every season in the CL ourselves :)

Ofc. Take your time with it to present a good plan and then we can talk again. Maybe u can convince me.

Second counter argument: clans waiting with finishing their games so that they pick opponents they want (=clans that don't have allocated games).

You'd need to find a way to prevent this.

The idea would be to set the match-ups in advance of course, otherwise you can't guarantee a balanced schedule for all clans.

Example of a fully balanced example with 5 clans (V,W,X,Y,Z), 4 tournaments and 2 games per tournament:

3v3: V-W, X-Y, Z-V, W-X, Y-Z
2v2: V-X, Z-W, Y-V, X-Z, W-Y
1v1: V-W, Y-Z, X-V, W-Y, Z-X
1v1: V-Y, W-Z, X-W, Y-X, Z-V

The draw would simply be to determine which clan gets which slot. By first making the match-ups using generic letters and only then filling in the clans, there can't be any favouritism.

(Minor disadvantage: I'm not sure if there are actually algorithms to determine these kind of things, I'm generally pretty good at doing it manually myself, but it obviously gets trickier (and more work) for a larger number of clans.)

Right now players have an incentive to play slow (so to get more intel on your opponents from their other games, give less intel to your opponents), but that just sucks.

Second counter argument: clans waiting with finishing their games so that they pick opponents they want (=clans that don't have allocated games).

You'd need to find a way to prevent this.

Does everyone feel the same way about these comments? I've never really bothered about timing my games so as to "give lesser intel" or pick opponents. If someone cared enough, I'm sure they can find about 100 games of mine on 3v3 EU or enough games on the other templates I play. I feel like you guys are overthinking it here. The speed of play is probably just related to people being busy with life. If this is a concern among the majority of players, then we'll see if it can be addressed.

Although all ideas are welcome, we'll have to take a call on what we can invest time and effort into. All of this has to be coded into the CLOT and we have a lot of other pressing issues which we need to address as well.

Like I said, our plan was to get into this discussion after Group C/D1/D2 begins, as the organizer workload reduces significantly after that.

Edited 5/2/2017 21:53:33