Clan War System 2013

Tbh 25 is very very ambitious, 1 a week should be the minimum so 12 Cw's to be counted in the standings at end of season. As Pulse mentioned there are still flaws with this system, however I think it is a stronger and fairer system then the current one. With a few details ironed out I will give my support!

Written by Desu, 27.08.2013 at 16:03

- Season limit changed from 10 maximum, to 25 coalition wars minimum
- To create a good sample, you need the full 25 CWs to be ranked
- You can still have more coalition wars to increase ranking/percentage after the 25 are done

This will result in only 1-2 Coalitions in the final ranking. Most Coalitions are too casual play 25 CWs per season. Look at how many reached even 10 games - last season it was only 2 Coalitions.

Quote:

- Win percentage out of total games per season used as marker, not competence.

This will just force coalitions to pick easy targets and avoid coalitions with established winning reputation. Current system rewards challenge, for both sides - since a more powerful coalition always results in more points. In the proposed system fighting top coalitions will be too risky - and why bother when defeating newbies will get you the same result? Top coalitions will really struggle to get the required 25 games.

Quote:

You have a full 4 days, I can only hope changes are made.

We're certainly not making any changes in a rush now, when there are so many unintended consequences to consider.

Support. I thought this system (the thing you're suggesting to replace competence) was already how it worked, obviously not, but I think it should be that way.

Written by Ivan, 28.08.2013 at 02:25

Written by Desu, 27.08.2013 at 16:03

- Season limit changed from 10 maximum, to 25 coalition wars minimum
- To create a good sample, you need the full 25 CWs to be ranked
- You can still have more coalition wars to increase ranking/percentage after the 25 are done

This will result in only 1-2 Coalitions in the final ranking. Most Coalitions are too casual play 25 CWs per season. Look at how many reached even 10 games - last season it was only 2 Coalitions.

Quote:

- Win percentage out of total games per season used as marker, not competence.

This will just force coalitions to pick easy targets and avoid coalitions with established winning reputation. Current system rewards challenge, for both sides - since a more powerful coalition always results in more points. In the proposed system fighting top coalitions will be too risky - and why bother when defeating newbies will get you the same result? Top coalitions will really struggle to get the required 25 games.

Quote:

You have a full 4 days, I can only hope changes are made.

We're certainly not making any changes in a rush now, when there are so many unintended consequences to consider.

I fully support cw games to be atleast 15.At least 15. 10 is not barely enough.Listen please,when you have 10 cw's to play total,after you play your first 5 ,you kind of start planning your cw's because you have so few left.Imagine how much great games we are missing.If we would raise the numbers of cw's we would see cw's every day,people would have motivation to train,to improove etc.Its a way to make the competitive scene bigger and better.Also like madara said after most clans play their 10 they loose interest pretty much.
And to clans that cant make 10 games,seriously Ivan why do you think "casual" clans have or should have anything to do in the competitive scene?Clans that cant make 10 cw's in a season dont deserve to be in the listings anyway.
I hope i dont sound too cocky,but people who play competitive are the backbone of this game so i think a satisfactory change in cw system should be priority.

Written by Ivan, 28.08.2013 at 02:25

This will result in only 1-2 Coalitions in the final ranking. Most Coalitions are too casual play 25 CWs per season. Look at how many reached even 10 games - last season it was only 2 Coalitions.

The number of coalitions have changed, more players are playing, it may be summer but there has been a massive boost in the number of coalition wars and players in coalitions. Last seasons ranking are also under the current system which makes every game 10% of your entire season. It's slow because of the system.

Written by Ivan, 28.08.2013 at 02:25

This will just force coalitions to pick easy targets and avoid coalitions with established winning reputation. Current system rewards challenge, for both sides - since a more powerful coalition always results in more points. In the proposed system fighting top coalitions will be too risky - and why bother when defeating newbies will get you the same result? Top coalitions will really struggle to get the required 25 games.

Weak coalitions fighting weak coalitions is how it currently is. And forcing a high number like 25(or a similiar number) won't let all the games be like that.

"since a more powerful coalition always results in more points." A powerful coalition newly made will get more points by facing established powerful coalitions. An established top ranked coalition cannot win the season. Weak coalitions only need a few lucky games to push a powerful coalition off the ranking, since every game matters so much. To make an accurate ranking you need to make each game matter less.

"In the proposed system fighting top coalitions will be too risky." Do you understand how risky it is now? In my system a CW is only worth 4% of your season, and each game will matter less the more you have, creating a more accurate percentage attached to your coalition. In the current system low coalitions usually refuse because they can't just waste one of their 10 games. I will keep on mentioning the 10%/game in the current system as many times as needed.

This idea allows all coalitions a chance at the top 1/2/3, weaker coalitions and strong coalitions. I don't mind rewarding challenge, competence can stay, but it doesn't help to rank each season by it. The current season system only rewards challenge for a limited time. Once your competence rises, there almost isn't a reason to get any better, no reason to train your fellow coalition members, nothing to push for everyday. Every game is 10% of your season. This isn't a large enough sample.

Top coalitions won't struggle to get 25 games, we have a whole three months to do it. If games actually continued to matter after the original 10, we could of gotten 50+ coalition wars very casually, 70+ if we pushed for it. Or, you know, if coalitions actually accepted and wanted to play, or if their leaders had not quit AW because their 10 games were up.

Written by Ivan, 28.08.2013 at 02:25

We're certainly not making any changes in a rush now, when there are so many unintended consequences to consider.

The consequences have been looked at and explained. The current system is more detrimental than any system proposed in the threads at the top, or my idea in this thread. This has been talked about through and through.

I, and many others, have basically quit AW once the CW season slows down as coalitions reach their 10 games. This should be proof enough that something needs to be changed.

Do you at least recognize that competence and max game limit is a problem stifling competition?

Written by notserral, 27.08.2013 at 22:59

Desu, there's a problem in your system: if CLNs are motivated to go for wins, they won't CW a CLN they know they won't win against, thus picking weaker CLNs and then high rank CLNs wouldn't get any CWs at all. With a minimum of 25 CLNs it wouldn't be much different, I don't think people would risk a loss to get to compete.

They are motivated. Again, forcing 25 games makes it so the sample is spread out, people can't face the same coalitions over and over again, they'll eventually stop.

"they won't CW a CLN they know they won't win against, thus picking weaker CLNs and then high rank CLNs wouldn't get any CWs at all."

How different is it now? You know people naturally don't want to face a stronger, better person for fear of a loss or a result where they don't gain anything. How is this different in any competition, game, medium, fight, argument, dispute, or anything that one person or persons face off against another person or persons? The only thing you have to say is competence.

However, competence that carries over from the last season has already been proven to be a terrible way to rank the current season. It would be completely fine if you reset competence every season, that would be about the same as my idea. This makes it so things are fair again. However the current system uses competence that has existed since your coalition has started, and uses this to rank you per season. It is unfair.

Written by notserral, 27.08.2013 at 22:59

I'm against the maximum of 10, we should be able to have unlimited CWs in a season. THEN add a nifty piece of code that makes matches against the same CLN and same players have diminishing returns (i.e. Stalins CWs some clan, where they use player A, player B and player C. if player C leaves and joins CLN Y, Stalins win against CLN Y, if player C plays, is slightly diminished; same thing with a CLN cwing the same CLN more than a certain number of times).

Then add huge SP and protocoin chance bonus, like 6 times for a CLN you didn't fight yet (and decreasing as you have more matches against that CLN).

Sounds interesting, I hope you can expand upon this type of idea and propose it to the administrators. It sounds like it'd work in any system as well. Also adding SP/protocoins is a good idea, anything to encourage coalition wars.

@khal.eesi, what you have said is also my point of view. Even changing to 15 games a season would help.


@Everyone, do you recognize that the maximum game limit and ranking by competence are bringing down competition, and slowing the rate of coalition wars? If so, do you also recognize that any change or adjustment, even rising the game limit to 15 instead of 10, would help the season system? Again, if so, where are your ideas? Almost everything is better than the current system.

An example of why the competence system is flawed - look at our battles with Mortal Kombat

Now Mortal Kombat has some good players high ranked, when they beat us they get 100 or 80cp, when we beat them, which is hard because they are good players we get 27, so we have to beat them 3 times to match their 1 win even though rank wise they are stronger than us...this makes no sense. I understand if we play a 'noobie' coalition then we should not be rewarded as much, but the current system really doesn't encourage consistently good coalitions to keep playing (just ask Dalmati)



also the same with Campfire Fellowship, a clan that includes Tophats and Acquiese, hardly 'noobie' players.

Hmm, Competence+CP is basically Elo for Coalitions, and I don't see anybody complaining about Elo. A few tweaks might be required, but we don't want to change the ranking system to pure percentage, which doesn't take into account comparable strength of the opponents.

Here are few ideas:

- Unlimited number of games per season. Coalitions can win by a sheer number of CW battles.
- Counting the last 10 games of the season, as opposed to the first 10. Coalitions can amend the screw-ups in the beginning of the season by "replacing" those early CWs.
- Reducing competence penalties.

Written by Ivan, 28.08.2013 at 06:08

Hmm, Competence+CP is basically Elo for Coalitions, and I don't see anybody complaining about Elo. A few tweaks might be required, but we don't want to change the ranking system to pure percentage, which doesn't take into account comparable strength of the opponents.

Here are few ideas:

- Unlimited number of games per season. Coalitions can win by a sheer number of CW battles.
- Counting the last 10 games of the season, as opposed to the first 10. Coalitions can amend the screw-ups in the beginning of the season by "replacing" those early CWs.
- Reducing competence penalties.

The reason people aren't complaining about ELO is because it isn't divided into seasons. If you had a "top ELO per season" and based it upon ELO that carries over(like competence), Tophats/Chess would never, EVER win a season. Then you'd see complaining. Good comparison, no?

Taking comparable strength of the opponents is fine, I understand you want to reward challenging higher coalitions, but this doesn't let there be a level playing field. A new coalition with strong players from previous dead coalitions will have every advantage going for them.

Yeah, I would like an unlimited number of games.

Counting the last 10 games of the season is almost the same deal, you can just win 10 then stop and hang onto your place. It doesn't encourage more(for other coalitions that want to increase their ranking as well, with one coalition stopped playing that's a number of potential CWs never to be played).

Reduced competence penalties is a step in the right direction.