The number of wins per additional territories: Is it 3, 6, 9, 12 etc?

I think so, yeah

Initially, Fizzer just displayed how many wins you need to win a new territory. Then he changed it so now it shows you the remaining number of wins you need, making it harder to work it out. So, yeah my best guess is that it's 3N.

Edited 3/18/2021 12:24:26

My clan is playing against TSFH players only for the past 4 time slots. Any reasons for that?

Probably really close clanratings (relative to the availabe other clans)

TSFH 108
Excel 83

So, yeah my best guess is that it's 3N.

You can also work it out from the wins associated with clans' territories on the map, although they seem to exclude free wins.

Python's territories took 3 (Southeast US), 5 [at least 1 free win] (Gulf Coast), 8 (Eastern Great Lakes), and 12 (Western Great Lakes) wins.
MASTER's territories took 3 (Victoria), 4 (South Australia), 8 (South New Zealand), and 11 (New Southwales) wins.

TSFH's 3 territories took 3 (Southern Mesoamerica), 6 (Colombia), and 8 (South Mexico) wins.
101st is 3/5 [at least 1 free win]/8
Excel is 3/6
VIW is 3/6
TLMS is 3/6
Vikinger is 2 [at least 1 free win]/6
FCC is 3/6

I think the formula is less than 3N. It seems to be 3, 6 for the first two. Third is at least 8. Fourth is at least 12.

EDIT: I'm an idiot. I counted players, not wins, the first time. Fixed the numbers. Seems like they're still wonky because free wins are missing.

Edited 3/18/2021 18:47:28

Excel never got a free win.

Regarding the inconsistent numbers, it might be fizzer updating things in between slots, so different reqs might have been active for different slots

The inconsistent numbers were just human error on my part. I counted the players, not wins. There's still some minor confusion because it seems free wins do not get listed (e.g., for Python's 2nd territory it lists 6 players and only 5 games).

We have had no free wins - Remember there will be less "View Game" than winning players if it was via a 2v2.

Ah I also didn't account for that. So it's probably consistent across clans, then, and probably 3/6/8/12 for the first four.

but why is that 8 not a 9?

i got a free game :)

I am going to try it out today, but as I understand the game mode it highly favors activity and not skill. As I understand it, when there are no more territories the season just ends. That makes it a race. It should end at a set time, like seasonal ladder and if you beat a clan and there are no open territories, you should take one from the losing clan.

Also, I agree with Buns. LD is not good in RT games. I don't like Multi Attack either. Anything that requires a ton of micro in RT isn't good.

So we are 10-3 and have 2 territories, but another clan has a losing record and has 8, just because they have a ton of people playing. LOL

Yes, Chris, it's a casual competition that rewards activity as much as (or more than) skill.

Clan War Rating is more up your alley if you want a representation of how good the clans are in terms of skill. If you have Muli's Userscript, the Search box (on the Clan tab) sorts clans by Clan War Rating. Here's the current top 25:

1. MASTER Clan - 309.72
2. ONE! - 297.88
3. Python - 282.21
4. FCC - 230.68
5. M'Hunters - 195.6
6. [Blitz] - 195.5
7. [WG] - 192.82
8. |GG| - 181.25
9. [V.I.W] Very Important Weirdos - 176.43
10. PKU58ers - 172.4
11. {101st} - 157.59
12. Vikinger - 153.91
13. HAWKS - 150.88
14. French Community - 147.08
15. Lu Fredd - 146.93
16. Discovery - 146.92
17. CORP - 144.97
18. Varangian Guard - 141.19
19. German Warlords - 124.06
20. SNinja - 123.92
21. Twelve - 112.86
22. Flunky Fizzers - 110.18
23. ズKING - 109.1
24. <--The Avengers--> - 108.25
25. Two Steps From Hell - 88.07

As you can see, this captures both the losses of TSFH and the quality of your clan's wins. If you're looking for a decent-enough clan ranking by skill, Clan Wars has that too. Although there's some noise and whatnot (due to template selection, different participation rates, etc.).

Clan War Rating is not the official ranking mechanism for Clan Wars but imo that doesn't matter. Clan Wars' official rankings are associated with rewards and it makes sense from a participation perspective that Fizzer would give rewards for activity rather than simply skill. We can just unofficially use the Clan War Ratings to rank clans if skill ranking is what we're interested in.

Your clan played 13 games in 2 weeks, and you complain you did not beat one that played 253 games and scored 123 points??

I have the impression this event was designed to encourage participation more than everything. Think of it as a different kind of competition, that rewards both numbers/activity and (after certain point more) quality too.
There is a 40 player cap, so it's not like the best way is just to get as many members as possible, and this allow middle size clans to somewhat compete for the top.

Small clans do have big disadvantage, but what kind of change would be necessary to make it even and fair? Whatever that is, once you introduce it, clans will most likely have some incentive to cut off some people from playing, which is not the point of the event I would say, and would make it again more difficult for the event to run smoothly.

I am going to try it out today, but as I understand the game mode it highly favors activity and not skill.

Skill is basically irrelevant since the matchmaking algorithm pairs clans of equal quality. Since we have very active clans which are probably better / equally good as WG, also WG would end up with a 50% win rate once it reaches its proper Elo. I also doubt that TSFH has a really negative record. If your whole goal is to gain as many territories as possible (and nothing else), then 90% of your success is just participation. However you can get a slight edge by trying to get as many games below your clans Elo as possible. Games against lower ranked clans are more important since if you lose, you lose a lot of Elo and if you win, you don't gain much Elo. You could do so by letting your clan collectively pile into templates where you don't expect the top clans to overly participate. That way maybe 2 players get an equally rated opponent clan while for the remaining guys only lower ranked clans are available. As I looked over some timeslots, it kinda seemed to me like Python were either not too fond of strategic 1v1 or maybe were avoiding Masters there... What might seem counterintuitive but wins are actually a complete non factor for almost all clans.

Edited 3/29/2021 21:20:12

Actually we intentionally picked mostly Auto distribution these past couple of timeslots because even based Fizzer believes we should win more than 50% of the time. Why bother playing a strategic template to prove it?

fizzer based!! pogchamp

i said what changes i think are good. allow clans to capture territories after they are all gone. so someone can race and color the map, but they still need to defend them against clans in their 'mmr'