I don't see any harm in discussing the current rules, and what may or should be changed in some people opinion. It's not like the current rules are best imaginable, or are set in stone for whatever reason. The final say is still entirely up to Fizzer, and in case some valid points are brought up we may see some kind of improvements in the future.

That being said, some suggestions / issues mentioned are a bit weird. I get that some people feel some things are "unfair", or there is some room for tactical exploits, but given the nature of this event, and randomness / variety involved with timeslots, templates, etc. I'm not sure if they are that relevant.
(I stand by my previous suggestion, to make free win give some rating points)

Personally, I do believe the rules should favour bigger clans, with good participation rate, regardless of their rating; it's been kind of exciting to try to fight for the top despite lower numbers, and it should stay in somewhat similar way in the future.

Update on the free win situation current standings:

- Masters: 4
- M'Hunters: 2

Edited 4/11/2021 20:12:53

It's not exploiting the system if Masters is doing it @Norman.

We want the system to be unexploitable! (that's the whole point of this thread)
If people decide it isn't exploiting the system and it all works as fizzer intended then I don't see how that changes now...

If people decide it isn't exploiting the system

I'm not even judging here but I haven't read anyone striving for that consensus so far. Maybe all TSFH + M'Hunters free wins were accidents? My free win sure was unexpected at least. The other free win also wasn't that great of an outcome given that 3 players didn't get a game.

Edited 4/11/2021 20:55:09

It's 6 for masters, not 4. And they were 3 games on 2v2 final earth because there was no one else joined - if you want to prevent that free win all you have to do is join, while there's nothing for us to do to prevent tsfh getting free wins due to low rating.

What we are complaining about is rating making it impossible for us to interact with a lower rated clan even if it's tied with us on wins - and that would be easily solved by just matching using the number of CW wins, simple and clean.

Edited 4/11/2021 21:19:55

We're currently sitting between 2 div A clans with our rating, how can you say that's low?
Those are the opponents we're getting.

Yeah we're not facing Masters that often but you're making it sound like we're competing with TBA and Sabers and failing against them half the time.

EDIT:
And yeah, I've noticed how Masters always go for 2v2s to get the free wins.
We've tried to block them, occasionally successfully too, but it's not something that we can do alone.

Edited 4/11/2021 21:23:37

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether aspects are exploitable or not, but there does seem to be a majority of people saying we are whinging because we aren't winning. Much like how it is brought up how stalling makes the 1v1 ladder experience worse because of the way the rating system works, - I think holes in this system should also be brought to light so they can be debated and possibly fixed, that at least is my aim here.

@Kratt
We are in fact going for 2v2s because it appears to be the template where skill is most expressive and where we aren't matched against Python each time, when we would rather be matched with TSFH or MH, or simply clans that are not Python.
If my counting is correct, this season alone we have won 18 2v2 games, and lost only 5 (and 3 free wins). This huge win percentage (and the fact these wins are worth double), are why we stack the 2v2 template.

We did not know they reliably gave free wins if nobody joined until today, always removing our players from the 2v2 slots if there were no opponents lined up...

We are in fact going for 2v2s because it appears to be the template where skill is most expressive and where we aren't matched against Python each time, when we would rather be matched with TSFH or MH, or simply clans that are not Python.

Are you saying you actively avoid Python and try to farm noob clans on 2v2 to keep up with us and MH? :D

That's just... I'll leave it for others to decide what that is.

Edited 4/11/2021 21:55:58

My apologies I will reword that then:

We play 2v2s because that is where our win rate is highest, as stated 36-10 is much better than our overall average (taking into account the double worth).

You can try to say this is driven by two factors.
1) being good is most likely to lead to a win in this template (in comparison to SEAD or SE1W where picks can make the game a coin flip), whether that is against a noob clan or Python
2) it also appears that Python doesn't play, and in the 1v1s I feel like we go roughly even with them (though I have not looked at the head to head).

I believe that the main driver of our above average rate is 1), but I cannot deny 2) is likely to have some impact.

If you think choosing to play a template where your win rate is highest is some kind of scandal then I don't know how you expect us to choose what templates to play!

Again though, you're saying you play 2v2 because Python doesn't play it and you get some easy wins to keep up with other clans for the top spot.
You're actively avoiding the strongest clan and moaning at the same time that you can't beat up noob clans more effectively because the matchmaking system isn't built that way.

Just say how it is, CW means a lot to you and you're doing what it takes to win it.
Even if means dodging the strongest to farm the weak to keep up with the actives.

I will reiterate one last time in case I was not clear.
We play 2v2s because it is what we have the highest win rates on (personally I also find it more fun to interact with clanmates too than play around).
I think the main driver of that win rate is because of the template being more skill expressive.

Seeking your highest win rate template and most enjoyable is not equivalent to dodging a clan, though it is possible Python not playing the template is a factor is our high win rate.

You will never be clear enough with who doesn't want to understand hedja

What we are complaining about is rating making it impossible for us to interact with a lower rated clan even if it's tied with us on wins - and that would be easily solved by just matching using the number of CW wins, simple and clean.

Again, this is a participation-based event. If you are in close competition with a lower rated clan, thats simply because you have played fewer games. Please try to play more games to match them on number of games played before you try to change the whole system.

Regarding to Python and Masters players avoiding each other on purpose. In Python the only instruction to its members is general encouragement to play. To imply we're avoiding certain players is rubbish.

In Masters scenario, they're behind on participation and must now become more effective in achieving wins. So it's not shocking if they're taking some "measures" to ensure easier opponent. These "Measures" takes work and co-ordination so if they're happy to go that far to win a participation-based event than so be it.

Is this a good thing? Depends on your perspective if this is "exploiting" or if this is "raising the game". I think it raises the game personally but highlights the advantage of participation because it's decisive.

---

I do find it unfortunate that Python are unable to compete with the other competitors as we just can't meet the participation levels the other clans have set. It's sad because I found S1 super fun but when you know the participation is going to prevent you from winning it usually means the clan won't be playing as hard which results in a net loss for CW in general. Other clans are also in the same boat.

The only change that could make Python (and these other clans) compete is making the first 200 wins let's say worth 1 win. Though any win after that would be worth 0.5. This change would reward participation but also place a emphasis on winning which I think there should be a element of it due to the nature of the game and that is a clan war competition.

OR

Enable your clan to submit a roster of 1-40 let's say. Let the top 15 on said roster.. There wins count as 1 and the others wins can only count as 0.5 throughout the duration of the season.

I do think that would give a better balance and would probably have a net benefit for all clans to compete harder and have great fun.

-1 trillion idea 1 of Plat
+1 idea 2 of Plat

If it's all within the rules, it's fair game. If it were truly an exploit, Fizzer would fix it. It might be argued that 2 consistent free wins from a missed 2v2 game is too big an opportunity to allow to continue as-is, is it places an emphasis on other clans to play a template they don't really want to just to avoid giving up 2 free wins to another clan. If a template isn't getting enough takers (this comment not specific to the 2v2 template), it should be removed. In general, if any given clan is getting more than a handful of free games, something needs to change (I'm not suggesting this is the case, btw). But if it were to change, I hope the change wouldn't be to eliminate free games altogether, b/c that doesn't seem like a good result either.

@Platinum
Not sure I follow your recommendations:

On the 'first 200 wins', what is the value in making the wins from games 200+ less valuable? Wouldn't that just make the final territories a really long tier? In the end a clan with low participation but high win rate (low P, high W) still can't overtake a clan with high participation but low win (high P, low W) rate without winning more games, and both are subject to the >200 half-value rule, so don't think it achieves what you set out for it to do, and not sure what this actually accomplishes. But maybe I've missed something?

As for 'top 15 in roster', I think I see what you're going for here ... and I think this would enable Low P, High W clans to compete with High P, Low W clans. But is this a good idea? Doesn't that go against the spirit of CW (generate high P in clans)? Instead of inspiring more participation, this evens the playing field in spite of varied participation. This could actually be detrimental to participation. It could deter participation beyond the first 15 in high P clans b/c players wouldn't feel they are actually adding much value, so why bother participating if their contributions aren't actually going to matter much? Either way, 50% seems way too much - would seem more reasonable with a lower %, or perhaps even a varied %. 100% for first 20 players, 80% for next 10, 60% for next 10%, 50% for next 10 (yes, we're going beyond 40 now), 40% for next 10 ... and never getting to 0%, but also never have a user cap. And it would apply to the first 20/30/40/50/60 won games in a day, not users. Games won by different players should have equal weight other than perhaps the order in which they were won. Don't put pressure on those 15 players to play every day. It's casual, spread it out so that just high participation regardless of who is participating still has meaning. So for example, if a clan has 200 players who all play on a given day and the clan wins 100 games in that single day (using a high numbers example just to facilitate the math): 20 wins are worth 100%, 10 wins are at 80%, 10 @ 60%, 10 @ 50%, 10 @ 40%, 10 @ 30%, 10 @ 20%, 10 @ 10%, 10 @ 5%, 10 @ 3%.

Not sure I like the second recommendation, but at least this tweak would still reward participation without diluting its value too much. Still think that recruiting more players to low P clans is the better option.

Many people here are talking about high participation etc....but you would need much bigger player base for that...and no system alone will really bring them here....but system can have some impact on current player base and their participation...
..at this point, not a single clan is even able to reach 30 daily participation, so there´s plenty of room to use more people for every single clan..but that just forces people to join few big clans if they want to compete for medals...or stay faithful to their clan but be demotivated by this system and rarely participate...(in other words this system may motivate for example tsfh members but demotivate members of most other small clans)...
..on contrary to many..I believe that limiting clans to fewer members (as well as daily participation) would support participation and variety in the end..15 players per clan for example..
..skill difference can be partly solved by rotating templates (only auto temlates on some days etc.)..

lol as for what Hedja is saying idk. We prefer 2v2s since it's a good template. But I just play whatever I like on the timeslot I'm on for. That's why I play a lot of MA as well since I just enjoy the multi-attack mechanic. Just play whatever you enjoy.

I am considering changes to the matchmaking algorithm, but I haven't quite decided what the best route to follow is yet. I appreciate the feedback and suggestions.