Originally Posted by
klenida
Correct me if I'm wrong. The rankings of clans (I think) is based solely on the combined trophies of its members. Other things, such as "Wars won" are completely ignored in the rankings. I would suggest that "Wars won" should be considered in the rankings. I agree that the top clans are the strongest because they would not get that much trophies if they are not strong. But my point is just, clans are nothing if they have that much trophies but do not participate in a clan war. There's no sense in what we call a "Clan" if no clan wars are involved. I believe that the clans with the most numbers of "Wars won" should be considered the top clan even though they do not have that much of a trophies. That would indicate that, even if they are not that strong, they can come up with strategies that can live up as compared to other clans with the same level as them. Or it might be a good idea to have different categories in Clan ranking like, rankings for a 10-member clan and rankings for a 50-member clan or something like that.
The bottom line is: to give considerations to those clans that are always in a clan war and almost all of the time are winning, indicating a high percentage of winning, which means that they are clans that attack as a TEAM. TEAM which is another term (I think) for a clan.
I hope that this would be considered by Supercell.
Any comments would be much appreciated. 😃
