~2 weeks until end of season...

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 17:44

Good, EXACTLLYYYYY Stryko )))))) Finally you said something true. You will get more wins AND loses.
Butt But, the problem is, since the current system sucks, losses do not lower your score, they just don't touch it. I mean, for example, if each CW gives you 10 points, you win 80 and lose 920, you would get 800 points. But, if someone won 30 and lost 0 *meaning they didnt lose any game, they played less, though they probably are better than the clan with 80 wins*, they will get 300 points.
I said that winners are going to be noob, why? There is no factor that nerf/lower skilled clans' chances, BUTT BUT, there is a factor that buffs every clans' chances, which is the CW limit. No CW limit will allow more wins on everyone, even to noobs. Meaning, that noobs can easily get first place just be CWing a lot, without skills.

*Ps its not luck, though you are right. You will always get some loses.

Losses do lower your score, in the current systems, only when you get over 20 CWs done, the losses will replace any wins in order.

EG: If your first CW in the season was a win, and your 21st CW was a loss, you will lose points.

And noobs winning? Does this even make sense?

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 18:03

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 17:44

Good, EXACTLLYYYYY Stryko )))))) Finally you said something true. You will get more wins AND loses.
Butt But, the problem is, since the current system sucks, losses do not lower your score, they just don't touch it. I mean, for example, if each CW gives you 10 points, you win 80 and lose 920, you would get 800 points. But, if someone won 30 and lost 0 *meaning they didnt lose any game, they played less, though they probably are better than the clan with 80 wins*, they will get 300 points.
I said that winners are going to be noob, why? There is no factor that nerf/lower skilled clans' chances, BUTT BUT, there is a factor that buffs every clans' chances, which is the CW limit. No CW limit will allow more wins on everyone, even to noobs. Meaning, that noobs can easily get first place just be CWing a lot, without skills.

*Ps its not luck, though you are right. You will always get some loses.

Losses do lower your score, in the current systems, only when you get over 20 CWs done, the losses will replace any wins in order.

EG: If your first CW in the season was a win, and your 21st CW was a loss, you will lose points.

And noobs winning? Does this even make sense?

Stryko PLEZZZZ What the f is wrong with you O_o Mate, look..

This is how CP works. From the FAQ.

Coalition points (CP)
Points earned in a CW game depend on the competence stat of the participating coalitions. Competence (former CP/1000) shows Coalition's playing skills. Each Coalition initially has competence of 1. When participating in Coalition wars, losing Coalition's competence decreases a bit, while the winning Coalition's competence increases by the same amount. This amount depends on the difference between the two Coalitions competence points. It also equals to Coalition Points earned in the CW game divided by 1000.


And from the Coalitions page/CP formula, at the end it says
"By losing, you would lose no points, but the competence would decrease by 0.025 (1 / 2 * 50 / 1000)"

A coalition's season leaderboard score, is based on the last 20 games CP earned. Look at "last 20 games..", this means you can still play more after your first 20 games, but if you lose after this, you would get a lower score.

That is how it ACTUALLY works ^. If you haven't reach your CW limit, it won't matter if you lose or not, which is my point, according to your system proposal. I recommend re-reading everything, slowly. If you don't get it, just simply, please stop being like this, I get butthurt by bad things.

Zorri for double posting like a derpo, but I think you got confused a little.
Your current CW system proposal is to remove kebab the CW limit, this will make people to never lose their score. Therefore, the most active clan will get a better chance of winning in that system, than the actual one.

If you're not gonna read what I'm posting there's no point in arguing, you are just stating useless facts and repeating some of my points.

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 18:44

If you're not gonna read what I'm posting there's no point in arguing, you are just stating useless facts and repeating some of my points.

Actually, it's backwards, which makes me butthurt.

You are clearly trolling, what are you trying to gain here Alex?

Topic closed.

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 19:13

You are clearly trolling, what are you trying to gain here Alex?

Topic closed.

It's actually backwards.

WOW at this. Well done, Stryko. I'll make some quotes and screenshots to prove you are fucking me
Good night.

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 19:18

It's actually backwards.

WOW at this. Well done, Stryko. I'll make some quotes and screenshots to prove you are fucking me
Good night.

Stryko is talking with a percentage based system in his mind. So, the season rankings wouldn't be based on CP, but a win/loss ratio instead. This was Desu's suggestion though. (The unlimited CW's and percentage based ranking).

Written by Milkyy, 16.02.2014 at 20:10

Written by Guest, 16.02.2014 at 19:18

It's actually backwards.

WOW at this. Well done, Stryko. I'll make some quotes and screenshots to prove you are fucking me
Good night.

Stryko is talking with a percentage based system in his mind. So, the season rankings wouldn't be based on CP, but a win/loss ratio instead. This was Desu's suggestion though. (The unlimited CW's and percentage based ranking).

K. This is what stryko said
"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."

I still don't see it a viable system anyways. If you play against bad coalitions you'll get more chances.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 09:57

K. This is what stryko said
"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."
I still don't see it a viable system anyways. If you play against bad coalitions you'll get more chances.

Written by Guest, 15.02.2014 at 16:28

Isn't more CWs better? I'd think that would make the Clan community more active, would it not?

The CP and competence looks fine to me, but it can be improved, such as a percentage system like the one Desu suggested.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9657&topicsearch=&page=1

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 09:57

K. This is what stryko said
"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."

I still don't see it a viable system anyways. If you play against bad coalitions you'll get more chances.

Why would a clan cw if they have the disadvantage and there's no incentive of getting more CP like there is now. Anyway, this is too much off topic

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 10:49

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 09:57

K. This is what stryko said
"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."
I still don't see it a viable system anyways. If you play against bad coalitions you'll get more chances.

Written by Guest, 15.02.2014 at 16:28

Isn't more CWs better? I'd think that would make the Clan community more active, would it not?

The CP and competence looks fine to me, but it can be improved, such as a percentage system like the one Desu suggested.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9657&topicsearch=&page=1

lol you suggested a WHOLE other thing and now you come up with this link. Stryko, please stop bitching at me.

Written by Milkyy, 17.02.2014 at 11:03

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 09:57

K. This is what stryko said
"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."

I still don't see it a viable system anyways. If you play against bad coalitions you'll get more chances.

Why would a clan cw if they have the disadvantage and there's no incentive of getting more CP like there is now. Anyway, this is too much off topic

More CWs is more wins, because of this.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:10

Written by Milkyy, 17.02.2014 at 11:03

Why would a clan cw if they have the disadvantage and there's no incentive of getting more CP like there is now. Anyway, this is too much off topic

More CWs is more wins, because of this.

Your point being... ?

Written by Milkyy, 17.02.2014 at 12:14

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:10

Written by Milkyy, 17.02.2014 at 11:03

Why would a clan cw if they have the disadvantage and there's no incentive of getting more CP like there is now. Anyway, this is too much off topic

More CWs is more wins, because of this.

Your point being... ?

I actually didn't get what you said before, but
More CWs is More wins. No matter if you suck or not.

Written by Guest, 15.02.2014 at 16:28

The CP and competence looks fine to me, but it can be improved, such as a percentage system like the one Desu suggested.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 10:49

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9657&topicsearch=&page=1

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:09

lol you suggested a WHOLE other thing and now you come up with this link. Stryko, please stop bitching at me.

Actually it was what I was referencing the whole time, you just didn't read.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:32

Written by Guest, 15.02.2014 at 16:28

The CP and competence looks fine to me, but it can be improved, such as a percentage system like the one Desu suggested.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 10:49

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9657&topicsearch=&page=1

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:09

lol you suggested a WHOLE other thing and now you come up with this link. Stryko, please stop bitching at me.

Actually it was what I was referencing the whole time, you just didn't read.

No, Stryko. Deal with it. You only mentioned "system needs chaning, like Desu's" but this is your point.

"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:20

I actually didn't get what you said before, but
More CWs is More wins. No matter if you suck or not.

Sigh, you still didn't get it. We are talking about percentage based system. So number of WINS/LOSSES. So, say you play 100 cw's, you win 60 of them... Your percentage for the season would be 60%. NOT the CP gained from all the games like we have now. SO, it doesn't matter if you played more CW's (and so won more). Just go read the link stryko sent, all explained there. I just came here to clear things by telling you that stryko is talking about a percentage based system.

Written by Milkyy, 17.02.2014 at 12:35

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:20

I actually didn't get what you said before, but
More CWs is More wins. No matter if you suck or not.

Sigh, you still didn't get it. We are talking about percentage based system. So number of WINS/LOSSES. So, say you play 100 cw's, you win 60 of them... Your percentage for the season would be 60%. NOT the CP gained from all the games like we have now. SO, it doesn't matter if you played more CW's (and so won more). Just go read the link stryko sent, all explained there. I just came here to clear things by telling you that stryko is talking about a percentage based system.

Bert, I was always discussing Stryko's nooby suggestion. Look above and page 1.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:34

No, Stryko. Deal with it. You only mentioned "system needs chaning, like Desu's" but this is your point.

"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."

What Bertank said, but also that was my initial argument, and I expanded upon it to make things clearer for you. Sadly you don't want to understand and your ego seems too big.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:53

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:34

No, Stryko. Deal with it. You only mentioned "system needs chaning, like Desu's" but this is your point.

"This is the problem, if there wasn't a limit to the number of CWs in a season clans would keep playing instead of being scared to lose their CP. This is why the clan system is still broken."

What Bertank said, but also that was my initial argument, and I expanded upon it to make things clearer for you. Sadly you don't want to understand and your ego seems too big.

I was always discussing your first suggestion .__________________.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:51

Bert, I was always discussing Stryko's nooby suggestion. Look above and page 1.

I wouldn't have commented if I hadn't read all the comments. All I'm saying is that Stryko forgot to say the percentage part. Because he meant that, as he was trying to promote Desu's suggestion. (Correct me if i'm wrong stryko).

How many times do I have to say that he FORGOT to say it's a percentage system. But that's what he meant.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 12:56

I was always discussing your first suggestion .__________________.

Alex SERIOUSLY, I have only made one suggestion; have you even read any of my posts? I expanded upon it meaning it is linked to the idea.

Yes Bertank is correct, although I did mention it was about a percentage system and have even quoted it. However it seems Alex doesn't like to read.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 13:06

Yes Bertank is correct, although I did mention it was about a percentage system and have even quoted it. However it seems Alex doesn't like to read.

Sorry Stryko, gotta agree with alex here... You even said "CP and competence is fine", you never stated that when you said unlimited cw's, you meant percentage. CP and competence isn't really fine with unlimted CW's, as alex already said.

I know you meant percentage system though. Anyway guys, doesn't matter anymore.. let's just drop it. Everything should be clear now, hopefully >.>

It was all just a stupid misunderstanding.

Lmfao at you guys.
Here..




I don't care; if he meant or not about Desu's suggestion, he still focused on his cheap suggestion. He never said "What about Desu's suggestion? What do you think about it?". Instead, he said this



He used it as an example.

You still don't understand and probably won't understand, there's no point going through it all again - Bertank has already explained it to you. Choose to read his posts if you want but please stop being so retarded ignorant.

Written by Guest, 17.02.2014 at 16:29

You still don't understand and probably won't understand, there's no point going through it all again - Bertank has already explained it to you. Choose to read his posts if you want but please stop being so retarded ignorant.

It's actually backwards.
Stryko, I now hate you more Stop being a cunt, read above, for fuck's sake. You are trolling or just too much retard to understand it. Look, you never suggested that Desu's suggestion, you just mentioned it. Instead, you suggested a bad suggestion and now you and bertie come and bitch on me -__________-