Clan War System 2013
Postit: 68
Viereailijat: 189 users
The new coalition war season is upon us, let us make a change before it starts please. Tl;dr version in the summary at the bottom.
Skim through the OPs and a few replies from notable people if you want more info.
Ordered from old to new:
Coalition Wars - VRIL - 28.01.2012 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2740&topicsearch=&page=1
Suggestions for Coalitions Wars - Pulse - 21.02.2012 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2906
How to improve the Coalition System - ezzatam - 19.02.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7421
Simple changes for coalitions - Hugosch - 08.04.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7833
Coalition War ranking alternatives? - V for Vendetta - 08.08.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9330
New CW System ; another attempt - The Tactician - 21.09.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9967
Ordered from old to new:
Coalition Wars - VRIL - 28.01.2012 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2740&topicsearch=&page=1
Suggestions for Coalitions Wars - Pulse - 21.02.2012 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2906
How to improve the Coalition System - ezzatam - 19.02.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7421
Simple changes for coalitions - Hugosch - 08.04.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7833
Coalition War ranking alternatives? - V for Vendetta - 08.08.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9330
New CW System ; another attempt - The Tactician - 21.09.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9967
Problems with the current system
The condition that only 10 coalition wars count stagnates the drive for more coalition wars. This slows down the entire season after the active coalitions make their 10, as there is no reason to try to get them anymore. A good number of times I've asked for coalition wars and leaders would decline saying they wanted their last matches against another coalition. Or they declined because they only have limited chances. Which is fine, I understand, thus the system is the problem. This needs to be changed so we encourage more coalition wars. More throughout the season.
[Thunder had planned to cw them for their last game, no disrespect meant, just using this as an example.]
Another problem with the current season system is competence. I don't mind competence, it's basically coalition-elo, but using it to rank a season isn't very nice. Stalins Martians could have went 10-0 this season and we still wouldn't of gotten even 2nd place via the current system. In the future when(if) atWar continues to grow, there may be many more coalitions participating and thus contributing their competence to the mix, and we'll have the rise of many coalitions with 1.5 or higher competence. These coalitions will be stifled from the competition since they cannot win the season, unless they purely played against coalitions with 1.5 or higher competence. Even then, a new coalition with experienced players can just get #1 easy because of their low competence.
Coalition wars are the pinnacle of competition on atWar, with multiple people involved and bragging rights on the line, they should be encouraged. One of the ways to encourage growth of the competitive side of atWar, is to encourage coalition wars. There are other threads about changing UN games, messing with duels, sp rates, tournaments, plenty of competitive stuff out there but there isn't much being done for coalitions. I seek to change that.
Stats for a new system
There were plenty of ideas thrown around in the threads at the top, let's compile them into something useful. My coalition has played 39 coalition wars since this seasons start(at time of posting). This is more than most coalition's entire CW history from their beginning, barring 7(including us). With a 28:11 w/l, a 2.5 ratio, and 72% of CWs played won for this season. Lets use these types of stats to form a new cw-friendly plan.
Winning coalition wars to increase a percentage out of your own total should be the goal, rather than a few wins out of 10 total. This gets rid of the competence concept and gives a drive for more coalition wars as you go. Here's some stats.
[Ordered according to this seasons ranking, stats are from start of season, 88 days ago, till present.]
coalition name - [T]otal games, [W]ins, [L]osses - percentage of games won of total
01. .187. - 9T 9W 0L - 100%
02. Elite Comrades - 9T 7W 2L - 77.78%
03. Campire Fellowship - 19T 10W 9L - 52.63%
04. Titans Creed - 12T 8W 4L - 66.67%
05. Stalins Martians - 39T 28W 11L - 71.79%
06. L.B. - 8T 5W 3L - 62.5%
07. Syndicate - 10T 6W 4L - 60.0%
08. The Avengers - 17T 8W 9L - 47.06%
09. The League - 21T 9W 12L - 42.86%
10. The Ancients - 4T 3W 1L - 75.0%
11. Mortak Kombat - 19T 7W 12L - 36.84%
12. evoL - 7T 3W 4L - 42.86%
13. Victorious Secret - 6T 3W 3L - 50.0%
14. Art of War - 9T 2W 7L - 22.22%
Now if we take these stats and re-order them by the win percentage...
100% - .187.
77.78% -Elite Comrades
75.0% - The Ancients
71.79% - Stalins Martians
66.67% -Titans Creed
This is the result. Now the problem is to stop a clan from getting 100% by just winning a single coalition war. Instead of the original maximum set that stifles coalition wars, lets set a minimum. This makes it so there is an ample sample for the percentages to even out to what they really should be like, and encourages coalition wars since there isn't a max you can have, just have as many as you want. Coalitions have 3 whole months, 10 games isn't nearly enough, you can get that in a week.
The minimum number of coalition wars to be ranked on the season list should be 25. The sample is large enough to create an accurate ranking and you can increase your percentage by having more coalition wars after your 25. Yes 25 CWs is pushing it, however the point is to encourage as many CWs as possible, so a high goal is a good choice. An ambitious choice.
Summary and Final Solution
- Season limit changed from 10 maximum, to 25 coalition wars minimum
- To create a good sample, you need the full 25 CWs to be ranked
- You can still have more coalition wars to increase ranking/percentage after the 25 are done
- Win percentage out of total games per season used as marker, not competence.
You have a full 4 days, I can only hope changes are made.
- To create a good sample, you need the full 25 CWs to be ranked
- You can still have more coalition wars to increase ranking/percentage after the 25 are done
- Win percentage out of total games per season used as marker, not competence.
You have a full 4 days, I can only hope changes are made.
[All info is at the time of posting, 27.8.2013]
|
The only way it has a chance of working is to reset competence season by season, which is mentioned in other threads, but by doing that you are then favouring the strong clans and only a few will be able to win each season, so it isn't a good option. If you 'scale it down' then by how much? Scaling competence variation down isn't the answer. I like Ivan's unlimited season, however I wouldn't want sheer number of games to win the season. for example winning 20 losing 30 beating winning 12 losing 7 or something.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
I like Desu's proposal because it is simple. And usually if you have to keep adding on to something to make it work it might be a flawed. But let just throw out ideas still. SM did around 50 cw's last season. Let's say if you weight the current cw point system at 80% less, a win from SM vs CF would give you 46 points (instead of 34) and a win from CF would give them 54 (instead of 72). Then you have each cw played give an additional 5 points and take the best 10 CW's for the season. Someone else take the baton and run with this. That's all I got to offer.
---- He always runs while others walk. He acts while other men just talk. He looks at this world and wants it all. So he strikes like Thunderball.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
It's always nice to be throwing ideas around but if we are to implement changes in time for the next season, I really think that the most thought out and most viable one so far is the one proposed by Desu. However, a lot of people are pointing out that the minimum limit is too ambitious. I think this little problem can easily be addressed by changing the set minimum games based on the average rank of the top ten ranked players in a clan. The reason for averaging the rank of only the top ten ranked players would be to prevent abusing this system as clans could mass invite low ranked players into their clans so that they are able to play less games. For example, clans that have an average rank of 8+ among their top ranked players would have to play 25 games before they are eligible for the season. On the other hand, clans that have an average rank of 7 and lower would have to play 15-20 games only before they are eligible (note that the numbers can change accordingly). This way, clans that are comprised with lower ranked players do not need to worry about fulfilling the original season requirements before they can be a competing clan for the season. This is just a small optional addition to Desu's idea that I thought would help if the sheer number of games is the reason to why this is being halted.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
You should support it on the merit of the idea rather than just because its Desu, if it was a new player with this idea then I would still support on the strength and value that it will bring to this side of AW <3 Also I think that the ideas proposed for the minimum games based on rank is interesting, as I said previously you want to avoid a situation where sheer number of games can win you the season.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Firstly, I strongly support the idea of encouraging CWs by creating a minimum number of games required to rank in the season (25 might be a bit much for smaller coalitions, but y'all can find a good number). If I understand everyone's concerns correctly, the root problem boils down to the need for balance between two opposing ideas. The two ideas are as follows: (1) Low-ranking coalitions should be rewarded for beating high-ranking coalitions (similar to the ELO system). (2) High competence coalitions should not be disadvantaged to place competitively in the CW season rankings. This discourages well-established coalitions to continue their involvement in CWs. It also discourages well-established coalitions to continue their existence, considering they could form a new coalition and place higher than if they had remained in their Alma Mater. I think I have a suggestion that satisfies both goals and builds on Desu's proposal. My suggestion is to weight coalition points on a single season's statistics (win %) instead of a moving average of competence. All coalitions would be sorted by win % at the end of a season. Coalition points are to be awarded at the END of the season. The most coalition points are to be awarded to the coalitions that win a CW against a coalition who is highest on the sorted list. Conversely, the fewest coalition points are to be awarded to those who win a CW against a coalition who is lowest on the sorted list. This accomplishes both goals. (1) If a low-ranking coalition beats a coalition that is high on the list, they will be strongly rewarded. (2) A high-ranking coalition will not be disadvantaged by their high competence and rankings are mostly based on win percentage. Note also that this system makes it more difficult to farm CP from a dummy coalition, because the CP awarded will be negligible. Lastly, this system encourages CWs with coalitions who are achieving a high win % in their season, just as the current system does. Thoughts?
---- Åδîαßα┼îc [
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
SM just declined a cw with us today for the very reason of this faulty system. How can one get angry at clan leaders for declining for this very reason? i know i can't. BTW, the idea of a minimum required cws per season is ridiculous and is horrible 
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
It seems there is a renewed interest in saving competitive play. I'll bump this up because I believe it is the best solution for coalition wars. I honestly don't think there is a better one.
Yes, however my idea satisfies both, your idea just makes it more so.
Doing the calculations at the end of a season is a great idea, this is a suitable option for all parties involved if it is chosen. As I said at the top though, the original idea is the solution. More simple as well. Anymore support is welcome, and bumps to keep this topic up.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9967
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation? 
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
I looked at it and tried to reply but I get this: http://i.imgur.com/Fpy101x.png I can't even quote it to reply, and the quick reply doesn't show, and I don't believe it's locked. Edited your thread into the top but yeah, I can't reply. I support your thread even though it's be suggested a few times before(and shot down by mods since this would be "forcing" coalitions into it.).
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Well then i guess its locked , looks like the mods have closed minds on that idea, but ty for the support, well hope the cw system is improved
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
I think a rank 4 soved the great equation!This is the best CW system idea i have seen so far.Totally support! (not that my support matters for anything..but still)
----      
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
i just posted on the other forum, don't under or over estimate players by their rank
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Ld. Dark Knight Käyttäjä poistettu |
||||
sorry dude, i come in peace, ty for the compliment
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Ivan have you considered my suggestion? Giving more CP for wins against a top coalition (the list would be sorted by win %) will reward challenge for both sides. Also, if coalitions are ranked by the average number of CP won, then you don't need a minimum or maximum amount of games per season. Coalitions would be free to war as much or as little as they please. Keep in mind that a good sample would be needed, because a coaltion that wins 2/2 wars would be 1st on the sorted list but may not represent the strongest clan. Cheers!
---- Åδîαßα┼îc [
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Coalition Wars - VRIL - 28.01.2012 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2740&topicsearch=&page=1 Suggestions for Coalitions Wars - Pulse - 21.02.2012 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=2906 How to improve the Coalition System - ezzatam - 19.02.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7421 Simple changes for coalitions - Hugosch - 08.04.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=7833 Coalition War ranking alternatives? - V for Vendetta - 08.08.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9330 New CW System ; another attempt - The Tactician - 21.09.2013 - http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9967 i hope an admin if has the time, to go over all these, and see they are viable idea's
---- We are not the same - I am a Martian. We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Yes they do a great job of admin, don't you think?
---- Åδîαßα┼îc [
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Yes, I have considered it. Still don't like the percentage system. We are making changes to CW though, I will announce them in a separate topic shortly.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Thanks, went through them, distilled some interesting ideas, will post the decisions soon.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Great, I am looking forward to reading what y'all have come up with!
---- Åδîαßα┼îc [
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=10111
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Yea same,couldn't be bothered to take SS and post hue. Also remember seeing it in some other topics..
----
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
|
This is a bad idea, because a clan with 1 win and 24 defeats, will beat a coalition that has only played 24 games even if they win all of them.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
||||
Did you misread the whole thread by chance? Anyway, I still believe this is still the best potential system. Definitely better than the last 20 games system that this post spurred on. Now that it is proven that it's easy to get a larger sample size, I'd increase it from 25 to 30(or 35) CW's minimum. We have a huge amount of time, enough to get 100+ CWs a season if one tried. The bigger the sample size the better, a full 50 CW's would be ideal but it should be adjustable once the 30 minimum is tested for a season.
Ladataan...
Ladataan...
|
