I think that pretty much all suggestions that were made here so far would notably improve the CW experience.

@Norman

Isn't all fair matchmaking systems biased towards finding matches that try to give 50% win rate for both teams? I think getting 50% win rate is a sign that the system is working.

Edited 4/9/2021 06:21:16

Yeah 'exploit' wasn't exactly the word I was looking for, but you got my point

@Legolas: In the 1v1 ladder a 50% win rate is great. If you improve as a player you still only win 50% but you get rewarded by a higher rating. Surrendering on picks certainly isn't a winning strategy there. However with the currently inflated Python rating I have a hunch that I would help my clan currently more if I just surrendered all games against Python on picks. Of course I'm not doing that but winning against a clan with a way higher Elo feels wrong to me, given that we then get "punished" with a big Elo gain from which we will need maybe 3 losses to recover. The really valuable games are the ones against low ranked clans where we lose a lot of Elo when losing and gain next to no Elo when winning.

So in other words:
- In the 1v1 ladder you celebrate your victory against that number 1 record holder.
- In Clan Wars you want to avoid that top Elo clan and if you run into them you might actually prefer a loss.

Edited 4/9/2021 07:10:38

Apparently exploit was not the wrong word after all

strategy

No "strategy" or "exploits" but merely stating the fact that when you need 3 losses to "recover" your Elo from a single win against Python, the win feels much like a Pyrrhic victory. I got a honest loss against Masters today while trying my best and I never saw anyone losing games on purpose so far.

IMO the the basic idea should be very simple:
- If you win against a clan at exactly your Elo, you need 1 loss against an equally ranked clan to make up for the Elo gain.
- If you win against a clan above your Elo, you need more than 1 loss against an equaly ranked clan to make up for the Elo gain.
- If you win against a clan below your Elo, you need less than 1 loss against an equally ranked clan to make up for the Elo gain.

Edited 4/9/2021 07:53:41

Many useful things are already said;

To me the easy fix is this:

- Start at the top of the number of wins, meaning first TSFH, MASTER, MH, Python, to "reserve" slots for those players, go through everything in the algorithm, and give the clan with the lowest number of wins a free win in the case there needs to be one. After that go through the algorithm as it is, still basing the essential match-ups on clan rating, so there's still a +/- 50% winrate.

This helps with another problem as well, namely the one TLA had last season; by going from top to bottom without regard for amount of players in a clan, they often had a lot of people that all received no match-up, because they were the lowest clan in warrating. By going through it from the top, it should "reserve" slots for clans with more players and low war rating.

It also means that free wins counting towards war rating no longer matters, as the war rating isn't the decisive factor in getting those free wins.

Yeah whatever we want to call it, the fact is that the current system makes an approach based on keeping a low rating the winning strategy and is allowing for this.

The goal would be a matchmaking that matches clans at the top with other clans at the top, and clans at the bottom with other clans at the bottom, and since win condition === number of wins it comes trivial that it should be the only criterion taken into account for a matchmaking to be as fair as it can get. Let clans with the most wins fight against each other.

The other problem with clan rating, is it might make clans have close to 50% winrate, but it doesn't make players have close to 50% winrate unless they are close to the average skill of their clan. Anyone who is below average of their clan becomes a punching bag. The reverse is also an issue. Ursus is the best player in TSFH by a mile. But because his clan has low rating he can't get engaging games where he is challenged by his opponents.

How can that be fixed? A combo of player elo and clan elo for matchmaking?

Either no rating for matchmaking, or just player rating.

Personally, the main qualm I have with the current system is that the clans competing at the top for first place rarely play each other - I understand it is meant to be more casual than something like clan league but the rewards are quite significant, which I believe does ascribe some seriousness to the competition (and the fact Clans are listed by their performance in the previous season).

To me it would be weird if you had two football teams competing for a trophy, but where you never played each other and just had to try to score the most goals against other opposition, which I guess is the most apt comparison I can find for this.

However, I think making all match making based on wins alone is an awful idea, because more elitist clans with lower activity should not be getting matched solely with larger, more casual, clans, as it will be a bad experience for both sides and not motivate either to play (eg GG has the 4th highest war rating, and has roughly the same wins as KING, with the 33rd highest rating - I don't see the benefit of these two being matched every slot).

The best solution, in my opinion, which would still give the clans not taking the CW so seriously representative games, but also allow the top of the leaderboard to fight it out, would be to first match any clans in the top 5 by wins (or top 10) together first, and then match any other players by rating. If there is a timeslot with only 1 Master, 1 GG and 1 TSFH, it feels odd to give the clan in first a free win, and then make Master and GG duke it out.

I also really like the idea of making free wins count as a win against someone with the same rating as you currently have, and giving the free win to the clan with the least number of outright wins, rather than the lowest rating.

I think trying to fix quality difference inside a clan could only be done by a player elo basis - and probably only complicates things unnecessarily. I don't think this is that important for the quality of the system so would leave it for now.

Edited 4/9/2021 10:28:09

If there is a timeslot with only 1 Master, 1 GG and 1 TSFH, it feels odd to give the clan in first a free win, and then make Master and GG duke it out.


This has happened so many times I'm very annoyed of it

I think free wins shouldn't be handed so easily.....instead that player should play in one of the next slots of the day.......if they can't, sucks for them but there are 6 slots in a day....and if they again don't find any game for 2nd time that day, then I'm fine with free win cause more than that will be frustrating for the player too

If matchmaking was based on territories, then clearly the winner of each and every season would be Masters, as long as nothing changes. I see what you guys are doing there ;)

Edited 4/9/2021 11:12:35

I think free win is a punishment, so I don't know why Masters players would want to take them from TSFH.
Like, you sign up, wait 10 minutes for a fun game, and then get told, meh you can't play a game. It sucks.

The question is, wheter you play these templates for fun anyways, or just for the competition to get first :P

If matchmaking was based on territories, then clearly the winner of each and every season would be Masters, as long as nothing changes. I see what you guys are doing there ;)

I wouldn't agree with this - Python gave us a good run for our money in season 1 until the final few days, and I think it was really fun being matched up primarily with them every game, where winning or losing had a significant bearing on the outcome, as each win also denied them a win, and the head to head was pivotal.

Also, we are still far from the activity limit, if MH or TSFH were hitting the limit of 40 each day and we were being matched with you guys it would still be very close I think.
If your argument is don't let 2nd place try to beat 1st by playing them then it takes away some part of the competitive aspect of it?

Is Clan Wars the pinnacle of competitive play?
No, in short clan wars is just an online competition where the participation prize is also the winners medal. Edge had a nice description for it:

If you're looking at it like that, than TSFH and MH played more games than any of the other two clans. It doesn't matter if they received free wins or not, if any of the other two clans had played as much games or just came close to the amount of games the other had played, they'd be leading by a good margin of wins, since their winrates are higher. That was always obvious to be the case in this competition. So if you want to beat them, you neet to rise your participation. Otherwise just accept, that this comeptition isn't a competition for strategic purposes, but rather casual clan game.

Also, masters, please stop whining.
This echo-chamber of a forum post you have created for yourself is comical at best, and expresses bad sportsmanship at worst. You complain about the rules and setup of Clan Wars only after you have fallen slightly behind.

What is the goal of this Forum-thread?
Is it to complain a lot, brand the competition as unfair and make a lot of noise, or is it to change the setup and rules of a community event so it favors you?
Hate to break it to you, but TSFH is better suited than you for this competition. Your solution to not winning seems not to be joining more games (TSFH does that), but to instead complain about the rules in order to have them tailormade for you.


Lets look at the solutions provided by various Masters members:

Solution 1: Clan territories should decide matchmaking.
Masters are 2nd and TSFH (1st) would have to play them every game in order to get their next territory. Do you think its good for the community to have a clan who allows everyone to join play almost exclusively against the clan with the highest amount of trophies on the site? I dont.

Solution 2: No free wins to top 5 clans on the rankings.
This is just directly taking away free wins from TSFH, which would give TSFH a penalty of 11 and put Masters up front.

Solution 3: Giving a weight to the amount of territories for a clan when distributing free wins.
Yet again trying to steal wins directly from TSFH.

Honestly, this should be beneath you.
Im no big fan of TSFH getting the top spot either, but this is a casual competition for clans to enjoy. TSFH were voted best clan of the year and they generate way more activity than you right now, so sit down.

Personally, the main qualm I have with the current system is that the clans competing at the top for first place rarely play each other

I completely agree. But I don't know if it is a flaw in the system or whether Masters and Python are purposefully avoiding each other.