Idea for the New CW season reform !

Hello everybody,

Once again unrest took place during the CW seasons.

But I have been thinking for a long time about a simple reform, maybe it was already thought in the past by another player, I don't know.

But why not quite simply, prohibit players from playing CW in another coalition, when they have already played 1 CW game with a coalition?
This prevents players from leaving X coalitions, to join X coalitions during the same season, that seems logical, doesn't it?

Or forbid them to join a coalition, when they have left their coalitions after having played at least 1 CW during a season.

When we leave a coalition, we have 48 hours before we can join a new one.
Why not wait until the opening of the new season? dead-line?

Maybe the CW seasons would be more existing to play this way for the participants?

Rather than playing, make it easier to open a new coalition one with a full elo and other players.

It could also give life to a system of player transfer, between seasons, instead of changing coalitions every month. This can greatly distort the final ranking.

I am not in the best position to talk about this, I agree, because I am not a player who practices a lot of CW.
But I think his ideas can do good for this 90-day game mode, it's not nothing for the players who participate seriously throughout the period.

I think it should be seriously discussed with the entire community of players participating.

Thanks for reading me ^^

Ofc i agree this cw must change at all, to be fair!

What we need is a representative from each of the coalitions (updated throughout the season). A majority vote from them can invalidate/erase ANY cw that they think is shady or unfair.

Obviously it is impossible to implement any serious rules about cws. So what we need is majority to determine which games are OK and which are not. In my opinion, if we had this system in place, last season would have turned out perfectly. All of the CWs mirage did would have been erased.

Edit:
Alternatively, we could have an independent body of players who are not competitive. Randomly selected active players from the scenario/RP community should determine which CWs should be erased if they think the game was bull shit. A majority vote from the representatives of the coalitions can bring a game to deliberation by the scenario/RP/world-map (i.e., non-competitive) decision-makers. How does that sound?

No, let's say I play 1 cw and then everyone on the coalition goes inactive, or they just don't wanna play with you. then i have to wait and entire season? no fucking way.

Kirjoittanut Tribune Aquila, 02.06.2021 at 10:11

What we need is a representative from each of the coalitions (updated throughout the season). A majority vote from them can invalidate/erase ANY cw that they think is shady or unfair.

Obviously it is impossible to implement any serious rules about cws. So what we need is majority to determine which games are OK and which are not. In my opinion, if we had this system in place, last season would have turned out perfectly. All of the CWs mirage did would have been erased.

Edit:
Alternatively, we could have an independent body of players who are not competitive. Randomly selected active players from the scenario/RP community should determine which CWs should be erased if they think the game was bull shit. A majority vote from the representatives of the coalitions can bring a game to deliberation by the scenario/RP/world-map (i.e., non-competitive) decision-makers. How does that sound?

Yes, make clan war season popularity contest as if we already don't have individuals wielding too much power be it through their good relationships or through their position...

Kirjoittanut Kame Sennin Taz, 02.06.2021 at 09:07

]Hello everybody,

Once again unrest took place during the CW seasons.

But I have been thinking for a long time about a simple reform, maybe it was already thought in the past by another player, I don't know.

But why not quite simply, prohibit players from playing CW in another coalition, when they have already played 1 CW game with a coalition?
This prevents players from leaving X coalitions, to join X coalitions during the same season, that seems logical, doesn't it?

Or forbid them to join a coalition, when they have left their coalitions after having played at least 1 CW during a season.

When we leave a coalition, we have 48 hours before we can join a new one.
Why not wait until the opening of the new season? dead-line?

Maybe the CW seasons would be more existing to play this way for the participants?

Rather than playing, make it easier to open a new coalition one with a full elo and other players.

It could also give life to a system of player transfer, between seasons, instead of changing coalitions every month. This can greatly distort the final ranking.

I am not in the best position to talk about this, I agree, because I am not a player who practices a lot of CW.
But I think his ideas can do good for this 90-day game mode, it's not nothing for the players who participate seriously throughout the period.

I think it should be seriously discussed with the entire community of players participating.

Thanks for reading me ^^

We already have stacked clans (be through quality or through quantity) and your solution is to bring rules that will make clans even more stacked.

Kirjoittanut Black Swans, 02.06.2021 at 11:23

We already have stacked clans (be through quality or through quantity) and your solution is to bring rules that will make clans even more stacked.

To avoid too many competitive players in the same coalition, it would be necessary to put a maximum number of players quite simply, 10 maybe?
This could result in quite a few very competitive coalitions for the season.
But I don't have enough hindsight in this area of play to say that this is a fair number of players.

Kirjoittanut Palmitas, 02.06.2021 at 11:15

No, let's say I play 1 cw and then everyone on the coalition goes inactive, or they just don't wanna play with you. then i have to wait and entire season? no fucking way.

I understand it can be frustrating if the members are no longer active in this area of play for the remainder of the season.
But in this case, it's up to you to make the right choice of coalition from the start of the season.
It's like in football, you can be transferred, the club tells you to sign that you will play x match but in the end that won't be the case, the player is blocked for a period, his would be exactly the same thing.

Kirjoittanut Kame Sennin Taz, 02.06.2021 at 13:03

Kirjoittanut Black Swans, 02.06.2021 at 11:23

We already have stacked clans (be through quality or through quantity) and your solution is to bring rules that will make clans even more stacked.

To avoid too many competitive players in the same coalition, it would be necessary to put a maximum number of players quite simply, 10 maybe?
This could result in quite a few very competitive coalitions for the season.
But I don't have enough hindsight in this area of play to say that this is a fair number of players.

Kirjoittanut Palmitas, 02.06.2021 at 11:15

No, let's say I play 1 cw and then everyone on the coalition goes inactive, or they just don't wanna play with you. then i have to wait and entire season? no fucking way.

I understand it can be frustrating if the members are no longer active in this area of play for the remainder of the season.
But in this case, it's up to you to make the right choice of coalition from the start of the season.
It's like in football, you can be transferred, the club tells you to sign that you will play x match but in the end that won't be the case, the player is blocked for a period, his would be exactly the same thing.

Can you see how that's unfair and punishes people for something out of their control, and makes people go with safe choices (ie reinforces stacking) and limiting number of players limits training of new competitive players

Hmmm i think you should encourage more cw plays and not discourage.
Not being able to join another coalition will obviously turn into less competitive coalition wars being played.

What if at the end of the season you had a list of total games participated or something like that by any player.
What you need to do is encourage plays and not discourage.

But main problem however is amount of players, if that increases most problems would fade away.

Kirjoittanut Black Swans, 02.06.2021 at 14:51

Can you see how that's unfair and punishes people for something out of their control, and makes people go with safe choices (ie reinforces stacking) and limiting number of players limits training of new competitive players

I'm not saying what I'm saying is right or wrong.
I think players have to stop wandering between coalitions indefinitely during the season, that's not a good thing, it's just not normal.
This is what is unfair for the players participating in it normally during a whole season:

Kirjoittanut Kame Sennin Taz, 03.06.2021 at 07:03

Kirjoittanut Black Swans, 02.06.2021 at 14:51

Can you see how that's unfair and punishes people for something out of their control, and makes people go with safe choices (ie reinforces stacking) and limiting number of players limits training of new competitive players

I'm not saying what I'm saying is right or wrong.
I think players have to stop wandering between coalitions indefinitely during the season, that's not a good thing, it's just not normal.
This is what is unfair for the players participating in it normally during a whole season:

I think it should be banned as a way of playing or proceeding.

There should have been no reward for this coalition and players.

Ship Of Theseus Should have taken 3rd place.

This is a real injustice.