Games being decided by non-joins
I think that with a scheduled game start, this should be avoided/the responsibility is entirely on the player. So I would not change anything here.

That being said, an option I would think works well is: For each day a clan/team fails to join, they lose 1 point to the other team. If all points are lost, then the game is deleted.

More player level breakdown of stats needed
As MathWolf already said, other things should take priority.

Substitutions require manual work to be done by the league organizers
It would definitely be nice if players could do it. One user friendly way is if the CloT could read forum post (think Knyte's stuff, where you enter commands into the thread) and any player in the clan could sub?

Notification issues: notification requires manual work by organizers and sometimes fails to reach the necessary audience
In another CL thread I briefly suggested utilizing a Announcement thread that had weekly updates (including 'No updates'). MotD said he would do this for next CL. If the thread is updated every saturday/sunday for example, it should at least be able to reach the audience/ clan representatives. This still requires some manual work, but at least I think it has been minimized?

Alts and multi-clan membership is a growing problem.
First, I haven't observed this issue during the current CL? Some of the above suggestions (Use highest ranked know player/main only etc. ) seems to shot a bird with a cannon ball. (i.e. The tool is way to big for the task.)

Here is a hypothetical: say a clan is pretty much disintegrated, and all good players leave and join new clans. Then all the players play for CL next time, under a different tag. Yep, thinking of Blitz. I mean, do we want to stop them from playing? "Hey, your clan got demoted from A, so now you can't play in A for another clan next league? Oh, and not in B either?" Note: *Hypotetical* What will happen to Blitz is not clear yet ofc.

I would rather do A: Open up/encourage training clans. What is the difference between two MH teams and Lynx + 101st, GG +GGr etc. Thus players don't have to look for another clan, just to be a part of CL. Speaking of which, there is no rules against a clan having two teams, so can a clan enter two teams?

There is also the additional concern that a bunch of alts play for a clan for one season and take them higher than their level, which leads to that clan crashing hard next season. We've already seen what bad seasons can do to clans ;)

I won't give examples as we're not looking to point fingers. We want to improve stability long-term and have a competitive league where clans can compete well in their respective divisions.

Unless you are talking about an older CL, I would appreciate examples. Given the length of CL, it is not really unreasonable to see a lot of players change. Maybe some are abusing the system, but let's deal with that individually? As dry-clean-only pointed out, any sort of strict anti-alt rule could hurt perfectly fine clans.

Finally it would open up the option for clans from higher divisions to destroy the competition rising from lower divisions by recruiting the best mains from those clans simply because they can, even if they don't intend to use them in CL themselves.

+1
There is a very fine pathways to walk when recruiting. Unless a player asks another clan to join them, they should be 'protected' so to speak, from approaches from other clans. Just no way to prevent that ofc.

Using Google Docs instead of a more robust database limits functionality and complicates improvements
Lack of a clear schedule
I can't speak of the backend, but from a User-perspective it works well.

Clan league takes too long, and specifically is much slower in some divisions than others
The consensus seems to be reached already. Some sort of fixed format, where the created day of games is know. This CL games got made during exams (the starting point of the 1v1's was horrible imo.) Before the CL, when making the initial lineups, the start day excepted was January. I don't really like the 'staggered' start for 1v1,2v2,3v3's either. I would rather have them start at the same time. Right now it feels like the system was set up to benefit smaller clans, where players had more tournaments each. (Whether that was intentional or not.) Sure, it may be more exciting that the last 1v1 and last 3v3 games for MH, both can secure MH a promotion atm, but CL is not an entertainment show.

Clan league is stalled by players taking vacations in excess of 40 days
I think this was in part happening due to the timing of CL. As I mentioned earlier, CL overlapped almost -if not- all spring exams. Ofc Players take the month during exams of by placing a Vacation on.

The issue here , is that if we are going for a game every X day format, then back-to-back hurts 3rd parties. For one, I would require any player on vacation to be subbed out, in case of new games. Maybe all clans needs to have two backup-players/slots filled at all times?
For game-in progress, it hard. The only option I see, is to completely change the boot time, and disable vacations.

Edited 6/1/2017 20:49:15

1 suggestions I saw mentioned a couple of times was that non-joined games should have the option to use a substitute.

I just have to say: Absolutely not. Not joining a game is the same as a boot. There's really zero excuses for booting in CL. Three days is a long time to spend 5-15 mins to take your turn (or 5 seconds to click join). If you can't commit to that, then don't commit to CL, cause your slow play is holding everyone else up.

The delay of CL A is the real issue. I liked the idea of scheduled starts. I think that should solve the issue for CLA. For the qualifiers, just break it down into groups of 3 instead of 6 and have 1 team promote per qualifier. We can spread out the good qualifier clans to prevent an early elimination.

RE: Non-joins/Boots -

I don't think anything need to change in terms of this being a loss. You didn't play your turn, so you lose. However, a freeze before making new games to allow a clan to substitute a player makes sense. Having a player boot 4 games instead of 2 because you only have a couple hours to deal with it is a tough situation.

BTW, having to join games adds up to an additional 3 days to every game. Is there any way to do it where the game just starts on the picking phase?

RE: CL is too long/Scheduled starts -

I liked the staggered starts for the 3v3s, 2v2s and 1v1s. Partially because it's nice having everything kind of hit a peak together, and partially for game management if a player is in multiple formats.

I think scheduled starts make sense as long as you arrange a reasonable time frame (this will obviously be most difficult for team games). For example, start with 2 games and then force-start a new one every 24 days if necessary (equivalent to 8 three-day turns). Or whatever everyone decides is an appropriate number. You can take vacations, but it penalizes you if you end up with lots of on-going games. It would also save on time that's wasted like one team surrenders but it takes a few days for everyone to surrender and accept, etc.

I don't think banked time is a good idea. Let's say each player has 5 days banked time, that's 15 days of free time per team to burn every game and probably results in slower play than if players took vacations.

Games being decided by non-joins

There have been so many non-join losses and instead of awarding a loss, a fraction of the points can be reduced and the game can be remade with subbed players. Some specific cases where people fail to understand how much time they have to join or misunderstand how vacation work and even when they're online-failing to join and lose all points is too harsh.

We can have an initial banked time(maybe 1 day or so) for joining or even for picking. This may lengthen the league by a fair amount of time, but will help to avoid non-joins.

Alts and multi-clan membership is a growing problem.

dry-clean-only have given it concisely and everyone knows that Div. A and B clans are not alt friendly(Lynx maybe the only exception though-as i find some alts there) and someone like me will feel, if I can contribute something to my first clan it is good. Am not blaming many clans recruiting good players, but constantly going after good players from other clans puts more strat players into these good clans and the other clans who lose the players becomes bad or alt clans.

Imo, alts/multi-clan membership isn't a growing problem. This will exist as long as lower tier clans lose good players to higher tier clans or higher tier clans.

Clan league takes too long, and specifically is much slower in some divisions than others

I guess it is specifically slower in divisions where there are more good players. It can't be avoided, as each small parts in picking/ playing is vital and needs attention. Scheduled games as suggested earlier will help starting comparatively more games, but the finishing may be still slower in some divisions.

Maybe the divisions can be reduced to smaller group of clans (4 maybe?) so that there are lesser games in each division and will be fast paced overall. Like D1/D2, if we have A1/A2, B1/B2,... CL will become fast and maybe 3 CL per year will be possible.



Clan league is stalled by players taking vacations in excess of 40 days

TBest got subbed out because he was about to take such a vacation and this has helped for Div.B to complete fast. This kind of subs/sportsmanship needs to be encouraged and maybe have a separate count for this subs.

With limited subs and real life problems, many feel that longer vacations are much helpful. Scheduled games can help in avoiding this-as all have rough idea of when they can play and be in lineup accordingly.

Non-joins and boots.

Let's not look at boots as a punishment only for the booted team. It affects the whole division. When someone boots against clan X and then wins against Y, it renders the competition unfair and less interesting.

Therefore, if there's a possibility to reduce the number of boots, it should be used. I think adding banked boot times of 1 day to games would be a good move. Or maybe even less, like 12 hours. Not 5 days, that's ridiculous. Autoboot stays at 3 so you have to play your turns in same pace as before and banked boot acts like a very limited life saver. And doesn't require coding in clot.

It wouldn't make the season any longer if the game starts are scheduled. If they are not, the effect would still be nothing compared to people taking 40 days of vacation.

Additionally freezing slots that booted would be great as well.

Alts

I don't have a strong opinion here, but the least that should be done is revealing all alts at the beginning of the season. What's great about CL is this atmosphere, making predictions on how each clan will fare. Not knowing who is who destroys it.

Hello,

here my few cents:

- In case of a "boot" due to a non join the game gets deleted and thus the information also isn't immediately visible any longer which exact player got booted. Since chances are that those non joining players get substituted, it now looks like the new player was responsible for not joining.

- It's a problem for the M'Hunters clan that not everybody can play due to a limited amount of slots. Other clans and players bypass this problem in two ways which aren't favorable:
1. The clans create a B tier version of themself aka recruitment clan or however you wana call it.
2. The members of those clans who aren't good enough to represent that clan play as alts in lower tier clans.
For this reason, I recommend that a big clan like M'Hunters should be allowed to have a B tier lineup which isn't allowed to promote from the lowest division.


As for the guys being worried, about the elite leeches stealing their players, it's time for a new clan in division A to seriously kick those elite butts. Also we could make a forum wall of shame where we record all those stealing attempts from the self proclaimed elites.

Games being decided by non-joins

As suggested in CL A thread, freeze games involving an already booted player, to allow clans to sub the player and avoid furthers non join boots (not only for 1v1).

Forget the idea of using AI to compensate non join in team games, since picks are manual in all templates, plus you refuse the take back control so really what's the point, the team will surr instantly despite the AI.

I also like the delete one loss for non join per game and offer a replay. Maybe add a -1 point penalty. And 3 days instead of suggested 1 week should be enough for the replay, so delay is not abusive (anyway, I doubt non join involve more than 1 player per clan and therefore, won't impact more than 1 game overall).

More player level breakdown of stats needed

If you are talking about updates including individual performance, I love the idea. This is down to the guy(s) managing the updates. There could be 2 dedicated people instead of 1 for that matter ?

Substitutions require manual work to be done by the league organizers

Can't a program import the line up from the gsheet for each team and create the game automatically from there ?

Or, as suggested, have one thread where managers list their substitutions, so CL panel have only 1 thread to follow constantly. CL panel could "hire" 1 guy to this task specifically.

Or even better, as suggested by Tbest, use Knyte thread system.

Alts and multi-clan membership is a growing problem.

For change of clan during a season, can't players leaving a clan be forbidden to keep on playing in CL with their new tag ? They could postpone their joining of the new clan or something.

For change of clan between 2 CL, and often for a one shot CL, clans could line up only players registered in the roster from previous CL season. If so rosters should list all clan players starting each season to give them more security in future seasons. Exception would be if previous clan is not registered for coming CL (clan desintegration or whatsoever). This may also help lower clans prevent their best players from being stolen by stronger clans.

This would basically be purpose built to destroy our clan's chances in CL. Alot of our players now (Dr.Love, Rikku, Xenophon, Bugs) all have mains that have since moved to other clans. These players still want to compete in our team because they see it as one of if not their main clan.

As well explained by Aura, I think TJC is the main clan targeted by this issue, without naming the clan.

Clan league is stalled by players taking vacations in excess of 40 days

Can't you make holidays allowed only for games started, and force a substitution for games not starting due to a vacation ?

For games already started, add a point penalty for any abuse (such as any hols > 2 weeks, or 1 week if 1 week was already used previously by the same player) ?

As suggested before, add another division before qualifiers, and reduce the number of clans in them. 3 main divisions + qualifiers would give more attract to CL too, with more consistency for clans in CL (currently most clans, all outside A and B, have to start from 0 each season ; that may be too much and also too far from original format).

I would like to add the following suggestions :

disclose templates of next CL at least 1 CL season in advance, so clans can start preparing earlier. Ofc this may favour clans who finish their CL sooner, but this could be seen as an incentive to play faster during CL.

Regarding boots during team games already started, add AI with take over possible, so that games are penalysed with orders taken by AI during some turn(s), but not necessarily lost by boots.

For a more competitive CL and implying clans to get deeper composition than just rule CL with only a few players in their clan, limit further template participation per player. For example 2 templates per player is enough (9 different players should be listed in line ups with current templates).

Remove EU 3v3 which gameplay is a bit "scripted" and experience effect is strong, so players playing it for years have a strong advantage on others, and you cant fill the gap of experience in a few weeks on this template. Or add wastelands or some cards to make it a bit more exotic and neutral to everyone.

Allow unlimited subs, as long as replacing players were not maxed on templates allowed and were not previously subbed out from a template.

Edited 6/4/2017 15:34:17

2 templates per player is a bad idea imo. Forces a clan to have at least 9 active members to play. Right now we barely had 6 active people because life happens.

All that does is encourage clans to steal people from other clans to fill up their roster.

Why is forcing a clan to have 9 or more active players bad?

Not saying 2 templates max is the right or wrong way. But finding a way to allow more players from a clan to play is certently a good thing.

All that does is encourage clans to steal people from other clans to fill up their roster.

Or you could recruit talented players from opean games. In fact I would argue that Mike's two templates idee may even reduce the incentive to steal players. Since now more players gets to play for their main clan.

^^ Thing is that almost all clans won't actually have much problem with fielding 9 players on their lineup (even though many had 7-8 player lineups). If a player is on WL only for CL it won't make for him that much difference if s/he plays for WG or something more lively. Only downside is that some clans won't capitalize this hard on a chosen few greats, but the upside is that overally more players would get to play for their respective clans.

Edited 6/6/2017 19:57:05

Or you could recruit talented players from opean games. In fact I would argue that Mike's two templates idee may even reduce the incentive to steal players. Since now more players gets to play for their main clan.

Certainly having more players required to play in clan league will help test the depth of clans even further than it does now. This idea, in the end, benefits clans that are larger by nature, say, for example M'Hunters, whose depth is crazy, and hurts clans that rely on minimal depth, say, WG.

It really comes down as to what really clan league should be about. Do we want clan league to favor larger, depth laden clans? Or do we want clan league to be friendly to smaller, more close knit groups? Poaching is going to happen either way, I don't think its related to number of players playing in clan league, rather, it is related to the "elite" perception of A clans, and a player's inherent desire to prove they are among the best warlight players. Until a clan manages to prove that they can compete with the tops in spite of not being exclusive, will this perception continue to exist, and so will poaching. I don't see how any restructure of clan league will ever change this.

I don't think we should fix things that work. Hardly any clan fielded only 6 players, because it's generally a bad idea to flood players with 3 templates when you have an option not to.

"I don't think we should fix things that work. Hardly any clan fielded only 6 players, because it's generally a bad idea to flood players with 3 templates when you have an option not to. "

It doesn't work if players play for another clan, since the main clan don't have enough slots. Right now CL favors smaller clans. As Aura correctly pointed out, it really comes down to what CL should be about.

My preference would open up for a clan to field multiple teams. And consider trainee clans, as a team B. (i.e Can't be in same div as main, etc. rules need to be added.)

I don't fully understand. MH used only 9 players to fill 18 slots. The reason they didn't use more players was not that there were not enough slots. It's because other players weren't as strong, right?. So allowing MH2 to take part would solve the problem. Having a rule that at least 9 players would have to play would not solve the problem, since nothing would change.

Where am I wrong?

Rento,
Ofc MH could have lined up 18 different good players (30 different current members of MH have recorded a top 50 rank in at least one ladder), but under current rules, we had to adapt to other clan strategy in order to be competitive.
However, MH could also have lined up only 6 players, its top 6 players, and probably would have had even better results. But MH doesnt see CL this way. I talk under Norman and other clanmates control but I feel we see CL as the most important event in WL community and as such, lots of players want to participate, fight for and represent their clan. I'm pretty sure this is the same in every clan, but other clans are more results driven. I don't blame those clans, I just wish, on behalf of all players that can not be lined up, that more players would be required per clan.

2 templates per player is a bad idea imo. Forces a clan to have at least 9 active members to play. Right now we barely had 6 active people because life happens.

All that does is encourage clans to steal people from other clans to fill up their roster.

On top of what Tbest said, I would add that this problem could (should) be solved by the other suggestion

clans could line up only players registered in the roster listed in the previous CL season

... this would put a strong limit on steal of players from lower clans.

Certainly having more players required to play in clan league will help test the depth of clans even further than it does now.

Well sorry right now it does not. You can rule CL with as little as 6 players, what kind of depth is that.

This idea, in the end, benefits clans that are larger by nature, say, for example M'Hunters, whose depth is crazy, and hurts clans that rely on minimal depth, say, WG.

It really comes down as to what really clan league should be about. Do we want clan league to favor larger, depth laden clans? Or do we want clan league to be friendly to smaller, more close knit groups?

Indeed this would favour clans like MH or Outlaws, but my suggestion was not to favour MH, it was more for what I think CL is about, or should be about : maximize players participating in CL, make the community better, define the best clan under these conditions. ie current player skills but also scouting talents, recruiting, training them, and so on.
This is a task that clans would regularly require to complete in order to remain competitive, whereas sticking to their current strenghts would make them decline compare to other clans that are improving. Succeeding in these tasks also defines what a good clan is, therefore CL should also account for this specifically. CL would thus grant clans that do the effort and do it successfully, and this way help develop the community through those noble tasks.

I don't think we should fix things that work.

As things stand right now, Masters have the strongest bunch of players, maybe 8 of the 10 best currently active players on WL, and their other players would be at least top 3 in any other clan. They have lost only 9 (!) games in division A, and nothing prevents them from recruiting the best assets of other clans and further their domination in the next 10 CL's. Is this what we want ? All clans fight for 2nd place because CL is a league that Masters win at the end ? I'm not even sure this is what Masters want. So some fixes are needed because there seems to be a problem here. Ofc, we could waste 3 seasons to see if i'm wrong, but with 9 losses so far and members that never leave the clan, I cant see them decline anytime soon. Not saying this is not deserved -their job is absolutely brilliant- but that CL may need to be more challenging and interesting.

Edited 6/7/2017 02:00:58

Some people have some political agendas that they are wanting to achieve. Such as...

Remove EU 3v3 which gameplay is a bit "scripted" and experience effect is strong, so players playing it for years have a strong advantage on others, and you cant fill the gap of experience in a few weeks on this template. Or add wastelands or some cards to make it a bit more exotic and neutral to everyone.

No, You can learn the template and gather experience on it yourself. Adapt , Learn and improve. Besides, This can be made to every template and a idea as "ambitious" as this will have a more negative effect on the league.

General Points:

• The league shouldn't babysit clans for putting out unreliable players who get booted. I believe there should be support networks and ways for clans to reduce boots if they do occur. (Substitutes) . I think the league has done the most that it possible can do in this area and anything more added would nearly promote clans to put in unreliable players hoping they become reliable.
  
• With Alts/Membership this is a product of the clan culture in Warlight. Elite clans have the ambition to become the best and will recruit every possible way to find the best players to become the best clan. It's simple competitive nature. Clan League may be a catalyst to this cycle but it has been here since the beginning of clans just on a bigger scale now.
  
• M'Hunters I understand your pain. I know personally for me I had to put a lot of players who wanted to play Clan League in the subs bench and obviously nobody likes to be subbed. However with GG + GGr , Lynx + 101st . They are technically two clans with seperate identities with their own different forums with their own different communities. Yes the difference is small but this is technically true. So, When we look at the 101st GGr Apprentice line-ups I do honestly feel there's a bit of consistency. I can always know 1 or 2 names that would always be on that line-up. When I contrast this consistency with a M'Hunters B team I just feel there would be a lot of chopping and changing , There would be no consistency. Conclusion being , There's not a high turnover of players between training clans when compared to what I would think it would be in A + B team situation under one clan. Leading to inconsistent line-ups.
  
  
  
  

They have lost only 9 (!) games in division A, and nothing prevents them from recruiting the best assets of other clans and further their domination in the next 10 CL's. Is this what we want ?

Nothing lasts forever m8. This is more of a problem in rl high school tourneys such as "Science Bowl", but not a problem on secondary sources of competative play such as warlight. We can't always be this free forever. The first 7 clan leagues were dominated by APEX and WM. Both clans are effectively defunct at this point. 20 was at one point overpowering, its long gone too. Whose to say a new upstart such as 7th heaven will one day overpower an aging masters. Players retire, new players come in, leaders lose motivation, its what happens. I doubt that Masters will last forever, either.

However, the cycle will always stay the same. Elite clans will poach because they know they can and they will do it. Clan league isn't going to change any of this. If you want this to change, you have to prove it by getting a clan of a more inclusive nature that has elite players to decline these invitations. Its a challenge, but in the end, a challenge I am willing to take up.

Some people have some political agendas that they are wanting to achieve.

Mmmm for the record, I didnt speak as a MH but as a spectator and admirator of CL, suggesting ideas that I personnally feel may improve the league, by making it more fair in every aspect and going further to what I think CL is (should be) about.

I'm aware MH have been struggling on 3v3 EU since the losses of Farah and Smoove, and that we can improve on this template and we are working on it, but please keep in mind I spoke as myself here and not as a member of MH, with my personal point of view on those questions. Another example, I'm pretty sure we won't have boots next season, but I wouldn't like our teams to win games on boots. It's like a Champions League final won thanks to a red card, penalty or referee mistake. I want to see fair play, fair rules and good competition for every clan, not what favours my clan and clanmates.

For EU specifically, I still think this template is unfair to most clans as probably the most technical template that require years of training to reach Masters players level on it. I mean these guys know what difference it makes to pick a spot in 15 instead of 14 for example ! How many players on WL manage so well on this template ? For these guys, EU is like a chess board with 1 efficient set of moves to do every turn and will always find it, and will never (rarely) do a mistake.

Anyway I forgot CL panel offers vote on templates so community decides, this is good enough.

Edited 6/7/2017 11:46:41

Cats is considering joining Clan League 10.

Elite clans will poach

I understand this line of reasoning but I don't think Poaching is a big issues , people move to the clans that best fit there needs. It's natural people move to other clans where they clan mates have similar skills or better as apposed to stagnating as the best or one of few 'decent' players.

"They have lost only 9 (!) games in division A, and nothing prevents them from recruiting the best assets of other clans and further their domination in the next 10 CL's. Is this what we want ?"

High benchmark breeds competition , CL has got more competitive from what I have heard it is rare for people to go 6-0 now