+1 to proposal of capping wins/day rather than capping members or capping games. Imo this should also allow your clan members to play multiple times a day until you reach that win cap. As a side-effect, the asinine 40-cap on new clan membership can also be lifted.

Hmm, I am ok with the idea of making the limitation in terms of wins per day.

While I do obviously like the solution I proposed, my main desire is to change the current limitation - 40 players per day. That's what I believe creates an unfair barrier to entry. So, if there's more support for another way to change it, I'm all for it.

I get what Beren says - ultimately Fizzer is determining what clans should "look" like on this game. I just think the current system doesn't match up enough with practicalities. I'm curious what Fizzer's opinion on this is? Would he be willing to change the limitation of 40 players per day to say, 20 wins per day, or 20 games per day? Maybe 40 wins per day?

Edited 6/24/2021 07:27:24

I heard my name

I think you are over-complicating this. Let anyone join, count only top 20 players (win-wise) from each clan. Ideally, count 1st player with weight of 1, 2nd with weight q, n-th with weight q^(n-1), where q is given constant in (0,1). For example q=0.9 would work well.
q=0.9

With 5 members, clan would have total weight of 4.1
With 10 members, clan would have total weight of 6.5
With >=20 members, clan would have total weight of 8.8
If Fizzer wanted to count first 40 player, total weight would be 9.9
No player limit would mean total weight of 10.

Edited 6/24/2021 22:42:51

^Despite the irony of the guy claiming others over-complicated the issue, while himself, proposing the most complicated solution (lmao), I actually agree with his idea.

I think that was the joke, @sanmu

If it was a joke, it's actually kind of funny. If it wasn't a joke (I'm not sure tbh), it's still pretty funny.

Ah I see, I couldn't tell, because the solution actually seemed pretty reasonable to me.

But, it would be too "mathy" of a result, and wouldn't really fit how territories are awarded now.

Edited 6/25/2021 13:41:44

Complicated? Players in clans are already sorted by wins. You just rewrite:
clanWins = 0
for player in clan:
clanWins +=player.participating?player.wins:0

to
clanWins = 0
for player in clan:
clanWins += player.ranking <=20?player.wins*power(0.9, player.ranking -1):0



Also, unlike in certain another idea, once rewarded, the clan can't lose any territory.

Edited 6/25/2021 17:58:27

No one said it's difficult to code, we're saying it's difficult to ascertain what your contribution to the final count/ranking is.

It would increase the activity in CW (everyone from TSFH and other big clans can participate now) allowing Fizzer to decrease the CD between slots, further improving activity. It would lower the advantage of bigger clans without removing it (having a lot of good players in your clan will still be relevant). Probably wouldn't change the ranking of MASTER and MH, but it would hurt clans that currently have lots of participants and help clans with little, but good participants.

^Going off that, perhaps advancement to the next territory can be based on an experience bar, rather than a set # of wins.

The experience bar can have a formula similar to what he proposed, but it should give diminishing returns for each additional win in the day (e.g., the 7th win gives less experience than the 6th win, and the 39th win gives less experience than the 38th win). If the diminution factor is high, there may not be a need for a wins cap at all.

This would allow smaller clans to compete, as well as giving larger clans a slight edge over them. This is not all that different from how pretty much everyone can reach level 50, but it takes a ton of additional experience to get to level 55, or level 60.

Capping wins/day is stupid; especially if you let people play several slots a day as knyte proposed, as you'd simply end up with a bunch of clans all in an unbreakable tie for first. Namely the clans that reach the win cap. Only if you set it ridiculously high would it have any effect, and then still clans with a lot of members would have the most to benefit from this idea, as they could simply have 60 players all play two wins, differences would only get bigger. That also defeats the purpose of a cap, but otherwise a cap just causes ties, not useful at all.

The original idea isn't bad in my opinion, though I'd agree with kallistei that just taking the best 20 for the scoring makes more sense than only allowing 20 to play.

I have to agree with Meldarion. While I did reluctantly agree with the wins cap before (since my original idea seemed to have less support), having thought about it more now, it's a stupid idea.

The goal is to allow every clan an equal opportunity to compete and win. The wins cap over-remediates the problem - not only does every clan have an equal opportunity to compete, but the top clans are directly penalized. And it also defeats the entire purpose of the competition. That's far beyond what I was asking for.

Counting only the top 20 players of each team for scoring purposes sounds like a happy medium. Small clans with 20 good players can compete (so long as they play every day), large clans won't have to internally restrict who can play, and there is also less pressure on each individual of a large clan to play every day.

One practical problem with the top 20 players is I'm not sure how it'll fit in the current system. The 21st best player might suddenly break into the top 20 players on day 30. But the way territories are awarded now, they are awarded daily based on wins given before. Would the system go back and delete the wins that the former 20th best player contributed and replace them with the 21st best player? That might be confusing, so the system would have to be changed to accomodate it.

If the "top 20 players" is judged daily, that wouldn't work. That's basically a wins cap. As long as a clan got at least 20 wins a day, their top 20 daily would be all wins.

To implement top 20 performers, I think it'd be something like this:

- Sort the clan playing roster by # of wins.
- Total # of wins for that clan are the sum of the wins of the top 20 players.
- The clan rank list is the list of clans with # of wins as per the above sorting algorithm.

There's never a need to invalidate a game played. You never need to actively choose who the 20 players are. It's just a matter of who is in the top 20 games per clan or not. A clan's win score will never go down if someone starts outperforming another player, it'll always only ever increase, so no need to change results, etc.

I think this would need to rework how "Territory Rewards" operate though. Currently wins directly determine both # territories which directly affects Territory Rewards & rank and thus Rank Rewards. They should be broken, so even games of clan members not in the top 20 can contribute to their clan's "Territory Rewards" (b/c they're not competing with other clans for these other than getting wins in games). This would mean that everyone's games count towards something, everyone playing contributes, even if they aren't in the top 20.

someone send this forum to fizzer.

the community has spoken

Edited 6/27/2021 17:42:06

He's probably reading it. He's just selective on when he responds vs when he doesn't.

One more final comment - since it seems we are coming to a consensus on the "top 20 performers limitation" rather than the "40 players per team" limitaton.

Clan Wars team elo should ONLY be based off of the top 20 performers. I don't want to create some new meta where the dominant strategy is to have 20-25 players who play "seriously" and then the rest of the clan purposely loses to lower the team elo to get easier matchups for the top 20-25.

But if the team elo is based off of only the top 20, that solves the problem.

CW is ment for casuals, yet the vast majority of players are strategic players. Lowering player limit won't help.
CW will still be a strategical competition, like CL.

How to get out? Do something to make idle players want to play it. I strongly suggest adding some activity rewards, as well, as more pretty, flashing effects. Make advertisments about it on idle. For that you need to rework clan system so it can handle a sudden influx of players. Implement [clan creation ticket] as a reward in idle battles. Or rise clan cap (for new clans AND recruiting).


Edit: 2nd paragraph added in the same time as krinid posted his post

Edited 6/28/2021 04:43:46

The real question is ... does the "top 20 performers" methodology create a system where more players will play more often?

It will definitely create a system where if everyone who plays now keeps on playing, clans ranked 7-20 will have a better shot at taking spot #3-6, but likely still not #1 or #2, but will it actually garner enough attention to get more players playing? If not, then it hasn't actually changed anything.

To actually be effective, it can't just cater to the regulars who will play WZC/WZI/CW/etc anyhow, it has to be effective enough to get additional players playing. And ideally, because of the WZI rewards, it should be funneling people into WZI, to get enough attention to get implemented.