Clan Seasons tweaking

New season is starting 1st March, I'm making this thread with the hope admins change it for the new season.

Current one needs tweaking. I think we should keep it CP based since it's like ELO.
But, first, I wanna suggest a little change, that after reaching 20 CWs, if you win, first loss is replaced with a win. If you lose, first win is replaced with a loss. Why? I'll start with these screenshots from Illyria, as example.





Illyria has won last 7 Coalition Wars, risking losing 2nd place, and also losing some points by replacing wins with wins.
By the way, current Season system, is based on last 20 games' CP earned. Well, it's supposed to work like that. Imo, this is a bad idea. I'll give an example.
You win first 10 CWs, lose 5, win 5. 15:5 after all. Now, if you want to get more CP, you must win 10 CWs to replace your first wins, and then to replace your losses. What's wrong with it? You risk losing CP, for nothing.
Id like to highlight again, "It's supposed to work like that".

My suggestion is, after reaching 20CWs limit, your wins replace your (1st) losses, and your losses replace your (1st) wins.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting they change but is this it?

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

I wanna suggest a little change, that after reaching 20 CWs, if you win, first loss is replaced with a win. If you lose, first win is replaced with a loss.

If so and if I have understood correctly, this is how the CW system currently works.

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 14:31

I'm not sure what you are suggesting they change but is this it?

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

I wanna suggest a little change, that after reaching 20 CWs, if you win, first loss is replaced with a win. If you lose, first win is replaced with a loss.

If so, then if I have understood correctly, this is how the CW system currently works.

No. Current one IS SUPPOSED to be based on your LAST 20 games.
After winning/losing a match, your 20th game IS SUPPOSED to be replaced with your new match. So yeah, if you got a winning streak in your first CWs, you have better chances. Id say it's better to lose like 10 CWs first and start winning the others to get good CP.

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 14:31

I'm not sure what you are suggesting they change but is this it?

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

I wanna suggest a little change, that after reaching 20 CWs, if you win, first loss is replaced with a win. If you lose, first win is replaced with a loss.

If so and if I have understood correctly, this is how the CW system currently works.

No, I believe they said last 20 count. So lets say you won your first 2 CWs and lost your third. So if you go 16-4 in your first 20 games, lose your 21st CW, You'll be 15-5.

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 14:36

No. Current one IS SUPPOSED to be based on your LAST 20 games.
After winning/losing a match, your 20th game IS SUPPOSED to be replaced with your new match. So yeah, if you got a winning streak in your first CWs, you have better chances. Id say it's better to lose like 10 CWs first and start winning the others to get good CP.

The current one IS based on your last 20 games, and like Fock has said, it is the 21st game that replaces your 1st game of the season.

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 15:42

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 14:36

No. Current one IS SUPPOSED to be based on your LAST 20 games.
After winning/losing a match, your 20th game IS SUPPOSED to be replaced with your new match. So yeah, if you got a winning streak in your first CWs, you have better chances. Id say it's better to lose like 10 CWs first and start winning the others to get good CP.

The current one IS based on your last 20 games, and like Fock has said, it is the 21st game that replaces your 1st game of the season.

Stryko, please stop trying to bitch on me. This is exactly what I meant.

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 16:16

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 15:42

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 14:36

No. Current one IS SUPPOSED to be based on your LAST 20 games.
After winning/losing a match, your 20th game IS SUPPOSED to be replaced with your new match. So yeah, if you got a winning streak in your first CWs, you have better chances. Id say it's better to lose like 10 CWs first and start winning the others to get good CP.

The current one IS based on your last 20 games, and like Fock has said, it is the 21st game that replaces your 1st game of the season.

Stryko, please stop trying to bitch on me. This is exactly what I meant.

You said something completely different, however if this is what you meant, then what changes are you proposing?!

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 17:25

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 16:16

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 15:42

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 14:36

No. Current one IS SUPPOSED to be based on your LAST 20 games.
After winning/losing a match, your 20th game IS SUPPOSED to be replaced with your new match. So yeah, if you got a winning streak in your first CWs, you have better chances. Id say it's better to lose like 10 CWs first and start winning the others to get good CP.

The current one IS based on your last 20 games, and like Fock has said, it is the 21st game that replaces your 1st game of the season.

Stryko, please stop trying to bitch on me. This is exactly what I meant.

You said something completely different, however if this is what you meant, then what changes are you proposing?!

Here, little Stryko.


"Last 20 games.."
Meaning your 21st or so on, will take your first game's place.

I think we've established that already... you are not making any sense.

No you're 20th game isn't supposed to be replaced with a new game.


""Last 20 games.."
Meaning your 21st or so on, will take your first game's place."

This is already in the current system.

You aren't proposing anything new.

I think your understanding of English is confusing you, you should re-read what you've written...

Also "little Stryko" what are you trying to prove here? If you are going to be ignorant then there's no point in explaining to you.

Alex I mean no disrespect but I read your initial post twice and I have no idea what this thread is proposing

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 17:52

I think we've established that already... you are not making any sense.

No you're 20th game isn't supposed to be replaced with a new game.


""Last 20 games.."
Meaning your 21st or so on, will take your first game's place."

This is already in the current system.

You aren't proposing anything new.

I think your understanding of English is confusing you, you should re-read what you've written...

Also "little Stryko" what are you trying to prove here? If you are going to be ignorant then there's no point in explaining to you.

Look at the OP, please. I think you are totally trolling here, please stop.

Skrivet av Acquiesce, 24.02.2014 at 18:42

Alex I mean no disrespect but I read your initial post twice and I have no idea what this thread is proposing

After you reach limit (20), new won CWs will be replaced instead of lost CWs, and lost CWs will be replaced with won CWs.
If you have 13:7, and you win, you'll get 14:6. All the time. Same goes for losses, if you have 13:7 and you lose, you'll get 12:8.
Current one is based on last games.

Isn't the current one based on first 20 cws? Or things have changed?

Skrivet av Caulerpa, 24.02.2014 at 18:54

Isn't the current one based on first 20 cws? Or things have changed?

It should be but its not, its now based on the last 20 games.

The clan war system takes your first 20 games and records that, then you have the chance to improve/make it worse by playing games after and replacing your first with your 21st etc etc. That is what Alex stated in his OP but I can't quite find his suggestion.

Skrivet av joedtaxi, 24.02.2014 at 19:46

Skrivet av Caulerpa, 24.02.2014 at 18:54

Isn't the current one based on first 20 cws? Or things have changed?

It should be but its not, its now based on the last 20 games.

It should be? Uh.
I hope you are aware why the admins went about changing it to record the last 20 games being played.

Nevertheless; as far as I can tell from Alex's continuous posts, Alex is complaining that the current system of recording the last 20 clan wars makes it harder to replace the losses received earlier in the season as you have to virtually go through all your wins in order to get rid of them.

I don't agree with this. This makes it far too easy for clans to get a clean 20:0 win/loss record. The reason admins changed the system to record the last 20 games from the initial first 20 games is that lots of players have complained that the amount of clan wars played died off drastically as soon as the first 20 games limit were filled. It had other various problems such as clans being able to exploit the system by losing on purpose after their season was finished in order to lower their overall competence which in turn would increase their cp yield gain for the following season.

The admins decided to change the system so that it would record the last 20 games played by a clan instead of the first 20. Even though it may not have been the best solution at the time, it did manage to solve a few of the underlying problems. There was no longer a reason for the number of clan wars played during the season to die off after the first 20 games as clans could now play more games in order to improve their win/loss ratio. Each game mattered until the end of season, this in turn also solved the problem of clan wars purposely losing. This is a good thing.

Alex, if I'm right about understanding what your suggestion was, then it should be clear that it's a bad idea. Firstly, it makes it far too easy for clans to achieve a clean 20:0 win/loss record. The current system where you need to go through ALL your previous games to replace your losses makes it risky. Risks are good. Additionally, if clans were able to achieve 20:0 win/loss records easily, then the problem of the lack of clan wars played would return as clans would no longer see a reason to play anymore games as they have virtually already won the season. Look at Mortal Kombat for example.

Skrivet av Leaf, 24.02.2014 at 23:31

Skrivet av joedtaxi, 24.02.2014 at 19:46

Skrivet av Caulerpa, 24.02.2014 at 18:54

Isn't the current one based on first 20 cws? Or things have changed?

It should be but its not, its now based on the last 20 games.

It should be? Uh.
I hope you are aware why the admins went about changing it to record the last 20 games being played.

Nevertheless; as far as I can tell from Alex's continuous posts, Alex is complaining that the current system of recording the last 20 clan wars makes it harder to replace the losses received earlier in the season as you have to virtually go through all your wins in order to get rid of them.

I don't agree with this. This makes it far too easy for clans to get a clean 20:0 win/loss record. The reason admins changed the system to record the last 20 games from the initial first 20 games is that lots of players have complained that the amount of clan wars played died off drastically as soon as the first 20 games limit were filled. It had other various problems such as clans being able to exploit the system by losing on purpose after their season was finished in order to lower their overall competence which in turn would increase their cp yield gain for the following season.

The admins decided to change the system so that it would record the last 20 games played by a clan instead of the first 20. Even though it may not have been the best solution at the time, it did manage to solve a few of the underlying problems. There was no longer a reason for the number of clan wars played during the season to die off after the first 20 games as clans could now play more games in order to improve their win/loss ratio. Each game mattered until the end of season, this in turn also solved the problem of clan wars purposely losing. This is a good thing.

Alex, if I'm right about understanding what your suggestion was, then it should be clear that it's a bad idea. Firstly, it makes it far too easy for clans to achieve a clean 20:0 win/loss record. The current system where you need to go through ALL your previous games to replace your losses makes it risky. Risks are good. Additionally, if clans were able to achieve 20:0 win/loss records easily, then the problem of the lack of clan wars played would return as clans would no longer see a reason to play anymore games as they have virtually already won the season. Look at Mortal Kombat for example.

There's also something you forgot. Clans being "scared" to lose their CP/place. Like you said, it will be easier to get 20:0, but I don't see anything wrong with it. It would still take some work, more CWs would be played, and one CW won't be as much as important as now.
Risks only makes clans to not to play CWs *cough* Right now, Illyria is the only one with the balls to keep cwing *cough*.

Maybe, this tweak I'm suggesting would change things a little and make more clans have 20:0, but that doesn't mean they'll will get first place very easily. This would make "More wins, better chances", and 20:0 is still not as easy as you think, clans get 13:7 or about that in average after reaching their 20 games. There are some clans that lose more than they win but they still have a good chance for getting the first place because of the CP they earn with wins *cough* evoL *cough*.

This suggestion is just a step to make clans with more wins have better chances, and also, there's still the CP thing so there still will be CWs after the 20 limit or reaching 20:0.

Skrivet av The Tactician, 24.02.2014 at 22:41

The clan war system takes your first 20 games and records that, then you have the chance to improve/make it worse by playing games after and replacing your first with your 21st etc etc. That is what Alex stated in his OP but I can't quite find his suggestion.

Lmfao, I think I didn't say it clear, sorry, edited.

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

My suggestion is, after reaching 20CWs limit, your wins replace your (1st) losses, and your losses replace your (1st) wins.

However I agree with Leaf in that it would be too easy to get 20:0 for some clans and after that, clans wouldn't want to CW (don't you agree?) Even if many clans struggle to get many wins, it will be easier and there won't be many CWs as clans will be sitting with 20:0...
The current system has proved to be successful in encouraging more CWs to be played - SM has played ~73 CWs this season alone, that is about 1 CW everyday, I don't think this would happen with the system you are suggesting.

The risk involved with the current system is perfectly normal - The coalitions who want to be in the top 3 by the end of the season would want to keep CWing until they secure their position such as MK have. Although, they had ~800 CP and were fine with 1st place (They even left MK to form another coalition just to play CWs without risk, which is fine) but after SM were getting close to their points, around 750 CP, they came back and now they sit at 900+ CP in a safe position.
- MK obviously wanted to secure 1st place and since they are competitive enough they risked a CW - not to mention that it was with Illyria, which isn't the easiest clan to win against.

PS: Thanks for making your suggestion much clearer : )

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:05

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

My suggestion is, after reaching 20CWs limit, your wins replace your (1st) losses, and your losses replace your (1st) wins.

However I agree with Leaf in that it would be too easy to get 20:0 for some clans and after that, clans wouldn't want to CW (don't you agree?) Even if many clans struggle to get many wins, it will be easier and there won't be many CWs as clans will be sitting with 20:0...
The current system has proved to be successful in encouraging more CWs to be played - SM has played ~73 CWs this season alone, that is about 1 CW everyday, I don't think this would happen with the system you are suggesting.

The risk involved with the current system is perfectly normal - The coalitions who want to be in the top 3 by the end of the season would want to keep CWing until they secure their position such as MK have. Although, they had ~800 CP and were fine with 1st place (They even left MK to form another coalition just to play CWs without risk, which is fine) but after SM were getting close to their points, around 750 CP, they came back and now they sit at 900+ CP in a safe position.
- MK obviously wanted to secure 1st place and since they are competitive enough they risked a CW - not to mention that it was with Illyria, which isn't the easiest clan to win against.

PS: Thanks for making your suggestion much clearer : )

There's no reason to not to CW after 20. And getting 20 will do take a long time, probably as twice as CWs as there are now.

Risk IS good but not in current one. I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win.

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:39

There's no reason to not to CW after 20. And getting 20 will do take a long time, probably as twice as CWs as there are now.

Risk IS good but not in current one. I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win.

The reason to not CW after getting 20:0 is because you can't improve your score, rather it would probably decrease as you would normally get +80CP at the start and nearing the end of your CWs +50, so you would be replacing your +80CP wins with +50CP which means -30CP from your overall score, and if you lose, you will most likely lose a lot of CP... and if you want to remove that loss (if you won the next CW) you would still be down on points from your first 20:0 point score.

"And getting 20 will do take a long time, probably as twice as CWs as there are now."
I do not agree with this, no clan has gotten 20:0 on the current system and as already said, it is more likely for a clan to get 20:0 on your suggested system because of the skipping of your wins to improve your losses which is quicker.
The CW seasons are 3 months long, as I already said SM have played ~73 CWs this season so far which means about 24 games per month - You could get 20:0 in less than a month and then stop CWing which means less CWs from the competitive, active clans therefore the other clans will have a less chance of CWing.

"I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win."
Yes the current system is flawed, people will naturally stop CWing when they secure a top position and assuming they do stop CWing, wouldn't your suggested system be the same? - No one would CW after 20:0, which would be easy to get; the current system allows clans to challenge themselves to reach the top positions in the seasons rankings as it is harder to get, so clans CW more.
It is that clans would reach to a top ranking easier with less CWs played eg. the first 23 games of SM this season would give a score of
19-1



The pink line indicates the 20 CW mark(ofc these are the first 20CWs - 81d ago) As you can see the circled losses would be replaced with the 3 circled wins after the 20 CWs giving a 19-1 score. Looks pretty easy 'eh?

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:39

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:05

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

Risk IS good but not in current one. I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win.

We did that last season and dominated, we risked everything for a better win and still won. We did that this season and failed, thats why it is called a risk. If a clan truly is competitive and cw's for the fun of it and strives to get first, then they will take these risks to be the best they possibly can. Illyria are currently doing this and look at you at 2nd, next season this may fail or work, thats why its a risk. MK beat SM a few times then stopped cw'ing. To me thats pusssying out but its a respective decision that got them first place risk-free. But where is the fun in not cw'ing.

edit: quote fail again wtf

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 19:01

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:39

There's no reason to not to CW after 20. And getting 20 will do take a long time, probably as twice as CWs as there are now.

Risk IS good but not in current one. I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win.

The reason to not CW after getting 20:0 is because you can't improve your score, rather it would probably decrease as you would normally get +80CP at the start and nearing the end of your CWs +50, so you would be replacing your +80CP wins with +50CP which means -30CP from your overall score, and if you lose, you will most likely lose a lot of CP... and if you want to remove that loss (if you won the next CW) you would still be down on points from your first 20:0 point score.

"And getting 20 will do take a long time, probably as twice as CWs as there are now."
I do not agree with this, no clan has gotten 20:0 on the current system and as already said, it is more likely for a clan to get 20:0 on your suggested system because of the skipping of your wins to improve your losses which is quicker.
The CW seasons are 3 months long, as I already said SM have played ~73 CWs this season so far which means about 24 games per month - You could get 20:0 in less than a month and then stop CWing which means less CWs from the competitive, active clans therefore the other clans will have a less chance of CWing.

"I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win."
Yes the current system is flawed, people will naturally stop CWing when they secure a top position and assuming they do stop CWing, wouldn't your suggested system be the same? - No one would CW after 20:0, which would be easy to get; the current system allows clans to challenge themselves to reach the top positions in the seasons rankings as it is harder to get, so clans CW more.
It is that clans would reach to a top ranking easier with less CWs played eg. the first 23 games of SM this season would give a score of
19-1



The pink line indicates the 20 CW mark(ofc these are the first 20CWs - 81d ago) As you can see the circled losses would be replaced with the 3 circled wins after the 20 CWs giving a 19-1 score. Looks pretty easy 'eh?

It is possible to improve your score, and the CP thing you said there is not a point at all. That depends on what clan are you CWing.

The reason why 20:0 will take more time, is because you'll have to replace all your losses after reaching the limit. If average is 13:7, then that's +6 wins , so, with that "ratio", you'll have to play as twice as CWs are you played. (13+6 is 19). Also, replacing losses will be less risky, so less clans will deny CWs because they don't want to lose their spot.
Btw Dalmati got 20:0 before without replacing, in old clan system.

People would CW after 20:0 to improve their CP, CWing against clans with high competence, unlike now. Now, people reach their 20 limit and barely CW again if they're on 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

I think you sholdn't use clans that risk as example. Of course, there are some clans that do risk but not every clan. *cough* Illyria and SM *cough*.

Skrivet av The Tactician, 25.02.2014 at 23:31

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:39

Skrivet av Guest, 25.02.2014 at 17:05

Skrivet av Guest, 24.02.2014 at 13:23

Risk IS good but not in current one. I mean, you need way too much CWs to improve your win:lose, that's why no clan has balls to risk 5 games just for one win.

We did that last season and dominated, we risked everything for a better win and still won. We did that this season and failed, thats why it is called a risk. If a clan truly is competitive and cw's for the fun of it and strives to get first, then they will take these risks to be the best they possibly can. Illyria are currently doing this and look at you at 2nd, next season this may fail or work, thats why its a risk. MK beat SM a few times then stopped cw'ing. To me thats pusssying out but its a respective decision that got them first place risk-free. But where is the fun in not cw'ing.

edit: quote fail again wtf

Imma say this again "I think you sholdn't use clans that risk as example. Of course, there are some clans that do risk but not every clan. *cough* Illyria and SM *cough*."