Again though, you're saying you play 2v2 because Python doesn't play it and you get some easy wins to keep up with other clans for the top spot.
You're actively avoiding the strongest clan and moaning at the same time that you can't beat up noob clans more effectively because the matchmaking system isn't built that way.

Just say how it is, CW means a lot to you and you're doing what it takes to win it.
Even if means dodging the strongest to farm the weak to keep up with the actives.

I will reiterate one last time in case I was not clear.
We play 2v2s because it is what we have the highest win rates on (personally I also find it more fun to interact with clanmates too than play around).
I think the main driver of that win rate is because of the template being more skill expressive.

Seeking your highest win rate template and most enjoyable is not equivalent to dodging a clan, though it is possible Python not playing the template is a factor is our high win rate.

You will never be clear enough with who doesn't want to understand hedja

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.

Again, this is a participation-based event. If you are in close competition with a lower rated clan, thats simply because you have played fewer games. Please try to play more games to match them on number of games played before you try to change the whole system.

Regarding to Python and Masters players avoiding each other on purpose. In Python the only instruction to its members is general encouragement to play. To imply we're avoiding certain players is rubbish.

In Masters scenario, they're behind on participation and must now become more effective in achieving wins. So it's not shocking if they're taking some "measures" to ensure easier opponent. These "Measures" takes work and co-ordination so if they're happy to go that far to win a participation-based event than so be it.

Is this a good thing? Depends on your perspective if this is "exploiting" or if this is "raising the game". I think it raises the game personally but highlights the advantage of participation because it's decisive.

---

I do find it unfortunate that Python are unable to compete with the other competitors as we just can't meet the participation levels the other clans have set. It's sad because I found S1 super fun but when you know the participation is going to prevent you from winning it usually means the clan won't be playing as hard which results in a net loss for CW in general. Other clans are also in the same boat.

The only change that could make Python (and these other clans) compete is making the first 200 wins let's say worth 1 win. Though any win after that would be worth 0.5. This change would reward participation but also place a emphasis on winning which I think there should be a element of it due to the nature of the game and that is a clan war competition.

OR

Enable your clan to submit a roster of 1-40 let's say. Let the top 15 on said roster.. There wins count as 1 and the others wins can only count as 0.5 throughout the duration of the season.

I do think that would give a better balance and would probably have a net benefit for all clans to compete harder and have great fun.

-1 trillion idea 1 of Plat
+1 idea 2 of Plat

If it's all within the rules, it's fair game. If it were truly an exploit, Fizzer would fix it. It might be argued that 2 consistent free wins from a missed 2v2 game is too big an opportunity to allow to continue as-is, is it places an emphasis on other clans to play a template they don't really want to just to avoid giving up 2 free wins to another clan. If a template isn't getting enough takers (this comment not specific to the 2v2 template), it should be removed. In general, if any given clan is getting more than a handful of free games, something needs to change (I'm not suggesting this is the case, btw). But if it were to change, I hope the change wouldn't be to eliminate free games altogether, b/c that doesn't seem like a good result either.

@Platinum
Not sure I follow your recommendations:

On the 'first 200 wins', what is the value in making the wins from games 200+ less valuable? Wouldn't that just make the final territories a really long tier? In the end a clan with low participation but high win rate (low P, high W) still can't overtake a clan with high participation but low win (high P, low W) rate without winning more games, and both are subject to the >200 half-value rule, so don't think it achieves what you set out for it to do, and not sure what this actually accomplishes. But maybe I've missed something?

As for 'top 15 in roster', I think I see what you're going for here ... and I think this would enable Low P, High W clans to compete with High P, Low W clans. But is this a good idea? Doesn't that go against the spirit of CW (generate high P in clans)? Instead of inspiring more participation, this evens the playing field in spite of varied participation. This could actually be detrimental to participation. It could deter participation beyond the first 15 in high P clans b/c players wouldn't feel they are actually adding much value, so why bother participating if their contributions aren't actually going to matter much? Either way, 50% seems way too much - would seem more reasonable with a lower %, or perhaps even a varied %. 100% for first 20 players, 80% for next 10, 60% for next 10%, 50% for next 10 (yes, we're going beyond 40 now), 40% for next 10 ... and never getting to 0%, but also never have a user cap. And it would apply to the first 20/30/40/50/60 won games in a day, not users. Games won by different players should have equal weight other than perhaps the order in which they were won. Don't put pressure on those 15 players to play every day. It's casual, spread it out so that just high participation regardless of who is participating still has meaning. So for example, if a clan has 200 players who all play on a given day and the clan wins 100 games in that single day (using a high numbers example just to facilitate the math): 20 wins are worth 100%, 10 wins are at 80%, 10 @ 60%, 10 @ 50%, 10 @ 40%, 10 @ 30%, 10 @ 20%, 10 @ 10%, 10 @ 5%, 10 @ 3%.

Not sure I like the second recommendation, but at least this tweak would still reward participation without diluting its value too much. Still think that recruiting more players to low P clans is the better option.

Many people here are talking about high participation etc....but you would need much bigger player base for that...and no system alone will really bring them here....but system can have some impact on current player base and their participation...
..at this point, not a single clan is even able to reach 30 daily participation, so there´s plenty of room to use more people for every single clan..but that just forces people to join few big clans if they want to compete for medals...or stay faithful to their clan but be demotivated by this system and rarely participate...(in other words this system may motivate for example tsfh members but demotivate members of most other small clans)...
..on contrary to many..I believe that limiting clans to fewer members (as well as daily participation) would support participation and variety in the end..15 players per clan for example..
..skill difference can be partly solved by rotating templates (only auto temlates on some days etc.)..

lol as for what Hedja is saying idk. We prefer 2v2s since it's a good template. But I just play whatever I like on the timeslot I'm on for. That's why I play a lot of MA as well since I just enjoy the multi-attack mechanic. Just play whatever you enjoy.

I am considering changes to the matchmaking algorithm, but I haven't quite decided what the best route to follow is yet. I appreciate the feedback and suggestions.

For the sake of Norman's sanity I'll be changing this to suggest it just be 100% random for pairings

Edited 4/13/2021 07:19:39

have it prioritize matching players with players from other clans that have the same number of territories on the map.

Dude Splat, don't jump on that. That was a suggestion coming from MASTER Clan who are aware that this would lock in a certain win for them. For us ordinary folk this is the worst suggestion ever.

For the sake of Norman's sanity I'll be changing this to suggest it just be 100% random for pairings

Random is not great. RR + Late season ladder is better, I think.

Master's complaint was that they keep getting paired to the same clan (Python mostly) with little variation, which happens b/c it's rating based and not based on CW standing (# of territories), this may or may not be the team directly competing with them based on # of territories, so while 2-3 clans may be vying for top spot, they may not actually play games against each other. Mostly based on win rate vs participation rate. But pairing vs CW standing would also end up keep pairing against the same clans as well.

Random would solve that but then the matches are completely non-strategic and luck of pairings becomes a factor.

I recommend an RR early season and CW Standing Ladder-ish RR algorithm.

EARLY SEASON:
Use RR, each clan plays each clan, makes it fair and so no clan is constantly getting paired up against the same clans over and over, regardless of # of territories or ratings. So it's not weak vs weak & strong vs strong, it's just everyone vs everyone.

LATE SEASON: (Only 25% of territories remaining)
You are prioritized to be matched against clans within 3 ranks either direction of your CW standing (and if there's no room Up, the range Down gets extended, so 1st place is matched within 6 ranks down, 2nd place matched within 1 Up+5 Down, 3rd place is 2 Up+4 Down, 4th place and after is 3 Up+3 Down), and RR throughout that range. So you're still not always getting paired against the same clans.

RR in all cases is simply priority, algorithm tries to enforce it where possible, never a guarantee. If those matches are available, it pairs those up with priority, but never skips giving someone a match b/c the best RR pairing isn't available.

Edited 4/13/2021 15:51:38

You guys are overcomplicating something that really is that trivial just for the sake of having a say

@Sephiroth
We (everyone who has posted "overcomplicated" solutions) disagree that your "simple solution" is actually a good solution, hence the more detailed solutions. Simple is only good if it meets the need, and yours doesn't.

@krinid:

Masters current Elo: 279.85
TSFH current Elo: 141.61

Every clan has a specific Elo range. Python is usually fluctuating around 320, Masters around 270, M'Hunters around 200 and TSFH is the lowest of the big four.

Type in Masters and TSFHs current Elo here here http://sandhoefner.github.io/chess.html and you get an expected win rate of 31% for your clan against Masters. Any matchmaking based on territories would transform the race to the crown into a 2 way battle between Python and Masters with M'Hunters being the third underdog and TSFH getting farmed as much as possible. I understand Masters arguing for that but I have my issues with us ordinary folk jumping on that wagon.

The other question is also whether our more cassual clanmates would keep up their high participation knowing that Masters or Python are aiming to snipe games against them.

Edited 4/14/2021 06:23:37

It's not 'masters' arguing for that. 'masters' for the main part just disagree how free wins are handled.

@Norman
A chilling analysis! Thanks for spelling it out plainly. The "getting farmed as much as possible" part was a nice tough. (I'm being serious, not sarcastic).

@MoD
Isn't that Seph's recommendation, a matchmaking switch so it pairs just as Norman indicates by # of territories instead of ELO?

The simple solution
Since number of wins is the only value that matters towards Clan War victory, that number itself is the value that better expresses performance and, hence, the one that should be used for matchmaking.
With the other artificial rating, the system will always reward clans like TSFH and MH.

Or do you mean Seph recommends that but the rest of Masters isn't necessarily in agreement with that recommendation?

I think everyone is in agreement that Free Wins should affect rating.

Hey, we PKU58ers ranks #5 and have several impressive wins against Master and Python. I think we deserve some attention :)

Just joking. Let us come back to our main story - our clan also experienced a period when our rating was very low and the best players were kept assigned with free wins (especially in 2v2). But we really didn't want to take advantage of this, and we decided to stop registering for 2v2 for a while and improved our rating to >100 with 1v1 games. I agree that matchmaking algorithm has some problems - one simple suggestion: stop assigning free wins, but allow the players to register for the next slot. This was exactly what we wanted when we had a low rating.

stop assigning free wins, but allow the players to register for the next slot

Unfortunately, the problem with this suggestion is many players may have occasionally time to register only for one slot, some can only register for the last one. Even if you make it so they can play 2 games next day, I don't think it's fair to waste their time they spent preparing for given timeslot.

The idea of weighted wins I don't agree with, as it makes it more difficult to understand the scoring from the new player perspective, and can cause some internal disagreement on who should play (and when) within clan. I would say it's important to keep it simple, 1v1 win one point, 2v2 win 2 points, done.

The matchmaking can be somewhat complex, as it's not clrearly visible to the players, it's enough if they know it's fair. I still think it should reward participation, as it did so far, and match clans mainly based on rating.

It would be great if we could avoid situations like mentioned earlier:

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.

Another thing that I personally would like to see, is to have free wins somehow distributed more evenly (percentage-wise), as I mentioned before. If there is going to be slight change in matchmaking, that still keep the aspect of "rewarding participation" as priority, and distribute free wins slightly more "fairly" as a side effect, I'm all for it.
(btw. I don't think and never said that TSFH are having too many free wins, there are few clans with higher % of their games resulted in free wins)

---

Completely different idea, that I did not thought through yet, and maybe it's complete rubbish - how about getting game vs AI instead of free win? Possibly with some buffs for AI, scaled depending on the clan rating.
It's not great solution, but still better than free win in my eyes, at least people get to play something.