MIN number of played CW's

Add to this we also need a maximum number of games played. something like 80 cws should be enough.

Skrevet av minusSeven, 19.04.2015 at 11:28

Add to this we also need a maximum number of games played. something like 80 cws should be enough.

a big step backwards and will discourage activity, no support

I do agree, there should be a max limit on cw's played per.

Some clans do not have a massive member limit as other clans. (or some clans are skewed with skilled players)

Also, activity is an issue. Some clans can't cw 5 times a day, everyday. This leads to certain clans pulling ahead massively in games played, and elo gained.

I think a cap limit would make the system more fair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do somewhat agree with the original post, but since we moved to this new elo based system, it wouldn't make sense (or be fair) to put a system in place such as what was suggested. If it were required for a clan to play 30 cws to even make it on the overall ladder, the clans that aren't very active, but still wish to clan war may not have a chance to compete.

This system is still young, and of course can use some tweaks.

Agree

Skrevet av W4R_MaChINE, 22.04.2015 at 21:01

I do agree, there should be a max limit on cw's played per.

Some clans do not have a massive member limit as other clans. (or some clans are skewed with skilled players)

Also, activity is an issue. Some clans can't cw 5 times a day, everyday. This leads to certain clans pulling ahead massively in games played, and elo gained.

I think a cap limit would make the system more fair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do somewhat agree with the original post, but since we moved to this new elo based system, it wouldn't make sense (or be fair) to put a system in place such as what was suggested. If it were required for a clan to play 30 cws to even make it on the overall ladder, the clans that aren't very active, but still wish to clan war may not have a chance to compete.

This system is still young, and of course can use some tweaks.

I understand what you say, but isnt that crazy a little..
Why should we be forbidden to play just because some other clan is not able or is not that active?
That would kill point of gaming and activity on atwar at all.

IMO we shouldn't do any change here.

The best indicator of a position is of course the win/loss ratio, condition that being honest none of the clan you've marked as yellow accomplish. Also, the "Average" elo is at 1,000. Again, none of the clans you've marked have this condition. This means, they are worsen than "Average".

Why those "professional" clans have such low elo? Some clans just CW without having preparation for. Other clans (like syndi) just cw ANYONE ANYRANK on ANYTIME ANYMAP and idc about elo, so of course a bunch of loses against Cosa, MK and other clans are marking the history. Now I don't know why evoL and SM are lower the 1k Average, probably because they lack of preparation, or the rest of the clans are simply stronger than they. Either way, by their win/loss ratio I remark that none of the clans you've marked deserves a better place than one clan who simply won one CW.

Now, one thing is Quantity, and other thing is Quality. The big majority probably want Quantity, but some of us just want Quality. I mean, some clans still keep cw'ing with lack of preparation, which reduces the quality a lot. This system actually encourages them that, if they want to have a better place, they are going to look for better preparation which equal to more victories.

In the currently system, a clan doesn't need to be active, just be prepared. As many others had pointed out, it is pretty hard to accomplish a win steak against the top ELO clans. Either way, if a clan is able to do this IMO they deserve the 1st place.

Ex: If a new clan is made and it get a 20 win steak against MK, Cosa and Illyria, and as so archive 1300 ELO, and then go inactive the rest of the season and no other clan is able to reach here, then they obviously deserves 1st place regardless of any kind of "MIN cws played".

---

For sum up, I would support this min number of cw's play, but as a preventive setting for any occasional event, and not as something that gives activity an advantage. 3 or 5 mins CW before being ranked up would'be great, because this equal to round 1030-1050 ELO, which is not hard to beat for an average clan.

Maybe clans just start with 950 ELO, and when they get 1000 they are officially ranked up. But the drawback of this is that clans who are lower than 1,000 wouldn't be ranked up.

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 22.04.2015 at 17:44

Skrevet av minusSeven, 19.04.2015 at 11:28

Add to this we also need a maximum number of games played. something like 80 cws should be enough.

a big step backwards and will discourage activity, no support

not exactly. firstly don't take this personally. if you look at the cw table right now mk have won 93 lost 50 having elo 1212 while cn have won 122 lost 52 having elo 1205. Its very difficult for anyone to say which is a better clan purely from the elo. I would say CN because because they lost only 2 more while winning 20 more but other will say mk for having higher elo regardless. It all becomes a little confusing.

Not just this but before season ends this would create farming like scenario where good clans would prey on weaker clans to farm their elo. Even though the elo would get lower and lower with each farm it would still lead to more farming. I guess farming is rather impossible to eliminate completely but I would expect a system where clans are compared on the same numbers of games played.
Also imagine a scenario where clan A has played 100 games winning 80 games having elo = 1100 while clan B has played 300 games winning 200 of them having elo = 1150. Who should be champion in this case ? clan with higher win rate or clan who played a lot more cw ? This is clearly favoured towards clans that plays a lot more than clans with higher win rates who don't play much.

Honestly if you want want clans playing few games to be not part of the cw count I don't understand how you don't expect the reverse case as well.

Skrevet av minusSeven, 23.04.2015 at 09:37

Also imagine a scenario where clan A has played 100 games winning 80 games having elo = 1100 while clan B has played 300 games winning 200 of them having elo = 1150. Who should be champion in this case ? clan with higher win rate or clan who played a lot more cw ? This is clearly favoured towards clans that plays a lot more than clans with higher win rates who don't play much.

Only playing more cws won't give you the necesary elo... you need to play against people that have more elo than you to make it efficient. If B has more elo then he probably has done something well or else the 100 lost games would have clearly taken away all his elo. Besides, A has probably just farmed low elo clans with such a win ratio.

Skrevet av Croat, 23.04.2015 at 05:13

I understand what you say, but isnt that crazy a little..
Why should we be forbidden to play just because some other clan is not able or is not that active?
That would kill point of gaming and activity on atwar at all.

actually the point is the win loss ratio should matter as well. Some clan playing only 50 cws a season wining 40 cws having elo = 1150 compared to others playing 150 cws wining 100 having 1200 elo should not be considered winner. First clan had win loss ratio of 4:1 while 2nd clan has 3:2. The win loss ratio in my opinion should count as well.

Skrevet av RaulPB, 23.04.2015 at 09:44

Skrevet av minusSeven, 23.04.2015 at 09:37

Also imagine a scenario where clan A has played 100 games winning 80 games having elo = 1100 while clan B has played 300 games winning 200 of them having elo = 1150. Who should be champion in this case ? clan with higher win rate or clan who played a lot more cw ? This is clearly favoured towards clans that plays a lot more than clans with higher win rates who don't play much.

Only playing more cws won't give you the necesary elo... you need to play against people that have more elo than you to make it efficient. If B has more elo then he probably has done something well or else the 100 lost games would have clearly taken away all his elo. Besides, A has probably just farmed low elo clans with such a win ratio.

actually this get interesting but supposing clan B has very low elo before the start of season so every clan they win against they get high elo. I am not sure what the state of atwar is right now meaning whether elo is calculated on current season's elo or overall elo of that clan. supposing one clan at the start of season played all good clans and got high elo per games but later only played against low elo clans.

All this makes it a little complicating, but I just feel we should also keep a count of win loss ratios as well along with elos.

Skrevet av minusSeven, 23.04.2015 at 09:58

actually this get interesting but supposing clan B has very low elo before the start of season so every clan they win against they get high elo. I am not sure what the state of atwar is right now meaning whether elo is calculated on current season's elo or overall elo of that clan. supposing one clan at the start of season played all good clans and got high elo per games but later only played against low elo clans.

All this makes it a little complicating, but I just feel we should also keep a count of win loss ratios as well along with elos.

elo gets back to 1000 at the begining of each season. And each season has it's own seasonal elo, the global elo doesnt count for this. What gives if he starts a season losing? The elo goes to another clan which can lose to another clan and this one to another. At the end, the one that plays the clans with highest elo is the one who climbs up faster. Once you're on top you have two options: farm weak clans, which wont give you any elo, or stay competitive and beat your direct oponents, which actually gives you far more elo and makes the opponent lose it's own elo. I see no flaws in that.

A clan farms a weak clan and gets a 100 : 0 strike, but only 1200 elo while another clan has 1250 elo and 200 : 100 ratio cause he has battled far more competitive clans. Who is the best? Win: loss ratio is already considered in the elo rating, but not only one clan's win ratio, also the opponent's win ratio must be considered.

Skrevet av RaulPB, 23.04.2015 at 10:02

Skrevet av minusSeven, 23.04.2015 at 09:58

actually this get interesting but supposing clan B has very low elo before the start of season so every clan they win against they get high elo. I am not sure what the state of atwar is right now meaning whether elo is calculated on current season's elo or overall elo of that clan. supposing one clan at the start of season played all good clans and got high elo per games but later only played against low elo clans.

All this makes it a little complicating, but I just feel we should also keep a count of win loss ratios as well along with elos.

elo gets back to 1000 at the begining of each season. And each season has it's own seasonal elo, the global elo doesnt count for this. What gives if he starts a season losing? The elo goes to another clan which can lose to another clan and this one to another. At the end, the one that plays the clans with highest elo is the one who climbs up faster. Once you're on top you have two options: farm weak clans, which wont give you any elo, or stay competitive and beat your direct oponents, which actually gives you far more elo and makes the opponent lose it's own elo. I see no flaws in that.

A clan farms a weak clan and gets a 100 : 0 strike, but only 1200 elo while another clan has 1250 elo and 200 : 100 ratio cause he has battled far more competitive clans. Who is the best? Win: loss ratio is already considered in the elo rating, but not only one clan's win ratio, also the opponent's win ratio must be considered.

I agree for the most part except farming weak clans still gives a lot of elo, since I think its a lot easier to beat weak clans 3 times in a row than strong clan 1 once. I guess that's alright with the current system and I take back what I said earlier.

Skrevet av minusSeven, 23.04.2015 at 10:11

I agree for the most part except farming weak clans still gives a lot of elo, since I think its a lot easier to beat weak clans 3 times in a row than strong clan 1 once. I guess that's alright with the current system and I take back what I said earlier.

A weak clan might give you 3-4 elo at this point... while a top clan will give you 12+ elo for one win. That's a 4 game winning strike. Do you think any weak clan is gonna have that much time? They will usually play one game every week. And the stronger clan will have to find some other place to get that elo. If a clan is gonna spend his time on searching weak clans while the other plays stronger ones and wins half of them, you're not gonna reach him for he will get a bigger amount of elo per game.

Skrevet av minusSeven, 23.04.2015 at 09:37

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 22.04.2015 at 17:44

Skrevet av minusSeven, 19.04.2015 at 11:28

Add to this we also need a maximum number of games played. something like 80 cws should be enough.

a big step backwards and will discourage activity, no support

not exactly. firstly don't take this personally. if you look at the cw table right now mk have won 93 lost 50 having elo 1212 while cn have won 122 lost 52 having elo 1205. Its very difficult for anyone to say which is a better clan purely from the elo. I would say CN because because they lost only 2 more while winning 20 more but other will say mk for having higher elo regardless. It all becomes a little confusing.

Not just this but before season ends this would create farming like scenario where good clans would prey on weaker clans to farm their elo. Even though the elo would get lower and lower with each farm it would still lead to more farming. I guess farming is rather impossible to eliminate completely but I would expect a system where clans are compared on the same numbers of games played.
Also imagine a scenario where clan A has played 100 games winning 80 games having elo = 1100 while clan B has played 300 games winning 200 of them having elo = 1150. Who should be champion in this case ? clan with higher win rate or clan who played a lot more cw ? This is clearly favoured towards clans that plays a lot more than clans with higher win rates who don't play much.

Honestly if you want want clans playing few games to be not part of the cw count I don't understand how you don't expect the reverse case as well.

I am not really sure how this supports your case for a maximum game cap. Maybe find another solution because a clan should not be penalised for winning games ever, which is highly possible with a games cap. Also it contradicts how elo works.

I think 15, 30 is a lot for some other clans, you would just have the top clans shown and nobody else which is kinda boring a little

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 16:08

I think 15, 30 is a lot for some other clans, you would just have the top clans shown and nobody else which is kinda boring a little

We need a minimum elo sample, if coalitions are not active enough to play at least 30 games in 3 months then in my opinion they are not a top coalition. In fact any clans with less than30 being featured makes a mockery of the clans that are playing 50+ games a month.

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 25.04.2015 at 18:06

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 16:08

I think 15, 30 is a lot for some other clans, you would just have the top clans shown and nobody else which is kinda boring a little

We need a minimum elo sample, if coalitions are not active enough to play at least 30 games in 3 months then in my opinion they are not a top coalition. In fact any clans with less than30 being featured makes a mockery of the clans that are playing 50+ games a month.

true, put in a second table then, like a league 2 type thing.

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 18:08

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 25.04.2015 at 18:06

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 16:08

I think 15, 30 is a lot for some other clans, you would just have the top clans shown and nobody else which is kinda boring a little

We need a minimum elo sample, if coalitions are not active enough to play at least 30 games in 3 months then in my opinion they are not a top coalition. In fact any clans with less than30 being featured makes a mockery of the clans that are playing 50+ games a month.

true, put in a second table then, like a league 2 type thing.

A 2/3 tier system can work for this exact reason , also i would allow entry level and low ranks into competitive play without getting wrecked or stomped on by more established cans.

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 25.04.2015 at 18:11

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 18:08

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 25.04.2015 at 18:06

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 16:08

I think 15, 30 is a lot for some other clans, you would just have the top clans shown and nobody else which is kinda boring a little

We need a minimum elo sample, if coalitions are not active enough to play at least 30 games in 3 months then in my opinion they are not a top coalition. In fact any clans with less than30 being featured makes a mockery of the clans that are playing 50+ games a month.

true, put in a second table then, like a league 2 type thing.

A 2/3 tier system can work for this exact reason , also i would allow entry level and low ranks into competitive play without getting wrecked or stomped on by more established cans.

indeed, This would work really well. you should throw this up as a separate idea. cause I don't think anyone is too inclined to take it seriously when its under a separate title in the middle of another thread. ( sorry for the slight off topic guys)

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 18:27

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 25.04.2015 at 18:11

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 18:08

Skrevet av Sun Tsu, 25.04.2015 at 18:06

Skrevet av Netre, 25.04.2015 at 16:08

I think 15, 30 is a lot for some other clans, you would just have the top clans shown and nobody else which is kinda boring a little

We need a minimum elo sample, if coalitions are not active enough to play at least 30 games in 3 months then in my opinion they are not a top coalition. In fact any clans with less than30 being featured makes a mockery of the clans that are playing 50+ games a month.

true, put in a second table then, like a league 2 type thing.

A 2/3 tier system can work for this exact reason , also i would allow entry level and low ranks into competitive play without getting wrecked or stomped on by more established cans.

indeed, This would work really well. you should throw this up as a separate idea. cause I don't think anyone is too inclined to take it seriously when its under a separate title in the middle of another thread. ( sorry for the slight off topic guys)

I would hardly say off topic because its following on, so don't worry. I think the idea has been promoted before just never gained traction.

Putting a minimal CW games needed to get on the CW scoreboard will also discourage newer/less active clans from playing CW wars, as they have no hope to get on the scoreboard without playing x number of games, when their members aren't as active as other clans.

Skrevet av 12gsh, 28.04.2015 at 01:00

Putting a minimal CW games needed to get on the CW scoreboard will also discourage newer/less active clans from playing CW wars, as they have no hope to get on the scoreboard without playing x number of games, when their members aren't as active as other clans.

Nice to see a low rank caring about this, although I don't think 10 games a month is a lot to ask. A clan will never get better anyway if they never play together consistently.

Yeah I guess so. 10 minimum is fine with me, but the guys who started this topic suggested 30 which is, in my opinion, ridiculous;especially for low ranked clans.

Skrevet av 12gsh, 28.04.2015 at 01:40

Yeah I guess so. 10 minimum is fine with me, but the guys who started this topic suggested 30 which is, in my opinion, ridiculous;especially for low ranked clans.

Well the season is 3 months and the suggested minimum would be 10 games a month to make 30 over the season .

Ok.

Skrevet av 12gsh, 28.04.2015 at 01:00

Putting a minimal CW games needed to get on the CW scoreboard will also discourage newer/less active clans from playing CW wars, as they have no hope to get on the scoreboard without playing x number of games, when their members aren't as active as other clans.

There are 6 comments just above this with me and sun tzu that pretty much end in, lets make a second leader board for the clans that don't get to 30 cw's.

So they will still be shown like normal but the guys who get above 30 cw's will elavate up and make a new leader board at the top of the coalitions page like the one there already. that way the coalitions are split into the most active and least active coalitions with the divide at number 30 its the fairest way

Yeah, that would work:D

Skrevet av Netre, 28.04.2015 at 05:21

...and make a new leader board at the top of the coalitions page like the one there already. that way the coalitions are split into the most active and least active coalitions with the divide at number 30 its the fairest way

What if my coalition get to the 30 CW's with 25 wins 5 loses, then stop playing?

Just don't do any change really...

Skrevet av clovis1122, 28.04.2015 at 09:00

Skrevet av Netre, 28.04.2015 at 05:21

...and make a new leader board at the top of the coalitions page like the one there already. that way the coalitions are split into the most active and least active coalitions with the divide at number 30 its the fairest way

What if my coalition get to the 30 CW's with 25 wins 5 loses, then stop playing?

Just don't do any change really...

well then your coalition has made it clear that you are good with only 5 loses and you have played a substantial amount of games (30) therefor you can keep whatever position you have, though why anyone would play 30 cw's just to hold a position in another table is beyond me. and my idea is directed more toward separating the coalition that are able to play more than 30 from the coalitions that are not able to play more than 30 the problem, if you had read the the thread properly, is people winning or even losing one fight and then gaining a position above most of the other coalitions and then not playing any more because they don't have enough players online.

The whole idea behind this thread is to stop the coalitions that cant be active often from taking a position above a coalition with lots of games and are active. so yea in fact giving the active coalitions a separate table fix's everything, It even gives a bit of motivation to the inactive clans to play more becasue they are still on a table somewhere and are being recognised for their effort.

To be totally honest your statement is so ridicules i am wandering if you are just talking shite for the fun of it.( or "trolling" for those of you who dont like the word shite)
or else you really badly need to work on your analytical reading.


Well i just found out that your dominican and that spanish is your first language in all probability. So your forgiven for not of being able to form a point as well as you might be able to , having to translate and everything.

Skrevet av Netre, 28.04.2015 at 09:22

The whole idea behind this thread is to stop the coalitions that cant be active often from taking a position above a coalition with lots of games and are active.

First of all, thanks for the insult. They add so much to your arguments.

Second, the solution are made for problems, and as I've say some posts up, this is not a problem.

Third, the "solution" you are trying to propose have flaws - this is just one of them.