just no Marcus, why punish people for being good or influential in their clans

Playing multiple slots gets punished in a way, since playing many games at a time is often stressful and some cant play their best anymore.

The point of it is not to punish, but for clans to play as, well, clans. If top players take the hardest templates, there is no incentive for clans to go on recruitment drives, there is no incentive for clans to train up their weakest players, and in a way it's cheating.

It's as if Real Madrid plays two Ronaldos for attack (I don't watch football don't know what position he plays), you can't do that, you have one Ronaldo, you have to choose where you want to play him. There has to be an opportunity cost to fielding your best players on certain templates.

That'd mean that clans MUST field 18 players. That's not possible for most clans, even looking at our own :P there is a cap on 3 slots/player for a reason.

Yes, for some clan the difference between top and bottom is very wide. And you d need 20 or more players, sub included

Ok, I understand that for practical reasons this can't be implemented. Maybe then reduce to a maximum of 2 templates?
The idea is to avoid any single player or small group of players carrying their entire clan to victory, and for the tournament to be a collective effort from each clan.
It's ok if it's too much of a hassle, just throwing the idea out there.

If your clan only puppets you in tournaments, search for another clan. Clan league is indeed supposed to be a team effort, and if my clan only uses me as filler as if they play with alts, I would refuse to play.

Daddy Deadman can Rufus me Aurelius.


{Despite Master's recent recruitment it seems they are missing some key member nicknames}.

Anyway, as have been said, the smaller clans struggle to fill the existing rooster. More slot limitations/reductions have been proposed before and many clans stated they would not be able to field a rooster under such changes. That being said, I do like the intention of the suggestion. Currently, however, I think the 3 slots compromise is pretty fair.

We keep the 3 slot limit, but within that limit, only allow for a maximum of one 1v1 template per player.
Clans can still field their best players on 3 templates, but can only field them once in each 1v1 template.

now I've seen a season with the clot starting the games off and the previous with it being tournaments. I far preferred the CLOT starting them. Just needing a single small tweak.
The first two games should start off closer together (game1 then game2 three days later - saves eight days). If you can commit to CL you can play 2 games at a time, if you need more days to pick than 3 the bank can be used immediately. Your choice to start dragging CL out with the first picks. Staggering the 2nd game so far from the first isn't helpful. Get the teams playing 2 games from the beginning as is normal.
Don't give them back these days with later games and then game 7 will start eight days sooner. Remember, you have a sitout in your block of games!


I would start the 1v1's sooner but it doesn't really make much difference to the end time of CL. They'll be done before the teams completes. Meh, is fine :)

In teams because your partner(s) can protect you the bank could be a day or two smaller. Perhaps a day less in 2v2 and 2 days less in 3v3. But 2 days isn't going to change the world. :)
If you disagree, are there many people booting? Discount noshows at the start of CL and how many players are booting? How many of the booted people came back shortly after?
I don't want someone to boot and then login a few hours late. Most people that boot need days after teh boot before they come back, something "came up", injury, hardware problems, burnout, blah blah. 3 days+13bank easy covers a 2 week holiday with a day's travel either side. Add teammates to help cover you and you can easy double that.

And see if there can be a way to stop the bank resetting after someone is booted. I'm sure you're looking at that

---

Playing 3 slots isn't advisable, never was and never will be. That's a third of your whole clan's games. Couple others do that in your clan and you can clan _League_ it with a team_of_3.
Once people generally stop playing 3 slots, then 2 slots is easy
If someone goes for 3 slots then they have to accept it's going to be tough going. You will have multiple games to pick, and multiple moves for 4 months. Having ~3 open games per CL slot is absolutely normal. The schedule will aim for 2 games at a time and CL players are the best. They play extra slow to get it right, they play on a couple more turns from a dead position hoping for a GOD turn or a mistake to get back in. They burn a few days bank at picking just because they can. If it's teams they want to talk over each new idea. If you play 3 slots, you could well have 10 games on the go. Far easier playing two slots and having half a dozen

Lastly, i do think the game allocation schedule can be public early enough for teams to use it in their picking. If a player is great and wants 2 teams slots and a 1v1, they can choose to pick the 1v1 that starts last type thing. Or one with offset game starts.

I have another scheduling suggestion which should be familiar to people who played in CL10. In that season we essentially had two waves of 1v1 games. 3 of the tournaments were created at the beginning of the season, and the other 3 were created at the midway point. This has two benefits:

• If you start some 1v1s at the very beginning of the season, you get some early results when everyone is excited about the new season, rather than having to wait a month before the first team games start trickling in.
  
• If you have some players who will only be available for the first half, or the second half of the season, they can still be involved without having to resort to substitutions.
  

Perhaps a bit of the nitpick, but if you decide to date with DD/MM/YYYY (European Format) instead of MM/DD/YYYY (American Format), I would rather you do DD.MM.YYYY or DD-MM-YYYY. That way there's an easy visual cue to me that the formatting of time string is the European standard instead of being confused by it all the time.

Edited 4/22/2020 20:10:41

i know this will take a long time to happen but maybe realling The Cl League instead of having 4 divisions of 7
lets have 2 divisions of 14?

Edited 4/22/2020 19:54:14

and all play all, that doubles the games, doubles the length. CL11 took 9 months (?) as it was to complete

Even Cl12 looks to be taking 6 months to complete

Did you think that through at all?

no i didnt i wont lie

I think the size is good enough. but one shouldn't complain about that promotion from D to A last too long if you throw goralgns idea away that fast. this way you could get to A within 1 season :D

Edited 4/23/2020 11:00:42

1) The schedule is too squeezed, likely as an overreaction to the stalling of previous CL. I would consider to extend the schedule of 1-2 months as to allow to any player to be able to cope with all other events ongoing. Ideally the schedule may be adjusted to have 2 CL per year, one starting in September and one in February.

2) Scheduled games work well, still it has the problem of creating a peak of games in the middle of the season. In order to optimize it, the first and the last 2 games may be started almost together. Creating the games 2-1-1-2 would improve it, whithout delaying the schedule.

3) Banked time is great, still it cannot be combined in team games. So if team mates have different periods of break, it won't work. I would add honored vacations with limitations (e.g. 1 only vacation per player per CL, 1 only vacation per game per team, vacations not honored in the last scheduled games).

4) Template selection: voting is nice, but it would be good if part of the templates (maybe just 1 or 2) are directly selected by a panel (not necessarily template panel, CL panel is fine). This would ensure giving a chance to templates that are not known, to have always variety of settings and fine tune the pool.

5) Template definition for next CL: it would be great if this is anticipated well in advance of the end of previous CL, say at the point when the last games of previous CL are created.

6) New clans joining the CL that, based on objective criteria, are good enough may be directly going to B or C (criteria may be the average MDL rating of the top 8 players of the clan). Arguments are so strong for this (not killing lower divisions, having homogeneous interesting competitions, making it interesting for all, ...)
Let's remember that this was considered before Masters merged with Apps. As this issue is likely closed, this may be the right moment to implement it, as it would not cast any shadow on the purposes for it was created.

"1) The schedule is too squeezed, likely as an overreaction to the stalling of previous CL. I would consider to extend the schedule of 1-2 months as to allow to any player to be able to cope with all other events ongoing. Ideally the schedule may be adjusted to have 2 CL per year, one starting in September and one in February."


change the dates to one in december(winter cl) and June(summer cl) That would work better than september and february

(accidental double post

Edited 4/23/2020 12:58:59

superpromotion in case of pure dominance in the division sounds fair.
If a clan has >90%, >85% or >80%PC maybe.
MDL is wide in template range, but only limited to 1v1s though. Would be good to have a measure to consider all aspects

I also would prefer to let new clans start from the bottom, really. and then let them superpromote if they really perform well.

Too often I saw promising looking clans signing up, imploding before the season actually starts, imploding during the season or not playing in the season after.

i am not sure if this would be valueble for clan league to have "one-hit-wonder" clans promoting fast and make the life harder for slowly but consistantly growing clans.

But I might be biased

Edited 4/23/2020 13:31:30