Coalition Wars

I think this is too hardcore, and it would finish with too many inactive coalitions.

I have played most CW in this game compared to everyone else, the problem is clearly inactivity and refusing. Just now we almost had a cw, I wouldn't play even, still no cw at the last moment. So eradicating points will not help anything, because the player skill stays the same or even improving so the situation will be essentially the same. We'll have the perverse situation were coalitions currently in ranks 10-30 will end up first because they will lose nothing for losing and will only play between themselves due to having no chances of winning in top tier 1-9, while toptier refuses to play betweem themselves.
edit: just got denied again edit2: denied 3rd time even with worst possible team, this is why the system is bound to fail
What will fix it: current system with decay and limited number of matches per season, however deleting points is unneccessary, it'll only serve to kick off inactive coalitions while slowly we'll get back to a similar scoreboard, however they will be removed due to the decay anyway. Another clause could be manipulating the formula so fighting the same cln repeatedly will grant less points so coalitions are encouraged to seek more opponents.

OK, the update is online. The seasons are capped at 10 games, no restriction for playing the same coalitions (yet, let's see if this becomes a problem).

The season ends on Feb. 29th - hurry up to secure the top 3 positions!

Good work Ivan! I hope this will get more activity in the coalition rankings.
Question: What if a coalition does play more then 10games? Is it not possible at all, or will the 11th game not count for the season?

Written by Hugosch, 01.02.2012 at 03:50

Good work Ivan! I hope this will get more activity in the coalition rankings.
Question: What if a coalition does play more then 10games? Is it not possible at all, or will the 11th game not count for the season?

11th game won't count for the season. Everything else will proceed normally - Competence will be adjusted, as well as Earned CP.

The explanation of the system could be improved (or the maths at least removed completely, their addition feels unecessary) but otherwise this ROCKS. Really nice stuff Ivan, I can already see coalition wars being played like they haven't been in a long time.

Pardon me for not having followed the topic, but I don't see the point of this 10-game cap. -.-

I don't think there should be a restriction on playing the same coalition more than once. Coalitions can have friendly rivalries and things, and it's often after a CW that a coalition finds itself wanting a rematch. This goes for almost any coalition, victorious or not. So there needs be no restriction because that would restrict the number of CWs, only producing a negative effect.

Does competence get reset to 1000 after each season or? If not, than some coalitions will still be positioned high even though they are inactive for a long, long time (pirati for example).

So basically EArned CP means nothing, the only thing that really matters is competence, seeing as that shows how strong your coalition is.

so you can win a season while having a low competence, just by whoring noobs. You are not actually achieving anything for your coaltion until your competence is the highest ... that is how i see it at least, yet highest competence is not rewarded...

SRB might as well not play this system, because the only way we can win is by beating coalitions that are too scared to play us and just aim to hold the highest competence.

Written by Caulerpa, 01.02.2012 at 07:29

Does competence get reset to 1000 after each season or? If not, than some coalitions will still be positioned high even though they are inactive for a long, long time (pirati for example).

That would be a bit too dramatic, I think. A better solution would be to simply sort the Coalitions index by some other criteria.

Written by Ivan, 01.02.2012 at 08:10

That would be a bit too dramatic, I think. A better solution would be to simply sort the Coalitions index by some other criteria.

Yeah, I think so. Coalitions could get sorted by medals maybe? Gold - 10pts, silver - 5pts, bronze - 3pts; or something like that.

EDIT: Though this would end up with few coalitions being ranked by that, and others would be ranked by competence since they wouldn't have any medals. Why not making medals for TOP10, medals from 4-6th place can be just boring grey or something in that style but they would bring different amounts of "medal points" so that almost all active coalitions can be ranked by that.

Written by Ivan, 01.02.2012 at 08:10

That would be a bit too dramatic, I think. A better solution would be to simply sort the Coalitions index by some other criteria.

We have one chart ranking the best of the active Coalitions, and one sorted by competence, what determines the Coalition which has gathered most CP, arguably the best in total. That's fine, isn't it?

But if the Coalitions are to be sorted by something else, how about something neutral, like registration date, number of members or played CWs?

Nono it's peoples interests to have coalitions ordered by competence lol, much easier to see which people to farm and which people to avoid. xaxaxa

Please if you do not have anything to contribute to the discussion, than don't write at all. Thanks.

The only problem now is: The coalitions with a less competence points will get more CP when winning, so more chance of winning the season. For example: BM2 will get about 50/60 points when winning, while BM, SRB and Dalmati will gain 20/30 against the same opponent. So, if we both play the same opponents, and BM wins all their matches, while BM2 win 8 and lose 2, then BM2 is still winner of the season.

Written by Hugosch, 01.02.2012 at 16:12

The only problem now is: The coalitions with a less competence points will get more CP when winning, so more chance of winning the season. For example: BM2 will get about 50/60 points when winning, while BM, SRB and Dalmati will gain 20/30 against the same opponent. So, if we both play the same opponents, and BM wins all their matches, while BM2 win 8 and lose 2, then BM2 is still winner of the season.

the whole system is flawed, as i have pointed out

it is supposed to encourage people to CW, yet it doesn't, and the least strongest coaltions in the game will end up winning the seasons.

Written by Hugosch, 01.02.2012 at 16:12

The only problem now is: The coalitions with a less competence points will get more CP when winning, so more chance of winning the season. For example: BM2 will get about 50/60 points when winning, while BM, SRB and Dalmati will gain 20/30 against the same opponent. So, if we both play the same opponents, and BM wins all their matches, while BM2 win 8 and lose 2, then BM2 is still winner of the season.

It's really not as bad as you think. It's assumed that those with lower compotence will not be winning 8 out of 10 and certainly not against teams that are way above them. They'll gain more from fighting in general however they would be penalised on points for farming even lower teams just like we would.

Really it looks a bit twisted on paper but it will all work out because the lower teams will need to beat higher teams to actually gain any points.

You are right Barry, but my comment was not ment for extreme critisism (like Arbitrator has). This system is really a step forward, as i already said in a previous post. I just want to keep up the discussion and give comments and idea's on the new system. I just wanted to say that 'higher ranked coalitions' have less chance to win the season then lower ranked.

Written by nonames, 01.02.2012 at 21:26

Written by Hugosch, 01.02.2012 at 16:12

The only problem now is: The coalitions with a less competence points will get more CP when winning, so more chance of winning the season. For example: BM2 will get about 50/60 points when winning, while BM, SRB and Dalmati will gain 20/30 against the same opponent. So, if we both play the same opponents, and BM wins all their matches, while BM2 win 8 and lose 2, then BM2 is still winner of the season.

the whole system is flawed, as i have pointed out

it is supposed to encourage people to CW, yet it doesn't, and the least strongest coaltions in the game will end up winning the seasons.

They have the low Competence for a reason. To win the season they actually need to win a few games (against very strong Coalitions, as you presume). My bet would be that the stronger Coalitions will also be the ones winning the seasons.

EDIT: Replied before I noticed that Barrymore posted a similar reply.

I think the real problem is that there are so many training coalitions now, we can no longer assume that they won't beat stronger coalitions since they are trained by stronger coalitions and are very capable of winning. Since their competence is lower, they would make bigger gains than stronger coalitions, but have above average skill since they are trained to be like a strong coalition. I'm not sure how to fix this since the only way would be not training players, or forcing coalitions to merge and no longer have training coalitions. I guess we could just wait for their competence to balance out, but the first few seasons will definitely be dominated by them I think.


sorry if I'm not making any sense, it is late for me and I wanted to post before I went to sleep

That's true what Hugo said, just I doubt "low ranked" coalitions will manage to win that much CWs against coalitions with higher competence. If they do - their competence will grow so after 1-2 seasons it will be balanced again. The bigger problem to me seems the ranking of coalitions. Competence is still the most important factor, because coalitions overall ranking is based on it - that's why I suggested ranking by positions after each season (higher place after end of each season brings more points and by those points clns are ranked)

Written by Caulerpa, 02.02.2012 at 04:05

That's true what Hugo said, just I doubt "low ranked" coalitions will manage to win that much CWs against coalitions with higher competence.

That's assuming "low ranked" coalitions fight against high-ranked ones.

Allowing 2 on 2 matches would literally mean a rejuvenation of the whole coalition war segment of the game. Just saying.

Written by BASED Ironail, 02.02.2012 at 09:00

Allowing 2 on 2 matches would literally mean a rejuvenation of the whole coalition war segment of the game. Just saying.

I don't think 2 players can really represent a coalition - it would be unfair to count it as a CW match.

It is actually possible to 2v2 coaltion war through a bug.

3 players from one coalition and 2 from another, two from each join and the last person leaves.

Let me give the final word on this; this new Coalition system creates an ecosystem of sorts of coalitions that is bound to be successful, in my opinion, and goes as follows:

• Low ranked coalitions CW each other, avoiding the coalitions that are currently quite powerful
  
• More successful low ranked coalitions quickly gain competence and become ranked higher
  
• These formerly low ranked coalitions eventually begin to attempt to compete with awesome coalitions like SRB in a bid to gain competence...
  

... and likely fail, but they will not know what hit 'em and will keep trying to beat SRB--ultimately leading to more CWs, which was the developers' intention.

That's how I think it will work out, anyway.

Btw, this should be fixed (if it's not too complicated):
- players (enemy Leaders, Officers) can start a game without the host knowing
-> allow start only if all parties agreed

Nothing too serious but can be pretty annoying.

I also think things will get balanced eventually. If strong low-ranked coalitions get a bonus, let them have it.

This system is quite a bit more dynamic, more livid than the old one, as there are less predefined power structures that keep new coalitions down. If an emerging coalition is able to beat higher positioned ones, it deserves actually being able to reach a good position. If it's not able to do that, it won't take any advantage from the ability to earn more points.
And the emerging coalitions will soon enough be in a position where they have to defend their rank from other newcomers as well, so we shouldn't worry about that.

It's still early to say, but for now the system is working. Since it's introduction 5 or 6 CWs have been played.

I think this is pretty good so far.