no worries, JOJO has stepped up and handled things quite well!very sorry about CWC5 i had one of my brain meltdown moments again
tbh both ataraxia and c nerd already have their two teams split with the original groupings so they are going to favour it remaining that way! Would just have been nice for all of us to have enjoyed that same situation and avoid 'same nation' teams playing each otherYeah I'm happy with it as it is, just responding in case there is a near-unanimous favouring of changes to groups. I'll see how things are similar time tomorrow but if not a strong chorus of support for changes will copy original groups again in another post for clarity and tag those who still need to sign up.
I think the second list should be the default position. That is the list that allows all 8 teams with 2 teams to play in separate leagues. The first attempt gives 5 teams that benefit and 3 not. There is little difference in the rankings of List A or List B so unless their is a fair or democratic reason for using the first list - the last list should be the default ( unless as said someone can give a fair reason why not. Clearly if you already have your two teams in separate leagues, you might be 'fine' with it !) but List B is that allows everyone equal benefit (and I cannot see any issue for the 5 managers who already have their teams split)no worries, JOJO has stepped up and handled things quite well!
I think now that things are underway, we keep to the same groups. It's a good suggestion for the next CWC though, we can try to split mains and affiliates into different groups. I'm a bit concerned that could lead to one group being stronger than the other (some manager's affiliates are significantly weaker) but it should be possible to arrange the teams in a way that makes both groups of relatively equal strength.
My main concern for CWC5 is that we will need to manually maintain a points table - I don't want the final standings to be decided by how badly you smash the bot. I've done this for CWC1 before but it was a much smaller comp, I'll have a think on how I can put together an excel file that automates this process.
Group A is currently missing @Charlie B 's two teams, @honestbharani 's Hunks and @Magrat Garlick 's Dynamo Morpork (who are fresh off a very impressive R1 Cup win!) Link is here: stumpedgame.com/ViewFriendlyComp.php?CompID=146
Group B is just missing Dynamo Schmaltzberg and @Shri 's Croquette Team. Link is here: stumpedgame.com/ViewFriendlyComp.php?CompID=147
In preparation for CWC5, ZCC and FHK are going to send out a few friendly T20 invites to teams of the opposite group. Get some warmups in without allowing our opponents to get too familiar with us
ataxaria - Not for yourself no , as you have two teams in two different leagues- if you saw no advantage or disadvantage why did you go to the trouble of posting to say you wanted the first method when List B was created?
One obvious disadvantage is that this is a competition - we can all 'play with ourselves' 3 times a week or more but ideally you'd rather be playing opposition
I have been very transparent about the advantages of List B - yes they make a better situation for me , but not more than anyone else - they just put me and 2 other managers on equal footing to 5 other managers. As yet I saw no reason given why the unequal List has been defended and processed- other than err it's done now (as if putting up a list for the 3rd time on a forum is going to make much difference for a completition that is then going to last months!)
However not to go against JoJo's efforts I have signed in my two teams - we can always swap two of our teams around Ataraxia if there is no advantage or disadvantage
Its amazing how often I`m seeing these words.... also once again BQ showing its irrelevance.is very unlucky getting out there.
On?I guess we are not going to get an answer !