MIN number of played CW's

Elo system, by thoughts of high percentage of you, works great. Much better than last CW system.
But, one thing is contradictory:




A clans with red dot in front of their name are clans who played 3 or less CW's and are taking higher spot on CW rankings than clans with yellow dot in front of their name, who played 30 and more CW's.

Because nobody cares about Bonkers, mines, Sun Tzu's and Desu's words at poll forum, lets implement a minimal number of played CW's needed to take a spot on CW rankings.
I suggest number of 30 played CW games and I think it is best solution.
10 is too low, 20 is still low (in my opinion) and everything above 30 is too high.

It is ridiculous that some Paladins of Gods, Praetorian Guards or BUYUK TURKIYE take higher spots than SM, evoL, Syndi,ENIGMA, Singularity and others above 30 played CWs.
Also, this fake Illyria with 5 played CWs is taking 3rd place lolololo

Please, update this to current CW system and it will stay great like it is now, but more fair to clans who are active in Clan Warring.

Ty, Cro

No

Skrevet av chill, 10.04.2015 at 10:35

No

Ooooh yes

Support

Support,clans that are waiting for cw that will win 100% have 1-3 cws and they got in top10 easily ........

K.

Support, this is the same problem than the elo farming in duels 1v1.

So a clan can play 4 or 5 games against a bad or very bad clans and be in the top positions of the list.

But if this suggestion go on, there will be only a few number of clans reaching that number of games.

What would happen with the rest number of clans who don´t reach that number of games?.

To the bottom of the list?

Skrevet av hormigaatomica, 10.04.2015 at 14:46

Support, this is the same problem than the elo farming in duels 1v1.

So a clan can play 4 or 5 games against a bad or very bad clans and be in the top positions of the list.

But if this suggestion go on, there will be only a few number of clans reaching that number of games.

What would happen with the rest number of clans who don´t reach that number of games?.

To the bottom of the list?

There are 9 clans who are above 30 games for now + JNA clan who is near 30 games and they will probably reach 30 clan wars till this season ends.
So there are 10 most active clans who will be ranked, others just wont be shown.
Taking spot with 1 played CW from a clan who got even 40+ is notoriously.

Skrevet av chill, 10.04.2015 at 10:35

No

Normal your opinion.

Support

Is this to promote activity or to prevent abuse? If it's the second, can someone break down how it can be abused please.

Skrevet av Guest, 10.04.2015 at 17:51

Is this to promote activity or to prevent abuse? If it's the second, can someone break down how it can be abused please.

It's to achieve a large enough sample size.

I have a point about this in my CW system thread. Placing a minimum CW number just seems logical.

Skrevet av Desu, 10.04.2015 at 18:27

It's to achieve a large enough sample size.

Skrevet av Desu, 31.01.2015 at 11:44

Problem:But what if someone waits till the end of the season, and only CW's coalitions with high competence and gains a few wins? What if they get a lucky streak?
Facing those high competence clans is a problem in and of itself. Ignoring that, we can fix that problem AND encourage more games.

Solution: A minimum number of CLN Wars shall be required to be ranked in a season. This ensures a decent sample size to judge where a coalition should be placed. All clans, no matter how good, will have losses. There are times where the best have problems. We want to include those times in our ranking.

Yeah this makes sense given that the cw-activity is even lower than that of duels and one has less coalitions to compete with. Support.

Support

Skrevet av Desu, 31.01.2015 at 11:44

Problem:But what if someone waits till the end of the season, and only CW's coalitions with high competence and gains a few wins? What if they get a lucky streak?
Facing those high competence clans is a problem in and of itself. Ignoring that, we can fix that problem AND encourage more games.

I don´t think it´s a problem:

- first of all, some people is willing for playing cw´s all day, i don´t think they are able to wait for two months till the end of the season.
- second one if u try to wait for making a row of games at the end of the season facing the coalitions with more elo, it will be hard and difficult to beat them and win a big amount of games cause surely they are in the top cause they have been the best ones during the season.

I don´t imagine a coalition being inactive for 2 months for playing only the last month and also it would be dangerous if they expect to defeat all the best clans in few time.

Anyway, if they can do that, congrats cause his strategy.

People already complained about it. The result? Lets finish this cw season first then see what can be done.

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

Skrevet av Laozi, 13.04.2015 at 10:35

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

I dont agree with you.
Why?
Let me try to compare it with football (or any other competitive sport/game) where activitiy and competence is meaning something.
Firstly, if we kick from ranking table all clans below 1000 elo (which is starting and average elo), there would be only 3-4 clans on the list.
Whatsmore, try to imagine seasonal starting of Spanish division
- Barcelona achieve 3 wins in first 3 seasonal matches (3/38 matches), got 9 points and stop playing matches of the rest of season .
- Deportivo achieved 2 wins, but 36 loses and got 6 points. Difference is that Deportivo played all 38/38 matches.

Why would you kick Deportivo from Primera rankings if that team finished all its matches?
They were active and tried to be as much competitive as they could, result wasnt on their side, but all is regular.

Whatsmore, there has to be average number in any rankings. Someone has to be on the top, someone in the middle and someone at the bottom.
It is about the same thing in AW rankings. There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:20

Skrevet av Laozi, 13.04.2015 at 10:35

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

I dont agree with you.
Why?
Let me try to compare it with football (or any other competitive sport/game) where activitiy and competence is meaning something.
Firstly, if we kick from ranking table all clans below 1000 elo (which is starting and average elo), there would be only 3-4 clans on the list.
Whatsmore, try to imagine seasonal starting of Spanish division
- Barcelona achieve 3 wins in first 3 seasonal matches (3/38 matches), got 9 points and stop playing matches of the rest of season .
- Deportivo achieved 2 wins, but 36 loses and got 6 points. Difference is that Deportivo played all 38/38 matches.

Why would you kick Deportivo from Primera rankings if that team finished all its matches?
They were active and tried to be as much competitive as they could, result wasnt on their side, but all is regular.

Whatsmore, there has to be average number in any rankings. Someone has to be on the top, someone in the middle and someone at the bottom.
It is about the same thing in AW rankings. There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.

He agrees with you

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30)

Skrevet av hormigaatomica, 13.04.2015 at 11:23

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:20

Skrevet av Laozi, 13.04.2015 at 10:35

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

I dont agree with you.
Why?
Let me try to compare it with football (or any other competitive sport/game) where activitiy and competence is meaning something.
Firstly, if we kick from ranking table all clans below 1000 elo (which is starting and average elo), there would be only 3-4 clans on the list.
Whatsmore, try to imagine seasonal starting of Spanish division
- Barcelona achieve 3 wins in first 3 seasonal matches (3/38 matches), got 9 points and stop playing matches of the rest of season .
- Deportivo achieved 2 wins, but 36 loses and got 6 points. Difference is that Deportivo played all 38/38 matches.

Why would you kick Deportivo from Primera rankings if that team finished all its matches?
They were active and tried to be as much competitive as they could, result wasnt on their side, but all is regular.

Whatsmore, there has to be average number in any rankings. Someone has to be on the top, someone in the middle and someone at the bottom.
It is about the same thing in AW rankings. There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.

He agrees with you

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30)

Hormiga, I am talking about this one sentence he said: 'i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun'

omg

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:25

Skrevet av hormigaatomica, 13.04.2015 at 11:23

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:20

Skrevet av Laozi, 13.04.2015 at 10:35

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

I dont agree with you.
Why?
Let me try to compare it with football (or any other competitive sport/game) where activitiy and competence is meaning something.
Firstly, if we kick from ranking table all clans below 1000 elo (which is starting and average elo), there would be only 3-4 clans on the list.
Whatsmore, try to imagine seasonal starting of Spanish division
- Barcelona achieve 3 wins in first 3 seasonal matches (3/38 matches), got 9 points and stop playing matches of the rest of season .
- Deportivo achieved 2 wins, but 36 loses and got 6 points. Difference is that Deportivo played all 38/38 matches.

Why would you kick Deportivo from Primera rankings if that team finished all its matches?
They were active and tried to be as much competitive as they could, result wasnt on their side, but all is regular.

Whatsmore, there has to be average number in any rankings. Someone has to be on the top, someone in the middle and someone at the bottom.
It is about the same thing in AW rankings. There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.

He agrees with you

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30)

Hormiga, I am talking about this one sentence he said: 'i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun'

omg

OK, but so try to specify which part are u agre and which one no.

If u repeat this, (There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.), you are setting again 30 matches min. by default.

Skrevet av hormigaatomica, 13.04.2015 at 11:34

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:25

Skrevet av hormigaatomica, 13.04.2015 at 11:23

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:20

Skrevet av Laozi, 13.04.2015 at 10:35

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

I dont agree with you.
Why?
Let me try to compare it with football (or any other competitive sport/game) where activitiy and competence is meaning something.
Firstly, if we kick from ranking table all clans below 1000 elo (which is starting and average elo), there would be only 3-4 clans on the list.
Whatsmore, try to imagine seasonal starting of Spanish division
- Barcelona achieve 3 wins in first 3 seasonal matches (3/38 matches), got 9 points and stop playing matches of the rest of season .
- Deportivo achieved 2 wins, but 36 loses and got 6 points. Difference is that Deportivo played all 38/38 matches.

Why would you kick Deportivo from Primera rankings if that team finished all its matches?
They were active and tried to be as much competitive as they could, result wasnt on their side, but all is regular.

Whatsmore, there has to be average number in any rankings. Someone has to be on the top, someone in the middle and someone at the bottom.
It is about the same thing in AW rankings. There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.

He agrees with you

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30)

Hormiga, I am talking about this one sentence he said: 'i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun'

omg

OK, but so try to specify which part are u agre and which one no.

If u repeat this, (There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.), you are setting again 30 matches min. by default.

Learn English bro and you will understand my prevouis quote.

I understood it perfectly.

Skrevet av hormigaatomica, 13.04.2015 at 11:38

I understood it perfectly.

I swear on my family you didnt

Skrevet av Croat, 13.04.2015 at 11:20

Skrevet av Laozi, 13.04.2015 at 10:35

Support the min number of played cw ( not the 30) but i would also add an elo over 1000 because if your elo is lower than average your aren't a top clan and so we will avoid having clan in the top 10 that cw for fun.

I dont agree with you.
Why?
Let me try to compare it with football (or any other competitive sport/game) where activitiy and competence is meaning something.
Firstly, if we kick from ranking table all clans below 1000 elo (which is starting and average elo), there would be only 3-4 clans on the list.
Whatsmore, try to imagine seasonal starting of Spanish division
- Barcelona achieve 3 wins in first 3 seasonal matches (3/38 matches), got 9 points and stop playing matches of the rest of season .
- Deportivo achieved 2 wins, but 36 loses and got 6 points. Difference is that Deportivo played all 38/38 matches.

Why would you kick Deportivo from Primera rankings if that team finished all its matches?
They were active and tried to be as much competitive as they could, result wasnt on their side, but all is regular.

Whatsmore, there has to be average number in any rankings. Someone has to be on the top, someone in the middle and someone at the bottom.
It is about the same thing in AW rankings. There will be 30 matches and teams who play 30+ will be on rankings, independently of their score.

Nice explanation, I was going to disagree with you but then I realized that most of the clans that are with more than 30 games this season had an overall elo of over 1000, so it might be an adaptation issue this season.

Anyway after seeing that, and thinking about it more like a ranking of the most active clan (like a top league) it makes sense and the negative point are probably off set as a motivation for the clans to be more active.

Support minimum of 20 at the least.

Skrevet av Croat, 10.04.2015 at 10:43

Skrevet av chill, 10.04.2015 at 10:35

No

Ooooh yes

100 at least !

Skrevet av Ferlucci1389, 14.04.2015 at 15:41

100 at least !

Too low. At least 150

This can create a new problem where certain clans can arange a large number of wars with each other and make the required number that way.. This will allow them to up their elo and to meet the 30 games minimum (or whatever the number is).

My clan had only 2 games (since we dont have much high ranked players we are always the underdogs) and we lost our first game due to not having our best players in that match (and we dont have a lot of experienced players to spare) and we won our second game against a great clan "Singularity".. That way we where ranked 8th in last night rankings.. If you feel that is undeserved and that Singularity should be ahead of us although we won in a direct duel (or some other clan with more games but without important wins) than i would have to disagre with you.

The fact we dont have a lot of high level players fit for CW so we cant have 3 best players ready at all times doesnt say we have a bad team.. Rankings should tell about the quality of a clan not about quantity.. If you want quantity than you should look at the number of games played.. For me its more about the % of wins and against who those wins are.