freakns wrote:josko.ri wrote:freakns wrote:josko.ri wrote:League then may be best of 8 (like it is now) or best of 10 per match.
another interesting idea came to my mind. if 2 different clans become winners of conqueror's cup and clan league then these clans may play supercup match (best of 80 or 60) which will decide who is the ultimate winner of that season.
stupid idea. CLA is basically 16 games clan challenge where half of the games are doubles, and we have situation where one clan have same team for every doubles, while CC is 40(and later 60) games challenge where no one can play more then 1/3 of the games. simple incomparable.
maybe it is stupid but it is idea from competitions from real life. in almost every country teams plays both league (round robin, average 28-32 games) and cup (2 games, winner advance). no matter that these are 2 very different formats, at the end of the season they play supercup (often 1 match) if different winners is from league and cup, which is an extra trophy.
so, it is suggestion from real sports competitions, not something imaginare.
yeah, i know its rl situation. also, in rl nobody gives a rats ass about those super cups. as in footy, we all know who is CL winner while many doesnt even know there is super cup. not to mention, those super cups are played before next season starts, with completely different rosters.waseemalim wrote:waseemalim wrote:freakns wrote:josko.ri wrote:League then may be best of 8 (like it is now) or best of 10 per match.
another interesting idea came to my mind. if 2 different clans become winners of conqueror's cup and clan league then these clans may play supercup match (best of 80 or 60) which will decide who is the ultimate winner of that season.
stupid idea. CLA is basically 16 games clan challenge where half of the games are doubles, and we have situation where one clan have same team for every doubles, while CC is 40(and later 60) games challenge where no one can play more then 1/3 of the games. simple incomparable.
yes well, just because its theoretically possible to put the same team doesnt mean that people do that very often. There may be other reasons for not making these comparable, but this is a rather weak point imo.
also, want to take this opportunity to point out that I personally feel this maximum game limit is a pathetic waste of time. Firstly, if someone does want to take on 40 games, we should let them -- imo the burnout would be pretty high. The fact is, as you spread yourself across many games, you become ineffective, and that a clan simply can not win without depth. Secondly, people can quite easily determine the strategy of a particular game without being in the game -- it shouldnt take any more time and effort than actually playing the game.
while i didnt had this much work, i had around 70-80 active games. all against good teams as i dont play public games. and i had 3000+ points with 50+% success in team games... so yeah, 40 games can easily be managed by one person while being efficient. not to mention, if i play in doubles with lordnex, we dont even talk, no need. and you may look through CL or CC how efficient we are.
and of course you can determine strategy in game you arent even in, but why on earth would you do that?!
Excuse me, maybe you dont have a job nor a family or whatever appears in rl. But 80 active games is just ridiculous.
Most people here do have a life.
And I am very sure you would have a higher % win if you had less active games going.
Its impossible to have 80 games under control. Even if people dont have a job.
Most people just dont have that much freetime.