Clan monopolies

It took a while but here it is, this issue has been on my mind for a long time now and it's in all of our best interests to atleast consider the following.

People have been complaining about the dead competitive scene but what do you guys do? Illyria goes inactive so its top members join sm? I like lao but it's the wrong way to go indeed if we want to turn things around. We need more clans many many more clans, and it's obvious we are not capable if doing it ourselves so here's my idea.

Clan capacity:
Make clan capacity for clans, all clans start with 6-10 spots available more unlocked with clan elo in time maximum of 20.

I know it's not an entire novel like a clovis thread but it would fundementally change the way clans are today forcing players that want to cw and win to separate and strengthen smaller teams of players making it more like our now booming dueling scene.

Point is we got 3 or 4 clan everyone flocks to each season in order to win, this must stop. It's poisonous to new players who would otherwise be interested.

Let me know what you think, got any better ideas? Let's hear em!

No.

Kirjoittanut Steve Aoki, 14.02.2016 at 06:28

No.

Unhelpful in the least don't you think?
What is your solution then?

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 06:30

Kirjoittanut Steve Aoki, 14.02.2016 at 06:28

No.

Unhelpful in the least don't you think?
What is your solution then?

Unite all competitive players and make one big clan with one leader Death1812.
We play duels between each other and see who is the best.

Kirjoittanut Steve Aoki, 14.02.2016 at 06:32

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 06:30

Kirjoittanut Steve Aoki, 14.02.2016 at 06:28

No.

Unhelpful in the least don't you think?
What is your solution then?

Unite all competitive players and make one big clan with one leader Death1812.
We play duels between each other and see who is the best.

Some people just want to see the world burn I geuss or in this case aw

You do have a point, there's not enough clan competition. However you of all people know the core of the clan will never break up and leave, which makes the whole leaders and officers, and a good amount of the members. Admittedly though, when I came back from inactivity and SM was at rock bottom, the clan roster was ridiculous. We had so many unneeded players and was just stacking high ranks for the sake of activity... We got rid of most of the deadweight though, but you know Lao is indispensable, and has rapidly become an important part of our core. Having said that, a capacity of 20 to prevent stacking sounds good.

What clans would be willing to take on new players if their inclusion was at the expense of higher ranks which could be of more practical use?

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:06

What clans would be willing to take on new players if their inclusion was at the expense of higher ranks which could be of more practical use?

The amount of clans would increase making it more of a necessity for clans of few players to bring up low ranks to fill in the holes in there rosters.

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:09

The amount of clans would increase making it more of a necessity for clans of few players to bring up low ranks to fill in the holes in there rosters.

Why would there be clans of few players? Increacing the number of clans does not spread the high ranks more thinly when there are more than 10 high ranks in most clans. With fewer places, every clan would be full of as many strong players as possible.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:17

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:09

The amount of clans would increase making it more of a necessity for clans of few players to bring up low ranks to fill in the holes in there rosters.

Why would there be clans of few players? Increacing the number of clans does not spread the high ranks more thinly when there are more than 10 high ranks in most clans. With fewer places, every clan would be full of as many strong players as possible.

maybe a 15 capacity for r9+ and unlimited for lower ranks?

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:17

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:09

The amount of clans would increase making it more of a necessity for clans of few players to bring up low ranks to fill in the holes in there rosters.

Why would there be clans of few players? Increacing the number of clans does not spread the high ranks more thinly when there are more than 10 high ranks in most clans. With fewer places, every clan would be full of as many strong players as possible.

If you read my suggestion I said a maximum of 10 to start increasing with gained elo as a sort of currency.

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:21

If you read my suggestion I said a maximum of 10 to start increasing with gained elo as a sort of currency.

I did read that, but how does it help? It just means more and more people will go to the successful clans, which are successful because they have the strongest teams. The stronger the clan is, the more strong players it will acquire, making it even stronger and so increacing it's elo further etc..

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:24

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:21

If you read my suggestion I said a maximum of 10 to start increasing with gained elo as a sort of currency.

I did read that, but how does it help? It just means more and more people will go to the successful clans, which are successful because they have the strongest teams. The stronger the clan is, the more strong players it will acquire, making it even stronger and so increacing it's elo further etc..

Do you know what capacity means?

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:27

Do you know what capacity means?

I presumed it meant the number of players a clan can have?

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:29

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:27

Do you know what capacity means?

I presumed it meant the number of players a clan can have?

Correct so of a clan of 30 can now only have 10 that leaves 20 displaced players in need of a clan.

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:31

Correct so of a clan of 30 can now only have 10 that leaves 20 displaced players in need of a clan.

So they form 2 more clans of 10 players...

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:33

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:31

Correct so of a clan of 30 can now only have 10 that leaves 20 displaced players in need of a clan.

So they form 2 more clans of 10 players...

Making 3 competing clans out of 1

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:35

Making 3 competing clans out of 1

True.

However none of that addresses my original argument; while the clan of 30 players could take on new players and train them, none of the 3 clans of 10 players will be able to. Newer players will have to form their own clans which will collapse after loosing repeatedly.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 07:39

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:35

Making 3 competing clans out of 1

True.

However none of that addresses my original argument; while the clan of 30 players could take on new players and train them, none of the 3 clans of 10 players will be able to. Newer players will have to form their own clans which will collapse after loosing repeatedly.

Not all 30 are active competing members there would be room for new players in total I estimate we have less then 50 participating competitive players.

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:40

Not all 30 are active competing members there would be room for new players in total I estimate we have less then 50 participating competitive players.

Clans would tend over time to stacking completely with strong players, relegating newer players to less experienced clans. If all of those 30 players become strong competitive players over time, then who trains the next generation?
If one of those players leaves, people would tend towards replacing them with a strong player if possible; why would you recruit a r3 when you could have a r11? In the long term it could prove worse. Through this process the strong clans would become progressively stronger and so would stifle the development of newer players who were not let in.
Look at the currently competitive clans. They have all been formed by players who left already established clans, and in most cases they were newer players who joined, learned and then left.
Without the possibility of old clans recruiting new players the cycle of clan development could easily cease and settle into a pattern of the same 6 or 7 clans playing until everyone gets bored and leaves.

For the record, I think tact's solution is a sensible way to fix this problem, but it poses its own issues.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.02.2016 at 08:03

Kirjoittanut Helly, 14.02.2016 at 07:40

Not all 30 are active competing members there would be room for new players in total I estimate we have less then 50 participating competitive players.

Clans would tend over time to stacking completely with strong players, relegating newer players to less experienced clans. If all of those 30 players become strong competitive players over time, then who trains the next generation?
If one of those players leaves, people would tend towards replacing them with a strong player if possible; why would you recruit a r3 when you could have a r11? In the long term it could prove worse. Through this process the strong clans would become progressively stronger and so would stifle the development of newer players who were not let in.
Look at the currently competitive clans. They have all been formed by players who left already established clans, and in most cases they were newer players who joined, learned and then left.
Without the possibility of old clans recruiting new players the cycle of clan development could easily cease and settle into a pattern of the same 6 or 7 clans playing until everyone gets bored and leaves.

For the record, I think tact's solution is a sensible way to fix this problem, but it poses its own issues.

The issue and solution in this is short term but effective in nature, we need a jump start or the who system is gonna die we can worry about more effective ways of incorporating new players into clans later on hence my suggestion to allow clan to grow with time.

Hmmm

As I remember, Stryko and Nero made an additional coalition to increase activity at CW scene, they were calling competitive players to join, but too low number of people actually gone there it and it has fallen down.
It is why I don't like endless complains about something on forums, but when the things are about to be done, nobody of those who spam forums with ideas are actually helping in realisation.
I am not pointing at you Helly, but at certain people who will find themselves here.

I agree that activity of 2 seasons when Cosa Nostra was on scene will probably never happen again, it was the most crazy time of atWar.... CN, MK, Illy, Stalins, Syndi, evoL, Enigma, Singularity, Shadow Aces, JNA...
But we are trying, for example, Mecoy with Noobs who played 50 CWs in 2 months, me and Mantis with Reservoir Dogs who played 75 CWs in 29 days, which is more then great for activity improvement.

I got mantis back to active players, we both got Ferlucci and slowroll back to active ones and we are giving our best to play and just play.
We didn't start as good as we planned because results are more bad than potential we have individually, but it's all normal stuff of competitive play. Sometimes you need to be patient and wait for a boom, things are not coming over the night.

And I think it is same with activity of all CW scene, so I don't think limitation on 10 players per coalition is good idea, even your wish is great and motivating.

Actually the idea is good but not very realistic. Most clans or players won't agree to it. So its pointless to agree on it. I guess deep down we all want to play with good or better players. Clan monopolies like this actually exists in all games. But I don't think there is a solution to this.

Kirjoittanut Croat, 14.02.2016 at 08:27

Hmmm

As I remember, Stryko and Nero made an additional coalition to increase activity at CW scene, they were calling competitive players to join, but too low number of people actually gone there it and it has fallen down.
It is why I don't like endless complains about something on forums, but when the things are about to be done, nobody of those who spam forums with ideas are actually helping in realisation.
I am not pointing at you Helly, but at certain people who will find themselves here.

I agree that activity of 2 seasons when Cosa Nostra was on scene will probably never happen again, it was the most crazy time of atWar.... CN, MK, Illy, Stalins, Syndi, evoL, Enigma, Singularity, Shadow Aces, JNA...
But we are trying, for example, Mecoy with Noobs who played 50 CWs in 2 months, me and Mantis with Reservoir Dogs who played 75 CWs in 29 days, which is more then great for activity improvement.

I got mantis back to active players, we both got Ferlucci and slowroll back to active ones and we are giving our best to play and just play.
We didn't start as good as we planned because results are more bad than potential we have individually, but it's all normal stuff of competitive play. Sometimes you need to be patient and wait for a boom, things are not coming over the night.

And I think it is same with activity of all CW scene, so I don't think limitation on 10 players per coalition is good idea, even your wish is great and motivating.

you got mantis active again xd all players who joined RD except ferlucci joined because of mantis.

Kirjoittanut minusSeven, 14.02.2016 at 08:37

Actually the idea is good but not very realistic. Most clans or players won't agree to it. So its pointless to agree on it. I guess deep down we all want to play with good or better players. Clan monopolies like this actually exists in all games. But I don't think there is a solution to this.

ya,wont agreee,because SM stacked most mods in it,they cant decline all they want to decline,or agree for all they want to agree.....

I don't like this namedropping. When illyria died i had 3 options, remain in illy and attempt to keep it alive assuming full leadership(something i did not want the responsibility of), leave illyria or quit atwar entirely.

I'm at a stage where i just want to enjoy aw and play some clan wars. I've no interest in leading new clans.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 14.02.2016 at 08:49

I don't like this namedropping. When illyria died i had 3 options, remain in illy and attempt to keep it alive assuming full leadership(something i did not want the responsibility of), leave illyria or quit atwar entirely.

I'm at a stage where i just want to enjoy aw and play some clan wars. I've no interest in leading new clans.

illyria didnt really die,just a few leaders gone inactive,and you left and made all others leave and follow you in sm.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 14.02.2016 at 08:49

I don't like this namedropping. When illyria died i had 3 options, remain in illy and attempt to keep it alive assuming full leadership(something i did not want the responsibility of), leave illyria or quit atwar entirely.

I'm at a stage where i just want to enjoy aw and play some clan wars. I've no interest in leading new clans.

Was just an example of most recent clan death and consolidation. Wasn't a stab, if my idea for implemented you'd still be with the same group lol. (I'd be abandoned)

Kirjoittanut Oleg, 14.02.2016 at 08:45

I called Ferlucci, mantis and slowroll.
Mantis called Bossko, beli and G.K

We both called you on testing time, you left and after that you thought I won't check who Vortex really is, so you tried to stay in clan on another profile acting like new person who lives in Austria but who is actually from Montenegro. I even gave you to play few CWs, after which you asked for promotion.

And you got kick because you are stupid enough to upvote your own posts against me

That fun in PRs while you were sure we don't know who you are, it's priceless

No.