It is ok to have a participation event like this. My beef is that we asked for clan ladders for years and this was the roll out. I don't care that we have a non competitive format, but not at the expense of a legit clan ladder system.

CW may be a fun, non competitive event (although it clearly is) but the points raised are valid when it has an impact on both rewards and clan positioning on the clans list.

Personally I think free wins should be scrapped altogether. You don't get a game, tough. Try again later.

My main gripe is that I'm seeing a lot of well established strategic clans being dumped down on the clans list.

Clan rating should dictate the positions on this list not the mess it currently is.

In my eyes, as others are saying, this is not meant to be the next clan league, and I think it has definitely led to more activity, discussions within clans and people joining clans, all good things!

The point I would like to emphasise is that this is also not just a casual event either with no ramifications (eg like QM), as there is clearly value ascribed to coins and Idle rewards and also to being higher up the clan list for recruiting and egotistical purposes. I have not calculated the dollar value for a clan coming first, but I would not be surprised if it was well above $100 given the Idle powers that come with it for each player.

For that reason it feels like that the mechanism which decides who comes top should have some competitive standing to it, and that those competing for the top prize should be able to compete directly with each other to decide who comes first.

Of course, even if you were to match based on wins, it is not like all of TSFH's games would be against Master or MH - but it means if we were in the same slot we would play them rather than us playing Python, ONE or some other clan and then TSFH or MH playing a much lower rated clan.

The key issue in my eyes is that for MH and TSFH, if a player cannot commit the time to play a game on a specific day, they are incentivised to join and instantly surrender to keep their rating low and away from Masters. Likewise, as Norman said, in games against Masters or Python you can also argue it is worthwhile for them to surrender as a win would boost their rating significantly, which would probably lead to more losses for the clan in the future.
Any system where there is significant value in coming first should not incentivise joining games to surrender them so that your clan wins!

Clan Wars is taking away the drama of Clan League :O

The key issue in my eyes is that for MH and TSFH, if a player cannot commit the time to play a game on a specific day, they are incentivised to join and instantly surrender to keep their rating low and away from Masters.

First I have heard of that.

The point I would like to emphasise is that this is also not just a casual event either with no ramifications (eg like QM), as there is clearly value ascribed to coins and Idle rewards and also to being higher up the clan list for recruiting and egotistical purposes. I have not calculated the dollar value for a clan coming first, but I would not be surprised if it was well above $100 given the Idle powers that come with it for each player.

For that reason it feels like that the mechanism which decides who comes top should have some competitive standing to it, and that those competing for the top prize should be able to compete directly with each other to decide who comes first.

Fair ... but wouldn't the same principle apply to raffles? Free coins & WZI powers ... so should raffles be skill based too? <-- Ok, not a serious comment, just being facetious.

Your point is valid (but be careful, b/c one solution to that problem is to just remove the prizes, and don't think anyone wants that either) ... so how about starting with an early season RR, where up until 50% (or 75% or some other %) of territories are allocated, all matches are straight up clan RR matches. This is fair - everyone plays everyone, rankings based on winnings in that distribution. After that, it assigns matches based on the order of # of territories & wins, and prefers a matchup within 1 or 2 ranks above or below your clan. You still go up down in the list and so you are still in the running, but now you're pitted against those who are more directly competing for the prizes, and you can never realistically overtake another clan without being paired up against them.

I think this would work well.

HOWEVER ... is that enough? Or is anyone thinking that even a "play off" phase is required beyond this? Once the "regular season" has ended, the playoffs start where other clans can still participate for standings in the list below the top 3 (or top 5, whatever), but the top X spots now enter into a special rules arrangement where maybe even clan picks 3 players, take turns voting the template to play on, then battle it out for the top prizes? It's a pretty big departure from the casual CW but seems like people are getting tunnel vision on those prizes, and maybe something like this could be a good final, and also be a good social event. But it still all starts with getting good clan participation to get high # of games played/won to be in the final standings for the playoffs.

SIDE NOTE:

The key issue in my eyes is that for MH and TSFH, if a player cannot commit the time to play a game on a specific day, they are incentivised to join and instantly surrender to keep their rating low and away from Masters.

First I have heard of that.

Same - was not aware of this. Also have yet to receive a free game.

Of course not suggesting to remove the prizes, was more that despite it being much more relaxed, which is rightly what people are highlighting about it, there is some reason to care that the system is "fair".
The current matchmaking system is not really "unfair" as such, I think that free wins do not give rating increase is a much more important issue, and the way free wins are potentially distributed to clans in the race for first, but it is something where the community bouncing ideas around could lead to some improvements given the gaps it currently creates.

The Round Robin idea sounds like it could be a good idea, though I guess it could be harder to implement than some other methods, and with changes in matchmaking through the season could lead to confusion. I don't think a play-off would be required though, just a regular season is fine and it prolongs seasons where not everyone can play every day, which I feel is the focus here for Fizzer.

The idea of losing to Masters or Python is one which Norman explained on the last page, ie winning a game against a highly ranked clan is actually bad for your clan because it will take you say 3 losses to get back to your clan rating (because your rating is now too high), so you go 1-3 instead of your expected 2-2 against clans at your rating.

The instant surrender point is that if you aren't going to play a game on a specific day because of other commitments, and your clan is middle of the pack in terms of rating (so not quite applicable for a clan like Python or Masters), then losing a game which otherwise would not have been played is beneficial for your clan as a whole because it lowers your rating, so your future games are easier, hence increasing your odds of winning future games. The key here being that you would not have played otherwise, because this type of activity benefits all of the players who play and try to win. Imagine Masters had our normal 25 or so players, but then also 15 accounts who instantly surrender a game every day - our rating would be much lower than what it is now, so the 25 active players would get easier games (not Python), and have a higher winning percentage, increasing our total wins.

This is the key problem with the current rating system, that having 15 accounts surrender every game each day impact our matchmaking so that we do better than we would otherwise seems flawed in my eyes.

This is the key problem with the current rating system, that having 15 accounts surrender every game each day impact our matchmaking so that we do better than we would otherwise seems flawed in my eyes.

Is this actually happening or is it just theoretical? I mean ... losing 100% of 15 games seems like a losing strategy. That's 15 wins given to some other clan(s) ... how viable is this strategy? Throwing 15 games, potentially to the clan you're trying to win to hopefully win those games back in the future just to break even, then continue winning to overtake the clans you were trying to avoid, all while they keep on playing & winning.

This is theoretical, but totally a winning strategy as i see it.

I dont see the point of this discussion. You are all mentioning hypotheticals that, judging by MHs and TFSHs statements, have yet to come into play.

Fact of the matter is that Masters have around 80% of the games that TSFH and MH has, and that doesn't constitute a win or even competing for the top spot. At least not in a participation-based competition.

Edited 4/9/2021 19:32:41

We're actually ahead though, but that's not really the point of the thread Ralph.

There's several hypotheticals being discussed here, but there's no reason not to get ahead of them, since they would work. - Not saying I completely agree with Sephi's original statement, because he's trying to turn the competition into something solely skillbased, which was never the point; however I do not see any issue with finding middle grounds on several fronts, and especially because of the TLA case last season;

https://www.warzone.com/Clans/War?ID=1&Timeslot=28

For instance, TLA played 5 players on the Small Earth 1 Wasteland slot, only two of which got a game because of their low rating, the other three did not get a free win.

This, partially, because in the slots before, they got free wins that did not account for any rating. As a result it took forever for them to get to a normal position; this season they've started much quicker and they're already at 6 territories.

Free wins are more annoying at the bottom than near the top, but by using activity in the manner I spoke of earlier, it should prevent such issues.

By giving rating for free wins it'd also be solved.

There's no real point to them staying the way they are

Ralph of course these are hypotheticals, but its benefits are clear to see, especially if the games you play are not against the clans you are competing for top spot in.

If I got my parents to each make an account and each timeslot I join join the same slot as myself, and then let themselves boot, they could take the game with Python away from me and increase my odds of winning and also lower our war rating so longer term we aren't locked in a constant battle with Python every slot. This would not in any manner be against the rules (though some would claim they were just alts), but I definitely think goes against the point of the system and the spirit of competition. I am not saying this is something I would do, but any system where this is beneficial must be flawed.

What in fact surprises me is how high both our and Python's win rate is given we are matched together so often (and hence average 50% between us in those games).

"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."

I last calculated before I went to work earlier today and standings looked like this:




Mh actually had 1 more win, because when I screenshot that they had a game in progress, which they won shortly after.

Edited 4/9/2021 20:37:40

I am playing against players well below my skill bracket (https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=26481555). How do I fix it?

Edited 4/10/2021 16:00:23

Imo..folks on this thread are way over playing the intent of clan wars.. and, as such, this entire thread is a solution in search of a problem.. I hope fizzer doesn't make any changes to clan wars EXCEPT to open up even more available time slots to perhaps every 2 hours so participation can rise even higher..

You're right gollem ... I take back everything I said. lol (Actually not everything, still think RR at least 1 match every clan vs every other clan each season would be a good idea).

Everyone wants a way to more securely acquire the prizes, but you just need to accept that you need to play within the established rules. If you want to increase your chances to snag those prizes, get more clan members playing CW more often and winning more games. It's that simple.

I completely understand the content points here regarding Clan Wars.

But the question is simply what kind of competition Clan Wars wants to be. And as far as I can read from Fizzer's blogposts, Clan Wars is not supposed to be some kind of rt-CL. We're dealing with a casual format that is meant to show the value of clans, especially for idle players, and is not aimed at our little bubble of top strategic players. And that's exactly why the system was designed - probably with full intention - in a way that mainly activity decides about the position in the ranking. This was not so obvious in the first season, but it will become clearer as time goes on.

And I must say that the competition has achieved this goal. I don't think anything needs to be changed here. The format was designed this way on purpose and it is not a mistake.

Yeah, I also see Clan Wars as awesome the way it is. Dead mass clans aren't on top of the clan list any longer but clans with an active community. Basically Clan Wars connects Warzone classic with Warzone idle and a clan based competition. Previously especially idle and classic seemed to be lacking a connection.

Masters suggestions "coincidentally" aimed at making them unbeatable as of now also wouldn't be so nice for the general competition. "Coincidentally" TSFH doesn't seem to like that too much and also "coincidentally" I don't like the format Masters proposed either.

Edited 4/10/2021 20:03:04

Elitism intensifies.

CW is working just like Fizzer intented.