Give clans a proper war ranking

To my understand the current system will calculate rank for each player based on what level of troops and building they have, and then assign a rank for the clan itself by adding up its member ranks. This sort of ranking is incomplete, because it doesn't take into account one important factor: Activity.

Victory is often determined by activity, rather than skill or strategy. Yes, one could always recruit more active players. But what happens to those who are left behind? Their fate is no different in the next clan, or the next, or the next. They are essentially denied participation in clan wars completely.

This game is filled with casual gamers. Casual gamers who can't play clan wars, because they are not active enough. SC is denying game content for many clashers due to incomplete ranking.

Rather than base it on what level of archer towers I have on my village, the ranking should be based on SUCCESS. Give clans are proper ELO ranking, which will divide the casual gamers from the hardcore. Everyone gets to play. ELO ranking is already in use in other parts of the game. Why not in clan wars as well?

Being a casual gamer should not mean that you get a lower ranking. One of the things that makes Clash such a great game is that you don't have to be hardcore to do well (below TH9, at least).

It seems like the only way to make clan wars more accessible to "casual" players is to expand the time allowed in battle and prep days. That would give casual players a bigger window in which to do their war-related things.

I wouldn't advocate either of these solutions. I think weight based on activity is easily abused (I actually have a clanmate who ONLY comes on to make war attacks and is inactive for the rest of the week) and lengthening the time for war would make it lose the excitement and drag everything out for active users.

It seems to me that a casual player is someone not fully invested in the game (not a value judgment) and, as such, does not get the full experience that an acitve player does.
They are doing this by choice.

This "problem" (which actually doesnt seem like a problem to me, but I'll treat it as such for the purposes of this discussion) could be solved by less active and more casual players by finding a clan that wars on a schedule that suits them.

Our clan wars every friday at a certain time. Everyone knows that they need to prep either friday evening or saturday morning and attack saturday afternoon or early sunday. If that schedule doesn't fit a player, they should (and can) find a clan that does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halko

This sort of ranking is incomplete, because it doesn't take into account one important factor: Activity.

Victory is often determined by activity, rather than skill or strategy.

Rather than base it on what level of archer towers I have on my village, the ranking should be based on SUCCESS.

---

So your proposal is to make the game harder for people who play regularly and easier for people who can't be bothered to participate when their clan elects to go to war?

Maybe we should also make it easier for players who can't be bothered to brew good troops for battle but like to use barch or lots of goblins instead. I, for one, would love to slack off, especially if the game were tailored to reward me for my lack of SUCCESS.

As for your comment on victory, you're wrong. Victory is most often determined by skill and strategy. Complete and utter failure is determined by inactivity.

I should have explained how ELO-ranking works.

It's a system originally developed for chess. But due to its widely accepted FAIRNESS, it is now used it various sports and games, including CoC itself. Our trophies are already based on ELO-ranking.

It's not about giving active clans a handicap. It's about fair grouping. If you're successful in war, your ranking goes up. And if you wage war poorly, your ranking goes down.

It is a ranking that encompasses everything. It includes how tough your base is, how advanced your troops are, your skill, your activity, everything..

A ladder system that groups casual players against other casual players, giving them a chance to participate. The current system pushes casual players away from clan wars completely.

ELO is considered one of the fairest ranking in large number of sports and games.

So if I'm in a highly successful clan with TH7-TH9 players, I'm going to potentially be matched up against a clan full of TH10's with max troops and heros? Isn't that punishing me for my success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halko

I should have explained how ELO-ranking works.

It's a system originally developed for chess. But due to its widely accepted FAIRNESS, it is now used it various sports and games, including CoC itself. Our trophies are already based on ELO-ranking.

It's not about giving active clans a handicap. It's about fair grouping. If you're successful in war, your ranking goes up. And if you wage war poorly, your ranking goes down.

It is a ranking that encompasses everything. It includes how tough your base is, how advanced your troops are, your skill, your activity, everything..

A ladder system that groups casual players against other casual players, giving them a chance to participate. The current system pushes casual players away from clan wars completely.

ELO is considered one of the fairest ranking in large number of sports and games.

---

Which would work if a clan size is fixed and unchanging. All of the examples you have cited for the use of Elo ranking doesn't have the added variable of different clan sizes. A clan that was successful at 25 vs 25 does not mean that it will be successful at 50 vs 50. Will a clan have a different Elo rank for each possible clan size?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharkyFinn

So your proposal is to make the game harder for people who play regularly and easier for people who can't be bothered to participate when their clan elects to go to war?

Maybe we should also make it easier for players who can't be bothered to brew good troops for battle but like to use barch or lots of goblins instead. I, for one, would love to slack off, especially if the game were tailored to reward me for my lack of SUCCESS.

As for your comment on victory, you're wrong. Victory is most often determined by skill and strategy. Complete and utter failure is determined by inactivity.

---

I agree.
.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alain686

Which would work if a clan size is fixed and unchanging. All of the examples you have cited for the use of Elo ranking doesn't have the added variable of different clan sizes. A clan that was successful at 25 vs 25 does not mean that it will be successful at 50 vs 50. Will a clan have a different Elo rank for each possible clan size?

---

Easily fixed, you apply ELO-ranking directly to players themselves. And keep adjusting it based on their performance during the war. Did they win or lose? Was their opponent ranked better or worse? After every match, the game calculates new ELO-ranking for both players.

Then add it all up on clan level. After that it would be no different from the current system when it comes to uneven number of members.

For the rest of comments:

Yes, it would make the game harder for you. Which is precisely as it should be. That is the whole purpose of ranking to find even opponents. If you perform well it wars, your rank goes up. Am I being totally unreasonable trying to find a fairer ranking system?

Good war clans are matched with other good war clans. Isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? To find even opponents? To separate the weak from the strong?

Nobody has said anything concerning them casual gamers. As if activity doesn't effect war results. Am I talking to players whose clan show up rate is 100/100? I am sorry to disagree with couple of you, but activity matters, and it matters a lot. The current system is strongly biased against the casual gamer.

Yes, because if there is one thing the game needs to introduce it is clan wars farming. Intentionally lowering clan wars ranking to get more favorable matchups in clan wars and take easy loot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halko

Easily fixed, you apply ELO-ranking directly to players themselves. And keep adjusting it based on their performance during the war. Did they win or lose? Was their opponent ranked better or worse? After every match, the game calculates new ELO-ranking for both players.

Then add it all up on clan level. After that it would be no different from the current system when it comes to uneven number of members.

---

This is how I would manipulate such a system, I would use my second attack against a lower ranked player and purposely lose. This is easy to do if the clan has already locked in the win. This will keep my ranking artificially low, i.e. the same thing that happens already with the trophy count system.

The only way I believe this would work is if there was STRONG motivation to move up in clan wars ranking. The clan wars loot is much better for higher ranking opponents. In a similar way that people would try to maintain trophies if the win bonus was much better rather than intentionally dropping to find easier opponents to pick on.

Mfender & Alain, I see your point. That would be a problem, and no doubt there would be other difficulties as well.

But keep in mind that moving up and down is slower in clan wars. You have that 48 hours waiting period. And as Mfender suggested SC could introduce a carrot for higher levels. Perhaps break clan wars into separate leagues (gold, crystal, masters...) and offer the winning clan a league bonus.

When I look at a fix, I first try to determine what is broken. What exactly is the problem you're trying to fix? You've stated:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halko

This game is filled with casual gamers. Casual gamers who can't play clan wars, because they are not active enough. SC is denying game content for many clashers due to incomplete ranking.

---

But this statement is, in fact, false. Casual gamers can play Clan Wars, same as anybody. The game doesn't have a minimum amount of activity in order to play, nor does it impose any kind of minimum on clans beyond having 10 players. So why do you think the existing system, based on an ever-increasing view of strength, needs to be changed to an easily manipulated system, based on an inaccurate estimation of success? What problem are you trying to solve?

I think what you're trying to resolve must be some kind of internal clan issue, because I'm just not seeing the problem.

Lol. Because there isn't already 5 new threads a day from people crying about unfair matchmaking. You want to propose an idea that would add the most specific criteria we've ever seen to also be added to the matchmaking calculations. LOLOLOLOL. So you want to bring the endless clouds of champion trophies to the clan war search now hahaha.

I have a solution for the casual players who are not fitting into CW... go join a casual clan!

What I would like to see in CW matchmaking is a more explicit/transparent ranking system. For instance, they could implement the badge system they use for trophies. Based on your base strength, attacking strength, and (maybe) CW success, you would fit into a certain badge category. i.e. Master 2.

Then you could know you will only be matched up with a clan within one badge rank of yourselves. Clans could get an idea of how they are progressing and why/when they might be receiving "unfair" matchups. Just a thought!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SharkyFinn

Casual gamers can play Clan Wars, same as anybody. The game doesn't have a minimum amount of activity in order to play, nor does it impose any kind of minimum on clans beyond having 10 players. So why do you think the existing system, based on an ever-increasing view of strength, needs to be changed to an easily manipulated system, based on an inaccurate estimation of success? What problem are you trying to solve?

I think what you're trying to resolve must be some kind of internal clan issue, because I'm just not seeing the problem.

---

Don't be dense. This is about fair ranking. Of course casual players can join clan wars, but that doesn't mean they should. Not if the system is biased against them.

Activity is a major factor in who wins and who loses. And the current ranking doesn't take that into calculation at all. ELO-ranking would count for it, as well as all the other little details that I can't even think about.

How many members have you kicked, because they didn't use both of their attacks in wars? Those players do play the game, but they don't play enough to be successful in clan wars. Where do they go? The situation will be no different in the next clan. They are not welcome. Will they form a clan by themselves? Yeah, that'll work out well for them. The only option they have is the quit playing clan wars completely.

And that is what I mean by SC denying casual gamers game content. If it's not fair, people wont play.

Of course there will be kinks to be worked out. No system is 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halko

Of course casual players can join clan wars, but that doesn't mean they should. Not if the system is biased against them.

How many members have you kicked, because they didn't use both of their attacks in wars? Those players do play the game, but they don't play enough to be successful in clan wars. Where do they go? The situation will be no different in the next clan. They are not welcome. Will they form a clan by themselves? Yeah, that'll work out well for them. The only option they have is the quit playing clan wars completely.

---

"The system is biased against them???" What system are you referring to? Clan Wars or the rules of my clan? You seem to have confused the game option of Clan Wars with the self-imposed rules of a back-to-back war clan. You do realize that there are literally hundreds of thousands of clans in this game, right? There are clans who fight back-to-back. There are clans who fight twice a week. Clans who fight once a week. Clans who fight only after a vote of the members. Some who fight whenever they want. Some who fight never. Find a clan that fits your playing style and stop trying to find ways to force active clans into accepting players who don't really care about playing or being active.

As for your question about how many players I've kicked for not using both attacks, the answer is zero. My players seem to think that making two attacks every two days is already pretty casual. And since they can just drop trophies or step out if something comes up, there should never be a reason for it to be a problem.