We're actually ahead though, but that's not really the point of the thread Ralph.

There's several hypotheticals being discussed here, but there's no reason not to get ahead of them, since they would work. - Not saying I completely agree with Sephi's original statement, because he's trying to turn the competition into something solely skillbased, which was never the point; however I do not see any issue with finding middle grounds on several fronts, and especially because of the TLA case last season;

https://www.warzone.com/Clans/War?ID=1&Timeslot=28

For instance, TLA played 5 players on the Small Earth 1 Wasteland slot, only two of which got a game because of their low rating, the other three did not get a free win.

This, partially, because in the slots before, they got free wins that did not account for any rating. As a result it took forever for them to get to a normal position; this season they've started much quicker and they're already at 6 territories.

Free wins are more annoying at the bottom than near the top, but by using activity in the manner I spoke of earlier, it should prevent such issues.

By giving rating for free wins it'd also be solved.

There's no real point to them staying the way they are

Ralph of course these are hypotheticals, but its benefits are clear to see, especially if the games you play are not against the clans you are competing for top spot in.

If I got my parents to each make an account and each timeslot I join join the same slot as myself, and then let themselves boot, they could take the game with Python away from me and increase my odds of winning and also lower our war rating so longer term we aren't locked in a constant battle with Python every slot. This would not in any manner be against the rules (though some would claim they were just alts), but I definitely think goes against the point of the system and the spirit of competition. I am not saying this is something I would do, but any system where this is beneficial must be flawed.

What in fact surprises me is how high both our and Python's win rate is given we are matched together so often (and hence average 50% between us in those games).

"Also, masters, please stop whining.
This echo-chamber of a forum post you have created for yourself is comical at best, and expresses bad sportsmanship at worst. You complain about the rules and setup of Clan Wars only after you have fallen slightly behind."

I last calculated before I went to work earlier today and standings looked like this:




Mh actually had 1 more win, because when I screenshot that they had a game in progress, which they won shortly after.

Edited 4/9/2021 20:37:40

I am playing against players well below my skill bracket (https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=26481555). How do I fix it?

Edited 4/10/2021 16:00:23

Imo..folks on this thread are way over playing the intent of clan wars.. and, as such, this entire thread is a solution in search of a problem.. I hope fizzer doesn't make any changes to clan wars EXCEPT to open up even more available time slots to perhaps every 2 hours so participation can rise even higher..

You're right gollem ... I take back everything I said. lol (Actually not everything, still think RR at least 1 match every clan vs every other clan each season would be a good idea).

Everyone wants a way to more securely acquire the prizes, but you just need to accept that you need to play within the established rules. If you want to increase your chances to snag those prizes, get more clan members playing CW more often and winning more games. It's that simple.

I completely understand the content points here regarding Clan Wars.

But the question is simply what kind of competition Clan Wars wants to be. And as far as I can read from Fizzer's blogposts, Clan Wars is not supposed to be some kind of rt-CL. We're dealing with a casual format that is meant to show the value of clans, especially for idle players, and is not aimed at our little bubble of top strategic players. And that's exactly why the system was designed - probably with full intention - in a way that mainly activity decides about the position in the ranking. This was not so obvious in the first season, but it will become clearer as time goes on.

And I must say that the competition has achieved this goal. I don't think anything needs to be changed here. The format was designed this way on purpose and it is not a mistake.

Yeah, I also see Clan Wars as awesome the way it is. Dead mass clans aren't on top of the clan list any longer but clans with an active community. Basically Clan Wars connects Warzone classic with Warzone idle and a clan based competition. Previously especially idle and classic seemed to be lacking a connection.

Masters suggestions "coincidentally" aimed at making them unbeatable as of now also wouldn't be so nice for the general competition. "Coincidentally" TSFH doesn't seem to like that too much and also "coincidentally" I don't like the format Masters proposed either.

Edited 4/10/2021 20:03:04

Elitism intensifies.

CW is working just like Fizzer intented.

I don't see any harm in discussing the current rules, and what may or should be changed in some people opinion. It's not like the current rules are best imaginable, or are set in stone for whatever reason. The final say is still entirely up to Fizzer, and in case some valid points are brought up we may see some kind of improvements in the future.

That being said, some suggestions / issues mentioned are a bit weird. I get that some people feel some things are "unfair", or there is some room for tactical exploits, but given the nature of this event, and randomness / variety involved with timeslots, templates, etc. I'm not sure if they are that relevant.
(I stand by my previous suggestion, to make free win give some rating points)

Personally, I do believe the rules should favour bigger clans, with good participation rate, regardless of their rating; it's been kind of exciting to try to fight for the top despite lower numbers, and it should stay in somewhat similar way in the future.

Update on the free win situation current standings:

- Masters: 4
- M'Hunters: 2

Edited 4/11/2021 20:12:53

It's not exploiting the system if Masters is doing it @Norman.

We want the system to be unexploitable! (that's the whole point of this thread)
If people decide it isn't exploiting the system and it all works as fizzer intended then I don't see how that changes now...

If people decide it isn't exploiting the system

I'm not even judging here but I haven't read anyone striving for that consensus so far. Maybe all TSFH + M'Hunters free wins were accidents? My free win sure was unexpected at least. The other free win also wasn't that great of an outcome given that 3 players didn't get a game.

Edited 4/11/2021 20:55:09

It's 6 for masters, not 4. And they were 3 games on 2v2 final earth because there was no one else joined - if you want to prevent that free win all you have to do is join, while there's nothing for us to do to prevent tsfh getting free wins due to low rating.

What we are complaining about is rating making it impossible for us to interact with a lower rated clan even if it's tied with us on wins - and that would be easily solved by just matching using the number of CW wins, simple and clean.

Edited 4/11/2021 21:19:55

We're currently sitting between 2 div A clans with our rating, how can you say that's low?
Those are the opponents we're getting.

Yeah we're not facing Masters that often but you're making it sound like we're competing with TBA and Sabers and failing against them half the time.

EDIT:
And yeah, I've noticed how Masters always go for 2v2s to get the free wins.
We've tried to block them, occasionally successfully too, but it's not something that we can do alone.

Edited 4/11/2021 21:23:37

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether aspects are exploitable or not, but there does seem to be a majority of people saying we are whinging because we aren't winning. Much like how it is brought up how stalling makes the 1v1 ladder experience worse because of the way the rating system works, - I think holes in this system should also be brought to light so they can be debated and possibly fixed, that at least is my aim here.

@Kratt
We are in fact going for 2v2s because it appears to be the template where skill is most expressive and where we aren't matched against Python each time, when we would rather be matched with TSFH or MH, or simply clans that are not Python.
If my counting is correct, this season alone we have won 18 2v2 games, and lost only 5 (and 3 free wins). This huge win percentage (and the fact these wins are worth double), are why we stack the 2v2 template.

We did not know they reliably gave free wins if nobody joined until today, always removing our players from the 2v2 slots if there were no opponents lined up...

We are in fact going for 2v2s because it appears to be the template where skill is most expressive and where we aren't matched against Python each time, when we would rather be matched with TSFH or MH, or simply clans that are not Python.

Are you saying you actively avoid Python and try to farm noob clans on 2v2 to keep up with us and MH? :D

That's just... I'll leave it for others to decide what that is.

Edited 4/11/2021 21:55:58

My apologies I will reword that then:

We play 2v2s because that is where our win rate is highest, as stated 36-10 is much better than our overall average (taking into account the double worth).

You can try to say this is driven by two factors.
1) being good is most likely to lead to a win in this template (in comparison to SEAD or SE1W where picks can make the game a coin flip), whether that is against a noob clan or Python
2) it also appears that Python doesn't play, and in the 1v1s I feel like we go roughly even with them (though I have not looked at the head to head).

I believe that the main driver of our above average rate is 1), but I cannot deny 2) is likely to have some impact.

If you think choosing to play a template where your win rate is highest is some kind of scandal then I don't know how you expect us to choose what templates to play!