It also is needed because CL needed to be sped up. One season a year rendered promotions and relegations rather meaningless since a promoting/relegating clan would be completely different the next season. It was at its worst between CL9 and CL10 when the entire division C either dissolved or got super weak and that's who promoted to division B thanks to all the dropouts from A/B...

Edited 3/14/2020 01:32:36

Right now:

In A) Biomes 3v3 has 26 open games, dRoR 3v3 also has 26 open games, which equates to 3.7 games per team which for simplicity I'll round to 4.

In B) Biomes 3v3 has 24 open games, dRoR 3v3 has 32 open games, averaged together this equates to 4 games per team.

This can be looked at as either a bug (people have too many CL games) or a feature (clans are encouraged to play players in less than 3 slots). I personally see it as a bug. People can mumble "have faster teammates" but that doesn't matter if your opponents are slow.

I think one of the reasons for the stack up is 15 days boot time is free. I generally consider myself a fast player and I've often used 8 days on picks because I could. With the aggressive game creation schedule games stack up fast.

I would argue a better solution would be a vacation limit of 2 per player per clan league. While still creating games on a schedule, vacations cost a resource to activate and players will use them less frequently than the banked time. With auto-commit real world concerns only matter for absences > 6 days, and two should be sufficient to cover the gap in time. Maximum stalling is limited to 60 days on a 3v3 team which is not much different from the current 45. This would only matter for the last game created and would require all players saved their two vacations for that last game.

The only real issue is enforcement. We would have to track people's vacations. If the CLOT can auto-log vacations we can verify players only used 2 vacations at the end of clan league. In the event someone uses more than 2 vacations they forfeit their games for which the later vacations were active.

Edited 3/15/2020 07:26:25

since the arguments doesnt change i simply again say that I am for making game creation depending on the general tournament speed. if 2 of the 3 games of the round ended start the next round. (as example)

That still makes A and B far too slow, and means C and D finish far ahead of A and B.

Schedules are here to stay.

thats why i said "as example" you can make it 1 of 3 if needed. then it is faster.
or make it depending on total games of that template over all Clan League divisions

its just not really good at RoR. Without our team there likely wouldnt be any RoR game finished in B yet. That's crazy!

As there was the goal to get more diversity in templates over seasons and I dislike the way it was handled this season:

Reserve spots for "new" templates:
For example 1 team template and 1 1v1 template has to be one, which is not older than a year.

The way it was done this time, we got old templates, which just weren't liked enough in past seasons.

Clans still should vote one all suggested new templates.

Make some more panels maybe and make it RT

Bumping for now.

how about we allow ties (draws) They Would Be Worth 1 Point and it would make sense Since That Would be The Football (Soccer) Style of points system

Ties are irrelevant in warzone. There will always be a winner and loser of these games. Vote to end results in a loss for both players.

okay i didnt know that my bad

I think the 10% template deduction per previous league going back 6 seasons is too harsh.

Probably not a huge amount of players in CL today were playing in CL6.

I don't think popular templates are more at risk to strategic voting than less popular ones. Certain clans might have a really strong player for a less popular template, where as every clan is more likely to have players with experience on popular templates.

Also some templates are popular for a reason... *cough* EU 3v3 *cough*

Perhaps it could be 10% for the previous 2 or 3 seasons.

Edited 4/17/2020 16:21:12

i dont think template is the problem here
if it is you can make Cl Only Maps If You Need to
it's Just That human variable That makes us play inconsistantly

I think we should have a fixed rotation of templates.

or part fixed and part voted ( 3vs3 EU, 2vs2 guiroma, 1v1 ...)

or half changed every CL, with basic rule no templates can be included in 3 consecutive CLs.

1 benefit : we would spend less time to select the rotating templates
2 benefit : clan can better prepare for coming CL knowing part of the templates

some templates are just too good to pass... while it's nice to have new stuff, it's also nice to have traditions

strat ME and EU 3v3 are good examples, i wouldn't have a problem if these were guaranteed in every cl

Edited 4/17/2020 17:19:42

The idea of 60% is to almost guarantee that any repetitive templates can be skipped. Even then I don't know if EU can be passed with 60% deduction, since we're using Dowdall. Not to mention EU can't get the full 60% reduction until CL18.

@Cowboy How About CL Making its own maps? That Way We Can Make Sure Its Balanced?

Because CL is based off of community strategic templates.

There is no need to make CL specific templates. That would also make it overly repetitive

This is just a suggestion of course, but maybe restrict players to one template each. For example, if I represent Apprentice in French Brawl, I can't also be on 2v2 or 3v3 template. This would force clans to field a diverse line up, as opposed to relying on their best players to carry them on 2-3 templates.