Suggestion: Clan war points according to size

Joined
January 5, 2019
Posts
322
This has been suggested many times: give clan points according to how many people clan war.

Currently you can get a 3v3 and get the same amount of points as you would if you had a 10v10

For example:
3v3 = 2 points
4v4 = 3 points
5v5 = 4 points
6v6 = 5 points
etc

This would encourage larger clan groups and probably more clan wars.
 
Last edited:
Joined
February 3, 2019
Posts
285
Location
Germany
Yes, I agree.


There's one downside: smaller clans would have a disadvantage.


And one more thing to consider: What happens if you lose a 10vs10 match? I mean the winner would receive ~ 10 points, but what happens to the loser team?


Scenario 1: Loser team loses ~ 5 points (basically the number of points taken from you depends on the size of your clangroup)
People might hesitate to play with large groups, because they might risk a lot of points.


Scenario 2: Loser team loses 1 point (which would be equal to 3vs3-losses)
Clans with a large amount of members would just play 10vs10 matches and if they just win a fraction of the game they'd still end up with a good amount of points, thus giving large clans with bad players an advantage over smaller clans with skilled players.


Imo scenario 1 sounds better.
 
Last edited:

User
Joined
February 24, 2019
Posts
55
What if clan wars adopted the ladder system and all clans start with 1200 Elo rating? Because the current point system encourages padding/win-trading due to the +2/-1 gain/lose. And the more players involved, the larger the rating gain/loss. Just an idea to prevent abuse scenarios because I remember some of the top clans in the old days doing this.
 

Feature Tester
Joined
January 31, 2019
Posts
383
Location
New York City
This idea sounds familiar, hmm not sure where I heard it.
But yes p good idea.
In response to to Zylinder, losses should deduct 1 point no matter the the match size. This way, both clans can be motivated to earn a large amount of points, but should be too worried about a loss because they are only losing 1 point.
 

Sky

Tournament Director
Joined
January 1, 2019
Posts
290
Elo rating, you referencing to something like league?

For example:
3v3 = 2 points
4v4 = 3 points
5v5 = 4 points
6v6 = 5 points
etc
Nah, like Zyl said it would be unfair to smaller clans like mine that can't get large clan war groups. Instead, we increase points by size range.
Size 3-4: 2 win points; 1 lose point
Size 5-6: 3 win points; 2 lose points
Size 7-8: 4 win points; 3 lose points
 

zen

User
Joined
January 14, 2019
Posts
201
Location
VA
Elo rating, you referencing to something like league?



Nah, like Zyl said it would be unfair to smaller clans like mine that can't get large clan war groups. Instead, we increase points by size range.
Size 3-4: 2 win points; 1 lose point
Size 5-6: 3 win points; 2 lose points
Size 7-8: 4 win points; 3 lose points
I like this
 
Joined
January 5, 2019
Posts
322
C
What if clan wars adopted the ladder system and all clans start with 1200 Elo rating? Because the current point system encourages padding/win-trading due to the +2/-1 gain/lose. And the more players involved, the larger the rating gain/loss. Just an idea to prevent abuse scenarios because I remember some of the top clans in the old days doing this.
Could you explain what this Elo rating is?
 

User
Joined
February 24, 2019
Posts
55
Elo rating, you referencing to something like league?
Elo rating is ubiquitous across many competitive games that feature ladders, but yea, something like that. Just incorporate something that keeps top clans from point farming each other and balance out point gains from strong clans beating up on weaker clans. The constant increment of points doesn't exactly show which clans are stronger, it only signifies which clans have more active players doing cws.
 

User
Joined
February 24, 2019
Posts
55
Could you explain what this Elo rating is?
Just a system that assigns players a numerical value that represents their true skill level (sounds dumb ik) but it calculates point gains and losses for the players based on the difference between the ratings of the two players by calculating the % chance each player has to beat the other. The lower rating player obviously has a lower theoretical chance to beat the higher rating player. Therefore they steal more points when they win and lose less points when they lose and vice-versa for the stronger player. Over infinite amount of games of 2 players playing against each other, the points gained/lost should balance out to a net increase of 0.
 
Joined
February 3, 2019
Posts
285
Location
Germany
Just a system that assigns players a numerical value that represents their true skill level (sounds dumb ik) but it calculates point gains and losses for the players based on the difference between the ratings of the two players by calculating the % chance each player has to beat the other. The lower rating player obviously has a lower theoretical chance to beat the higher rating player. Therefore they steal more points when they win and lose less points when they lose and vice-versa for the stronger player. Over infinite amount of games of 2 players playing against each other, the points gained/lost should balance out to a net increase of 0.
Very interesting system. But implementing it would prove to be difficult. How do you measure a players skills?


Is it account age (because more experience = more skills)? People would create alts to use them for cw's.

Is it KD? People would use alts again or purposefully worsen their kd. Some players (for example: Spongebob) are quite skilled, but have a bad kd.


If you try to use the score for the skill-value it'd punish active players who participate in public matches and it's a bad measurement for skills too.


A mixture of all players stats might work, but it does sound complicated. Another possibility would be to use number of clan victories or even better: clan victories divided by number of cw matches.



It does seem possible to implement your cw idea. Its main advantage is you can tell which clan has the best skills (whereas our current clan systems mostly rewards the most active clans). But I just think it'd take a lot of time to create a decent scoring system and abusing is still possible with alternative / new accounts.

I'd rather focus on the "clan size = clan points" idea.
 

Pawn Tactics Moderator
Founding Supporter
Joined
January 11, 2019
Posts
396
Location
I wanna be in Tórshavn
Why have point deductions at all? I don't see why a losing team should have points deducted with this point system (I should be quoting a couple posts but I'm lazy)

If this would end up being the system, point deductions should not occur. As @Zylinderknopf stated, smaller clans would be punished for not having a lot of members, so I wouldn't compound that problem with penalties for losing
 

User
Joined
February 24, 2019
Posts
55
Very interesting system. But implementing it would prove to be difficult. How do you measure a players skills?
You are spot on with how we would have to measure skill. As of yet, the Elo system hasn't evolved all that much since when it was first implemented and we are still stuck with assigning every clan with a starting value (usually 1200). Then as each clan plays more against against other clans, their points will stabilize and fluxuate around a certain rating range. However, because clan wars are fought by different members of that clan from time to time, it gets really complicated (I can't name a game that assigns Elo to an entire clan/guild). So while it CAN be done, it will feel very inconsistent because it's hard to say the skill level of the clan group today will feel like that of the one playing tomorrow.

But yea, short answer: Elo is definitely doable but will feel misrepresented for large clans (unless it's only the same people from that clan doing all the clan wars, which for small clans it probably will be). It all comes down to preference I guess.
 
Top Bottom