Coalition Wars

I suggest you start a new season sometime to make people play more coalition wars again.


Other ideas to rise cw activity might be
-CP decay towards 1000
-allow 2on2 matches


please contribute and discuss

This has been discussed before

There have been more about this discussions and i think the Coalition ranking needs a real big change. At this moment there is no activity and not really fun. Things that would be best to add:
- Add 'seasons' on the coalition ranking and reset the ranking every 3month's
- The coalition that has been 1st at the end of the season gets a medal. Same for 2nd and 3rd.
- Add a special league for 2v2 matches (not based on coalitions)
- Make it possible to challange another coalition for a specific date and time.
- Don't make it too easy to decline a challange (except if the CP gives too much difference or there already has been played)
- Coalition that will not play in a season, will not be shown in the rankings of the next season, but in a 'inactive' list. Once played again, they are shown in the rankinglist again

These are just some changes, witch is also been used in very much other leagues and competitions for all sort of games. If these will be created the coalition rankings will be much more fun and much more active.

I was thinking about something similar to that for quite some time.
- CW seasons. Every season would last, let's say, 6 months. After that time all CP would be set to 1000 again, and coalition's ranking after end of each season would be visable on their coalition page so it would be something like trophies just for coalitions. That way coalitions would probably play CWs with less "fear" of losing because all CP loss would be temporary and it would be really nice to see who was 1st, 2nd etc.
But I realised there would be some problems:
- Inactivity of some coalitions could be solved by coalitions losing CP over time when they don't play a match. -> Leads to another problem: Avoiding to play certain coalitions. (even though that cln is active and would like to play just have no opponents)
So, I don't know how to solve that, maybe something like CW Invitations which you can't decline 3 times in a row and you have to wait few days before sending another one to the same coalition.
Maybe this is too complicated, but CW aspect needs to be a little "upgraded" IMO.

EDIT: Lol, I wrote almost the same as Hugosch

I'd like too see the rankings get reset every so often, just so it encourages the newer coalitions to participate, or to encourage people to make new coalitions as well. At the moment, you can't really touch the top 3 coalitions as the point difference is too much.

Thanks for the suggestions, starting working on the new system (with seasons).

Great news!

Very good news, also maybe a greater personal SP gain to provide incentive for playing CW.

OK, here's my take on it, which I'm currently planning to implement:

- 4 seasons a year.

- All current stats will remain, but perhaps become less prominent. For example, sorting in the Coalition index will be done by current season standing.

- CP will become something like 'Coalition Coefficient' (better name needed) and will be divided by 1000. So, a coalition without any battles will have 1, and, for example, Empire SRB will have 1.53. This will remain an important number, determining the amount of points each coalition will receive in case of victory and the overall proficiency of the coalition. However, it won't be the main definition of coalition standing, the way it is at the moment.

- Season standings will be determined by Earned CP (earned during the season, obviously). Total Earned CP will remain as well. Since this number can only go up, it won't discourage Coalition Wars, and resetting it every season will make sure that every coalition will have a chance to get to the top. In fact, it will be easier for coalitions with lower coefficient.

- Since the coefficient (former CP) won't matter so much anymore, Coalitions will be encouraged to pick battles with stronger opponents, in hopes of getting more CP this way - and without risking to lose anything (apart from slightly lowering own coefficient).

- CW battles number and won/lost will be counted by season, as well as totals.

I just have few questions, 1 season is 3 months? I would prefer 2 or 3 seasons a year, so that standings doesn't reset so often. A little too fast paced IMO.
Will coalitions get nice trophies after end of each season? And will their past positions be shown (example: Season 3 - #7/24 (seventh of 24 active coalitions that season)).

When will this new system get implemented (approximately)?

All in all, I am keen on this very much.



"- Season standings will be determined by Earned CP (earned during the season, obviously). Total Earned CP will remain as well. Since this number can only go up, it won't discourage Coalition Wars, and resetting it every season will make sure that every coalition will have a chance to get to the top. In fact, it will be easier for coalitions with lower coefficient."
Hmm, but hypothetically someone who has w/l 13:20 will be in front of someone who has 12:0, if i understood this right?

Sounds a lot like ELO. Glorious!

Written by Caulerpa, 29.01.2012 at 09:34

I just have few questions, 1 season is 3 months? I would prefer 2 or 3 seasons a year, so that standings doesn't reset so often. A little too fast paced IMO.
Will coalitions get nice trophies after end of each season? And will their past positions be shown (example: Season 3 - #7/24 (seventh of 24 active coalitions that season)).

When will this new system get implemented (approximately)?

Just seemed easier to divide seasons into Winter/Spring/Summer/Autumn. 3 seasons, for example is a bit awkward.

Trophies, yes. Past positions, also yes. Implemented - very soon, it's not terribly difficult.

Quote:

"- Season standings will be determined by Earned CP (earned during the season, obviously). Total Earned CP will remain as well. Since this number can only go up, it won't discourage Coalition Wars, and resetting it every season will make sure that every coalition will have a chance to get to the top. In fact, it will be easier for coalitions with lower coefficient."
Hmm, but hypothetically someone who has w/l 13:20 will be in front of someone who has 12:0, if i understood this right?

Yes, if They were managed to win against coalitions with higher coefficient. The second coalition in the example (with 12:0) is perhaps a top coalition which only played against weaklings and weren't getting a lot of CP from that.

In fact, 13:20 is the same as 13:0, because only Earned CP are counted. Earned CP don't decrease when coalition loses.

Yes, i like the "earned cp" idea as being the ranking determiner. This will surely bring more activity to coalition wars.

Very great idea!!

Nice job, VRIL. Just the right time for such a change, it seems.

Empire SRB has always had a problem of people refusing CW due to us being too strong, if we are denied CW how can we progress in this system? We definitely need something like what Caulerpa suggested.

Quote:

So, I don't know how to solve that, maybe something like CW Invitations which you can't decline 3 times in a row and you have to wait few days before sending another one to the same coalition.

Written by Fruit, 29.01.2012 at 14:17

Empire SRB has always had a problem of people refusing CW due to us being too strong, if we are denied CW how can we progress in this system? We definitely need something like what Caulerpa suggested.

Quote:

So, I don't know how to solve that, maybe something like CW Invitations which you can't decline 3 times in a row and you have to wait few days before sending another one to the same coalition.

ok. but what happens if the coalition never has got enough people online?

Assuming you never have 3 people online, you should maybe think about deleting the cln. I think it should be that you can only send a invitation to a cln when it has 3 people online or something.

Written by Caulerpa, 28.01.2012 at 10:18

another problem: Avoiding to play certain coalitions. (even though that cln is active and would like to play just have no opponents)
So, I don't know how to solve that, maybe something like CW Invitations which you can't decline 3 times in a row and you have to wait few days before sending another one to the same coalition.

Written by Ivan, 29.01.2012 at 09:14

- Since the coefficient (former CP) won't matter so much anymore, Coalitions will be encouraged to pick battles with stronger opponents, in hopes of getting more CP this way - and without risking to lose anything (apart from slightly lowering own coefficient).

I didn't notice anything to solve the problem Caulerpa mentioned in this new system. I like the idea of not being able to refuse a CW invite over 3 times, but it needs to be refined a bit. It would keep every coalition able to play at least one match with every other active coalition in the ranking. Though this would be difficult to find a balance to solve the problem of refusal. Whether it would be turned off after one CW, or remain that you still cannot refuse 3 times.

For example; every cln would play cln X once due to the imposed limitation. Then refuse every cw after that, and cw 4 or 5 times with the rest of the active cln's. This would effectively knock out cln X from every single seasonal ranking because no one would CW them more than once.
But if you keep the refusal restriction even after they play them once, then cln X could spam invites and others would be forced to feed them points.

I don't think the lure of higher CP rewards will fix this problem alone. Sometimes other cln's refuse to CW just based on the fact they don't like the other cln. Or what fruit said-

Written by Fruit, 29.01.2012 at 14:17

Empire SRB has always had a problem of people refusing CW due to us being too strong, if we are denied CW how can we progress in this system?

Under the new system the most active would win, or should I say the one able to get the largest amount of CW's. Because in every season the amount of matches between each coalition would be subject only to how many times they feel like playing each other. So it would be easy to shove a coalition out of the ranking. Simply by only playing them 1/4 of the time you CW everyone else, or flat out refusal. Without a bracket or a fair amount of matches between each coalition this new system will be broken.

Maybe there should be a playoff sort of thing at the end of a season. Might be taking it too far, but that'd be cool imo. It also partially resolves the problem of refusing CW's, because as long as you're in the tourney you can't be refused. Again, just an idea.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that if this new system is implemented then whoever plays the most matches will be the winning coalition. Yes, this encourage playing, but it appears that only the most active coalition will win. ( I love the season idea though though - 4 is a perfect number in my opinion)

There needs to be some dowside for losing or bt2 will be #1 lol
Also the only problem with CW is refusing and inactivity, seasons cure neither.

Written by Houdini, 29.01.2012 at 14:56

I didn't notice anything to solve the problem Caulerpa mentioned in this new system. I like the idea of not being able to refuse a CW invite over 3 times, but it needs to be refined a bit. It would keep every coalition able to play at least one match with every other active coalition in the ranking. Though this would be difficult to find a balance to solve the problem of refusal. Whether it would be turned off after one CW, or remain that you still cannot refuse 3 times.

For example; every cln would play cln X once due to the imposed limitation. Then refuse every cw after that, and cw 4 or 5 times with the rest of the active cln's. This would effectively knock out cln X from every single seasonal ranking because no one would CW them more than once.
But if you keep the refusal restriction even after they play them once, then cln X could spam invites and others would be forced to feed them points.

I don't think the lure of higher CP rewards will fix this problem alone. Sometimes other cln's refuse to CW just based on the fact they don't like the other cln. Or what fruit said-

There's just no way to force coalitions into CW. How do you enforce that? Suppose the coalition accepts CW offer but then doesn't actually play CW? OK, let's say they would lose points if they accept and don't play. That would be really easy to exploit: send out tons of offers from a bogus coalition (or even your main) and then evade the CW. See coalitions losing their points. There are a lot more ways this can be abused, I'm sure. I don't think a 'perfect solution' is even possible here.

Yes, in the proposed system, it seems the more active coalition is more likely to win. But remember, that if you lose CW, you get 0 points, while the other coalition scores and gets the chance to get ahead of you in the season. So even though it doesn't seem like it, losing a CW will sink your coalition a bit, even though you don't lose any points.

Also, the idea was to encourage CW's - rewarding more active coalitions will achieve exactly that.

The only solution I see here is to limit the number of CWs each season - let's say, 10. After that you can still play CW, but seasonal points no longer get recorded. This will prevent coalitions from 'farming' - getting ahead by playing dozens of games with weak coalitions.

Written by Ivan, 30.01.2012 at 01:40

The only solution I see here is to limit the number of CWs each season - let's say, 10. After that you can still play CW, but seasonal points no longer get recorded. This will prevent coalitions from 'farming' - getting ahead by playing dozens of games with weak coalitions.

Fair enough! But we should refine the number a little bit. 1 season - 90 days. I believe max. amount of CWs should be 15 maybe? That's like a CW every 6th day, seems fine to me but would be good to hear other opinions.

Written by Caulerpa, 28.01.2012 at 10:18

- Inactivity of some coalitions could be solved by coalitions losing CP over time when they don't play a match. -> Leads to another problem: Avoiding to play certain coalitions. (even though that cln is active and would like to play just have no opponents)
So, I don't know how to solve that, maybe something like CW Invitations which you can't decline 3 times in a row and you have to wait few days before sending another one to the same coalition.

When i was in Dalmati they had a thread saying they officially refused to CW with SRB, meaning SRB will potentially lose CW's against dalmati, and the CP that comes with it.

I know the SRB boycott had nothing to do with them being better,they don't want to associate with "trolls" etc etc but as far as i can see, Dalmati know they can't get past SRB, and this would be their way of getting one over SRB while they farm noob coalitions.

And no, i am not just bringing this up because i am SRB, imagine if your coalition won the season, and then next season no-one fought you because they were to afraid, and then you lose the next season.

There just simply are not enough Experienced coalition, that also aren't scared of losing their precious ranks to fight stronger opponents, meaning there is a strong bias against the top coalition with this system, it needs a serious rethink.



here is an idea, just threw it together, up for suggestions.

something similar to tennis seeds?
1.organised tourneys (possibly a system where you send in your times and it sets up your game, and records participants and whoever won)
2.you do well it increases your seed
3.you don't it decreases, simple right? (this is all dependant on the strength of your opponent of course)
4. You don't have to enter every tourney, but it is in your interest to, don't expect to just sit on top seed after one victory, if you win the first and sit out the next 3, you won't stay top, as a tourney victory will be a boost to your seed
5. Games will be organised so top seeds reach each other last, but after the top 4 this won't happen, the other seeds are randomised.

at the end of the season best seeds fight it out, the best man wins the season title.
These tourney will work in part with ELO and there will be coalition seasons, and seasons for , 1v1. 2v2 and 3v3 set teams etc.

season tourney rules.
1.individual tourney rules will be set by the season adjudicators, and may include a different variety of game options, maps, and amount of players.
2.once you have joined a tourney, you are committed, you have to set a time with your opposition within a given time, if you do not organise it, an adjudicator will set a time.
If you miss your given time, your coalition receives a huge seed/CP drop, no excuses. I know this may sound harsh, but in an elite league setting, there can be no room for excuses, sorry i couldn't make it for blah blah reason, you miss our time, tough. Dedicate yourself to that time, and make sure you turn up or risk the consequences.
3.During a game there is no "sorry i have to go, can we reschedule", this will count as a loss, if you even attempt if, it will be considered a loss with an appropriate screenshot.
4. Any reschedules have to be done 24 hours or more before the start, and have to be accepted by the other coalition, if they do not accept, you can forfeit, which will give you more of a seed drop than joining and losing, but less than if you don't turn up at all. Games scheduled by the Adjudicators cannot be rescheduled.

There needs to be an incentive to play for prizes: all for the winners, ofc, you can work out a 2nd and 3rd place prize for the entire season
1. All Participating coalition members receive an exclusive medal prize in game worth sp, if you don't participate in any games, you don't receive the prize.
2. All participating members receive a medal on their profile.
3. The Coalition gets a medal on their Page.
4. A special season page will showcase all previous winners, with their participating members.
5. The Coalition with the most unique participating members (only counting games won) will receive a mention, and a prize

Sorry Arbitrator, but your version seems too complicated and too hardcore. I don't want to force people into fighting a particular coalition, having a freedom of choice is more fun. And rigid game scheduling is also a no-no. The system should reward the coalitions which have the best players, sure, but also be 'casual' coalitions friendly (and they are the majority).

Ok, but the one thought up current system won't work, seeing as you can't "force" particular coalitions to fight other coaltions.

It won't encourage players to CW anymore, than they do now, it will be the same, coalitions picking and choosing when who to fight so they know they can win and not losing rank because the other team gained cp.

Written by nonames, 31.01.2012 at 04:10

It won't encourage players to CW anymore, than they do now, it will be the same, coalitions picking and choosing when who to fight so they know they can win and not losing rank because the other team gained cp.

Time will tell.
But I can imagine Ivans CW system to work pretty well. All in all it perfectly fits AW's casual style.
And I dont see it as a downside that the "most active" coalitions will get rewarded. It just has to become clear
that CP are an equivalent to SP and not an ELO rating anymore. But since you cannot leave coalition wars as normal games you got the W/L ratio as a quiet good skill indicator.

We could also think about rewarding best W/L ratio per season aswell. But then a certain amount of CWs should be played.

Written by Ivan, 30.01.2012 at 01:40

The only solution I see here is to limit the number of CWs each season - let's say, 10. After that you can still play CW, but seasonal points no longer get recorded. This will prevent coalitions from 'farming' - getting ahead by playing dozens of games with weak coalitions.

How about you dont limit the absolute number but the number of CWs per opponent? Like 3-5 times per season for each coalition x, y, z.

Written by VRIL, 31.01.2012 at 10:13

How about you dont limit the absolute number but the number of CWs per opponent? Like 3-5 times per season for each coalition x, y, z.

Better both! This way you really can produce comparable results and prevent a small number of less experienced coalitions being farmed.
It might be possible to reduce farming even more drastically by creating different leagues (like in football). I don't know if we have enough active coalitions for this, though...

A season is just three months, and we do have enough coalitions not to have to fight the same coalitions more than two or three times a season. At least not to get enough CP for the ranking. (assuming both number of CWs per Season and CWs against a certain Coalition per Season were limited)
If you want to fight a certain coalition more often, you can fight a regular team game. Or maybe introduce "friendly CWs" (football again) where you play for CP, but which are not counted in the ranking.

I like the idea from Arbitrator with the voluntary join to a tounament.

and i dont think this would be too hardcore. because if the coalition don't want to fight so much they dont need to participate.

if they want they can make this "friendly CWs", introduced by Jubapreta.

i would suggest that CWs work this way:

each season the coalition leader (if there are more than one leader the founder) can choose if his coalition will participate for the tounament. The first 12 coalitions (one season has 13 weeks, but 12 is a nicer number and so you have one week free) which accepted the invitation, take part in this tournament. Already at the beginning is set which week you have to fight against whom.
So, every week 3 players from each coalition are playing a CW Game.
Szenario 1:
Team A and Team B are playing CW. The winner earns some points the loser gets nothing.
Szenario 2:
if Team A can't play this week. they have to register this with a button somewhere in the CW menu. Then Team A will lose nothing and Team B earns some few points. But B can't see that A can't play in this week until the week is over, so that B can't cheat.
Szenario 3:
Team A can't play this week, but they haven't pressed the "We Can't Play"-button wthin the week. Then Team B has to click on another button, which says the system that the other team is not playing. This button can only be pressed if there are 3 Persons online from Coalition B and only on the last day of the week. Now B gets some points, but A loses some points.
if A clicks after B on the same day on the button, that B is not playing. then the system is checks if each teams has got 3 persons currently online. if yes then both teams loses many points. if no then this case gets to an tournament-guy (something like a mod, only for tournaments) and he will decide what happens. if they have to fight within the next 2? days, both are losing a small amount of points or they dont lose points.
Szenario 4:
if Team A has not played the last 3 CWs they get inactive and the next opponents win against Team automatically and earn some points.


At the end of a season the coalition with the most points won.
the first 3 coalitions get a medal.