I'm afraid you're completely missing the point Ralph

Shouldn't the goal of CW matchmaking be more of a round robin style affair? Try to best pair up all clans vs all clans.

This isn't a typical single or double elimination tournament where teams are eliminated until it's down to a Team 1 vs Team 2 head to head final match, but rather a comparison of a clan's performance over the entire season. The algorithm should try to team up clan matches that haven't played yet. Nor it is a ladder, nor should it be treated as one. It's not the same people playing everyday. The idea of a "clan ELO" is kind of odd tbh, b/c obviously there's a huge variation in skill, particularly in the "less elite clans". If Ursus is TSFH's best CW player, I'm likely down in the middle or bottom somewhere, so applying an average ELO to either of us is misleading and bound to lead to poor matches. Same problem for other clans. Instead, just make it round robin, every clan rotates as best as possible playing matches with every other clan.

An example for the matchmaking: if in the current season there have already been 10 Masters vs M.Hunters matches & 10 M.Hunters & TSFH matches played, but only 5 Masters vs TSFH, and both Masters and TSFH are in the queue, it should prioritize making that happen.

The only way to "manipulate" the matches in this case is to opt out of queueing for matches if you want to avoid getting paired against someone in that queue - but you can't see that, and if you're opting out of playing, then you've already lost and you're only hurting your own clan.

The prime driving force here should be participation. Get more players in each clan playing in slots each day, because over time you'll be paired up against EVERY clan, which will on aggregate determine your success.

Edited 4/9/2021 14:23:12

....

I'm afraid you're completely missing the point Ralph

my bad.

You had played 43 games less than TSFH at the time when you posted the first post in this thread. 164 vs 207.
That is 79.22% of TSFH's games. You were 5 wins behind and had a winrate of 63%. 43x0.63=27. Had you played the same amount of games as them and performed on your own average then you wouldve been 22 wins ahead of TSFH. If you had performed on TSFHs average winrate (51%) you wouldve been 16 or more wins ahead.
The problem is NOT that TSFH are getting free wins or that they are getting easier opponents. The problem in this scenario is that Masters dont play enough games.

But what do I know? Maybe complaining about the matchmaking, instead of doing whats necessary to win, is the mature solution to losing a competition.

Edited 4/9/2021 15:32:55

Filthy casuals able to compete, unheard-of!

Regardless of why this thread was made, free wins should count as wins for the rating.

If they don't, the same clans will always get the free wins, and that opens up the opportunity to abuse the system if you play it smart.

Besides that, taking wins into account when matchmaking can be done to let the top clans play each other more only punishes those who are very active and not Div A good, so thats a bad idea.

Using player ELO instead of clan ELO, would just turn CW into a terrible version of the ladder, so that doesn't seem to be the solution either.

Regardless of why this thread was made, free wins should count as wins for the rating.

If they don't, the same clans will always get the free wins, and that opens up the opportunity to abuse the system if you play it smart.

You couldn't abuse the system if it's constantly trying to round robin matchmake you with clans you haven't been matched up against.

Using player ELO instead of clan ELO, would just turn CW into a terrible version of the ladder, so that doesn't seem to be the solution either.

100% agree. CW is meant to be casual fun & to garner clan participation. Player based ELO would achieve the opposite. It'd make clan leaders benefit from mandating who is permitted to represent in CW, denying weaker players a chance to play. Or maybe with the current matchmaking system it'd encourage both very strong. Higher participation should continue to be the main force being success. Play more, win more, get better results.

Many have said it already ... there are already strategic competitive options. CW isn't one of them. It's for quick fun aimed at making clans great again -- I'm being dramatic with that statement, but there's also some truth to it. Some clans are likely getting activity boosts b/c of CW. I think it's a great addition to WZC, and has intelligently targeted a facet of WZ that hasn't been done already in the form of ladders, clan league, tournaments, etc. Part of what makes it great is that it's materially different than everything that's come along so far, and it also stimulates clan activity for the masses and not just the hardcore strat players.

Edited 4/9/2021 14:50:48

CW shouldn't round robin, since that would take away any fun whatsoever.

The top 20 clans would have played each other in 20/6 = about 4 days . After that, there are 80 clans with players that don't know how to play, or play so bad it becomes a matter of autopilot. (If they dont get booted in the first place.) I think the current system with ratings works fine, it should just count free wins as a win.

Just change the name to "Clan Race" and everything is fine.

CW shouldn't round robin, since that would take away any fun whatsoever.

How so? Don't agree with that. I think we agree that player ELO ruins the goal of CW, but doesn't enforcing clan ELO on a player also result in random matches (skill-wise) = taking away the fun? The best player in an average clan will primarily get paired up with players he can beat, and the worst player in that same average clan will get paired up with players that he primarily loses to.

I say at least start the season with RR by making every clan play every clan, and perhaps as the season heats up or winds down, pit the top 33% of clans against each other more often, but never to the point where it's just focusing on a clan vs clan rivalry.

Edited 4/9/2021 14:58:27

It is ok to have a participation event like this. My beef is that we asked for clan ladders for years and this was the roll out. I don't care that we have a non competitive format, but not at the expense of a legit clan ladder system.

CW may be a fun, non competitive event (although it clearly is) but the points raised are valid when it has an impact on both rewards and clan positioning on the clans list.

Personally I think free wins should be scrapped altogether. You don't get a game, tough. Try again later.

My main gripe is that I'm seeing a lot of well established strategic clans being dumped down on the clans list.

Clan rating should dictate the positions on this list not the mess it currently is.

In my eyes, as others are saying, this is not meant to be the next clan league, and I think it has definitely led to more activity, discussions within clans and people joining clans, all good things!

The point I would like to emphasise is that this is also not just a casual event either with no ramifications (eg like QM), as there is clearly value ascribed to coins and Idle rewards and also to being higher up the clan list for recruiting and egotistical purposes. I have not calculated the dollar value for a clan coming first, but I would not be surprised if it was well above $100 given the Idle powers that come with it for each player.

For that reason it feels like that the mechanism which decides who comes top should have some competitive standing to it, and that those competing for the top prize should be able to compete directly with each other to decide who comes first.

Of course, even if you were to match based on wins, it is not like all of TSFH's games would be against Master or MH - but it means if we were in the same slot we would play them rather than us playing Python, ONE or some other clan and then TSFH or MH playing a much lower rated clan.

The key issue in my eyes is that for MH and TSFH, if a player cannot commit the time to play a game on a specific day, they are incentivised to join and instantly surrender to keep their rating low and away from Masters. Likewise, as Norman said, in games against Masters or Python you can also argue it is worthwhile for them to surrender as a win would boost their rating significantly, which would probably lead to more losses for the clan in the future.
Any system where there is significant value in coming first should not incentivise joining games to surrender them so that your clan wins!

Clan Wars is taking away the drama of Clan League :O

The key issue in my eyes is that for MH and TSFH, if a player cannot commit the time to play a game on a specific day, they are incentivised to join and instantly surrender to keep their rating low and away from Masters.

First I have heard of that.

The point I would like to emphasise is that this is also not just a casual event either with no ramifications (eg like QM), as there is clearly value ascribed to coins and Idle rewards and also to being higher up the clan list for recruiting and egotistical purposes. I have not calculated the dollar value for a clan coming first, but I would not be surprised if it was well above $100 given the Idle powers that come with it for each player.

For that reason it feels like that the mechanism which decides who comes top should have some competitive standing to it, and that those competing for the top prize should be able to compete directly with each other to decide who comes first.

Fair ... but wouldn't the same principle apply to raffles? Free coins & WZI powers ... so should raffles be skill based too? <-- Ok, not a serious comment, just being facetious.

Your point is valid (but be careful, b/c one solution to that problem is to just remove the prizes, and don't think anyone wants that either) ... so how about starting with an early season RR, where up until 50% (or 75% or some other %) of territories are allocated, all matches are straight up clan RR matches. This is fair - everyone plays everyone, rankings based on winnings in that distribution. After that, it assigns matches based on the order of # of territories & wins, and prefers a matchup within 1 or 2 ranks above or below your clan. You still go up down in the list and so you are still in the running, but now you're pitted against those who are more directly competing for the prizes, and you can never realistically overtake another clan without being paired up against them.

I think this would work well.

HOWEVER ... is that enough? Or is anyone thinking that even a "play off" phase is required beyond this? Once the "regular season" has ended, the playoffs start where other clans can still participate for standings in the list below the top 3 (or top 5, whatever), but the top X spots now enter into a special rules arrangement where maybe even clan picks 3 players, take turns voting the template to play on, then battle it out for the top prizes? It's a pretty big departure from the casual CW but seems like people are getting tunnel vision on those prizes, and maybe something like this could be a good final, and also be a good social event. But it still all starts with getting good clan participation to get high # of games played/won to be in the final standings for the playoffs.

SIDE NOTE:

The key issue in my eyes is that for MH and TSFH, if a player cannot commit the time to play a game on a specific day, they are incentivised to join and instantly surrender to keep their rating low and away from Masters.

First I have heard of that.

Same - was not aware of this. Also have yet to receive a free game.

Of course not suggesting to remove the prizes, was more that despite it being much more relaxed, which is rightly what people are highlighting about it, there is some reason to care that the system is "fair".
The current matchmaking system is not really "unfair" as such, I think that free wins do not give rating increase is a much more important issue, and the way free wins are potentially distributed to clans in the race for first, but it is something where the community bouncing ideas around could lead to some improvements given the gaps it currently creates.

The Round Robin idea sounds like it could be a good idea, though I guess it could be harder to implement than some other methods, and with changes in matchmaking through the season could lead to confusion. I don't think a play-off would be required though, just a regular season is fine and it prolongs seasons where not everyone can play every day, which I feel is the focus here for Fizzer.

The idea of losing to Masters or Python is one which Norman explained on the last page, ie winning a game against a highly ranked clan is actually bad for your clan because it will take you say 3 losses to get back to your clan rating (because your rating is now too high), so you go 1-3 instead of your expected 2-2 against clans at your rating.

The instant surrender point is that if you aren't going to play a game on a specific day because of other commitments, and your clan is middle of the pack in terms of rating (so not quite applicable for a clan like Python or Masters), then losing a game which otherwise would not have been played is beneficial for your clan as a whole because it lowers your rating, so your future games are easier, hence increasing your odds of winning future games. The key here being that you would not have played otherwise, because this type of activity benefits all of the players who play and try to win. Imagine Masters had our normal 25 or so players, but then also 15 accounts who instantly surrender a game every day - our rating would be much lower than what it is now, so the 25 active players would get easier games (not Python), and have a higher winning percentage, increasing our total wins.

This is the key problem with the current rating system, that having 15 accounts surrender every game each day impact our matchmaking so that we do better than we would otherwise seems flawed in my eyes.

This is the key problem with the current rating system, that having 15 accounts surrender every game each day impact our matchmaking so that we do better than we would otherwise seems flawed in my eyes.

Is this actually happening or is it just theoretical? I mean ... losing 100% of 15 games seems like a losing strategy. That's 15 wins given to some other clan(s) ... how viable is this strategy? Throwing 15 games, potentially to the clan you're trying to win to hopefully win those games back in the future just to break even, then continue winning to overtake the clans you were trying to avoid, all while they keep on playing & winning.

This is theoretical, but totally a winning strategy as i see it.

I dont see the point of this discussion. You are all mentioning hypotheticals that, judging by MHs and TFSHs statements, have yet to come into play.

Fact of the matter is that Masters have around 80% of the games that TSFH and MH has, and that doesn't constitute a win or even competing for the top spot. At least not in a participation-based competition.

Edited 4/9/2021 19:32:41