Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 118

Thread: CWL Rewards Problems

  1. #1

    CWL Rewards Problems

    A discussion occurring in multiple threads that start and stop over the course of months has been related to the issue of the rewards system of CWL encouraging clans to not try to push up as high as they can. So, I wanted to start a new thread that I can at least refer back to when the discussion comes up. I was also tired of trying to search Dmoore’s posts so I could copy/paste his excellent post below

    Simply put, a rewards system that is based on wins and stars encourages clans to go where they can get more wins and stars. It actually punishes clans for pushing into the highest tier they can reach. One of the things many of us discussed early on and that I advocated for was a system that instead was based on the ladder ranking and always rewarded clans for being higher on the ladder. That way, even if a clan is, for example, only winning once in Masters 1, they know they are still earning more medals than they would be if they had intentionally stayed in Masters 2 where they could win more and gain more stars. This is better for the clan that is pushing in Masters 1 and is better for the clans in Masters 2 that aren’t artificially facing stronger competition due to clans intentionally not performing their best.

    I use those examples because that is about where my clan sits. My clan has now reached the point where we actually don’t care if we win or lose. If we lose, we are rewarded. If we win, we are punished. That has taken much of the fun from CWL. I still enjoy it, but nearly like I would if we were rewarded for winning. I like the competition part. Currently, it basically is the same as clan games. You have a task to do, you go out and do it, you get your reward.

    That example of just playing one or maybe two tiers lower is probably the most common problem. Another problem is with clans playing very low to easily farm medals. It isn’t as profitable as playing just one or two tiers lower, but the attacking, planning, etc. is much easier so it is worth it to some clans. They are rewarded for it and at the same time are ruining the experience of other clans in their tier that are so outmatched.

    The way to stop this, or at least not to reward it, is to restructure the medal system to be like what was discussed earlier, to have it based on the clan’s position on the ladder, not on wins or stars. Yes, wins and stars impact where the clan ends up on the ladder, so they are still indirectly rewarded, but by focusing on the ladder position and not on the total amount of stars and wins, clans are rewarded for pushing. They always do better playing higher than playing lower.

    My own clan wouldn’t right now have to be having the discussion of “hey, you know we are better off if we take 7th place here, we will get way more medals last season, maybe we shouldn’t try to win.”

    Recently Dmoore suggested the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by dmoore1998 View Post
    If I had to make a simple solution (as proposed elsewhere), it would be to do away with the current rewards system and simply reward based on clan position in the tier. Looking at some quick (and hopefully correct) calculations...the max medals someone can earn in Champ 1 is 567. That's the starting point for each tier, the maximum stars you could earn. All tiers (except for Bronze, where all max rewards are the same currently) have at least an 8-medal difference between the most medals you can acquire in each tier.

    So you finish 1st as a clan in Champ 1, you get 567 medals per person for 7 wars (if you did 6 wars, then you get 6/7ths of the reward). Likewise, for every tier below (except bronze) if you come in first, you get the max medals you could acquire today for that tier. 2nd, you get 1-2 less, 3rd, you get 1-2 less than 2nd, and so on.

    With this method you can never get more medals for doing worse, as medals are tied to your finishing position and not to your individual achievement of stars.

    This SHOULD also help a LITTLE with the collusion aspect. At least some part of collusion (or maybe most of it today) is based around farming stars so that you can maximize medals. Your personal rewards become less tied to getting 3 stars every war (there's obviously still some incentive to want to finish high in your tier, the point being that it should help, not hurt anti-collusion measures).

    Nobody gets less medals than they can today at their current tier, and there's no incentive to tank.
    This is consistent with what I would like. I would make a couple small changes.

    First, I really like the suggestion that players get 1/7th of the medals for each war they are in, but I would change that to say they not only must be in the war, they must attack and they must get one star. The reason for that change is to avoid the situation where a clan can simply create a new clan of 15 players every season, get placed, not attack and get the full rewards for that tier. They take 7th, drop down but then can just create a new clan and do it again. By making the change I suggested they would have to attack and would have to get a star to get the medals.

    Now, some clans would probably still prefer to play a little lower and would not try their hardest to win and move up. They might want to rotate in lower players, they might prefer to do more farming type attacks, they might not want to put much time into it, etc. That is fine, but at least they are rewarded with more medals for doing so. They could try harder and move up and win more medals, but they choose not to and earn less medals.

    Another change I would suggest is to perhaps reduce the medals Dmoore cited (who really gets the max anyway) and add in some medals that are awarded to the whole clan. It is possible that could be for “wins” just like now, but I think that starts us down the slope of making it more profitable to intentionally play lower. I would instead suggest the clan-wide bonus is again based completely on the final position of the clan at the end of the season’s wars. 1st place in Champs 1 gets the most. 2nd place in Champs 1 gets a little less, 3rd place less, etc. all the way down every position to the very bottom.

    This system does mean the player that gets 1 star gets the same award as the player getting 2-3 stars, but I’m fine with that. If a clan has a player that isn’t pulling their weight, there is an easy fix: don’t put them in the war, then they get no medals since they won’t get any stars. Also, this is supposed to be a “clan” war right? We let players who contribute nothing to clan games get the full awards (players completing one task after the max is reached have contributed nothing) so I don’t see this as much different. Additionally, the star system of measuring the player’s contribution is flawed anyway. A player dipping down to overpower a base for 3 stars hasn’t necessarily done anything greater than the player attacking up for 2 stars. Finally, even if this isn’t preferred by some, it is worth it due to the overall improvement on the system. I think CWL has a lot of potential, but farming medals is not reaching that potential.
    Last edited by 2222; February 9th, 2019 at 03:33 AM.
    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  2. #2
    As an example, lets say we start at 400 at the top and say that is the medal award for finishing in first place in Champs 1.

    We could reduce it by 2 medals for each place:
    2nd - 398
    3rd - 396
    4th - 394
    5th - 392
    6th - 390
    7th - 388
    8th - 386

    Then Champs 2 would start off as:
    1st - 386
    2nd - 384

    And carry that through to the bottom. That would get you to about 114 for last place in Bronze 3 (if I calculated that correctly, which I didn’t the first time). That is too high compared to what is available now so rather than just a steady drop of 2 medals for each place, I would create a bigger drop between 7th place in one tier and 1st place in the tier below.

    The exact numbers aren’t as important as the concept which is to always earn more medals the higher you can finish each season.

    Edit: as pointed out by Skyvalker there are 8 clans, not 7, so I changed the numbers, but ignore the specific numbers anyway, it is just a concept.
    Last edited by 2222; February 8th, 2019 at 05:53 PM.
    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  3. #3
    Pro Member SkyValker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    At the 19th hole
    Posts
    663
    Don't forget there are 8 clans in each league. Only 7 wars, but 8 clans in the league.

    Therefore lowest medals in bronze 3 league would be 114.
    (At present, most medals you can get is 112, for 21 stars and 7 war wins)

    As a possible addition, everyone in the roster gets half medals, everyone in each war gets full medals for that war?

    Wouldn't want to upset people who are currently getting medals for being on the roster.

    Overall, I can see some merit in the idea, but probably needs further thought. Well done dMoore & 2222

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by 2222 View Post
    This system does mean the player that gets 1 star gets the same award as the player getting 2-3 stars, but I’m fine with that. If a clan has a player that isn’t pulling their weight, there is an easy fix: don’t put them in the war, then they get no medals since they won’t get any stars. Also, this is supposed to be a “clan” war right? We let players who contribute nothing to clan games get the full awards (players completing one task after the max is reached have contributed nothing) so I don’t see this as much different. Additionally, the star system of measuring the player’s contribution is flawed anyway. A player dipping down to overpower a base for 3 stars hasn’t necessarily done anything greater than the player attacking up for 2 stars. Finally, even if this isn’t preferred by some, it is worth it due to the overall improvement on the system. I think CWL has a lot of potential, but farming medals is not reaching that potential.
    This was the part I was confused for. This system doesn't differentiate between 1 star and 3star. The idea of putting the medals like war win bonus solves this problem. So, a higher th won't be able to dip too low bcz it will offer lesser medals. And a 2star on same lvl gives same as 3star on 1 down, this way there is the possibility of strategy involving th11s hitting th12s and th12s hitting th11s.

    The other problem I find in this idea is it rewards those who play more wars. It is hard to manage and make sure that the members participate in same no. of wars. Yeah, it is the case right now too more wars more medals, but a skilled player getting 3star can overcome that even tho he/she is put in lesser wars. So, maybe solution be that playing about half amount of wars i.e 3 or 4 gives a person full rewards.

    Edit: I did the calculation, it makes a difference of about 50 medals just for being in a war more than other member, (which is also just for getting a 1star) in m1 first place i.e 354 as in your example. And this no. increases as the league and place goes up i.e amount of medals go up.

    Imagine there are 25 members in the clan interested to join the war. Every1 cannot be given equal no. of wars in this case so imagine a case where some members will get 4 wars and some will get 3 wars. 50 medal difference just for being in an extra war and getting a 1star? Now, imagine the worst scenario, add the difference of 1star and 3star i.e a member who gets 3stars regularly but gets to participate only in 3wars, and other member getting 1 star participating in 4 wars. The system right now rewards being in more wars, but at least it differentiate between 3star and 1 star. I mean a person getting 3stars in 3 wars can get more medals than a person getting 1 star or 2star in 4 wars. But in the proposed solution, the person will be behind by 50+ medals just for not playing a war, even tho he/she got more 3stars.

    Overall I think, better solution will be either to make it give full rewards for being in at least 3wars. Or, my idea of putting the medals like the war win bonus based on weight and dividing it between stars earned such that 2stars on same th lvl gives equal to 3star on 1 down. It will solve the tanking problem as well as reward 3stars than 1star.
    Last edited by BlazeStormz123; February 8th, 2019 at 06:17 PM.
    Never Give Up Without Even Trying!

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by SkyValker View Post
    Don't forget there are 8 clans in each league. Only 7 wars, but 8 clans in the league.

    Therefore lowest medals in bronze 3 league would be 114.
    (At present, most medals you can get is 112, for 21 stars and 7 war wins)

    As a possible addition, everyone in the roster gets half medals, everyone in each war gets full medals for that war?

    Wouldn't want to upset people who are currently getting medals for being on the roster.

    Overall, I can see some merit in the idea, but probably needs further thought. Well done dMoore & 2222
    Good point, I edited it and they could still be off but those wouldn’t likely be the numbers to use anyway, but the concept is the same. Also, note if you got 7 wins in Bronze 3 you wouldn’t take 7th place, so actually you couldn’t get 112 in Bronze 3 currently in the 7th place position. So, offering up 114 is probably a little high. I would adjust that by having a little bigger drop between 7th and 1st place between tiers as noted in the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlazeStormz123 View Post
    This was the part I was confused for. This system doesn't differentiate between 1 star and 3star. The idea of putting the medals like war win bonus solves this problem. So, a higher th won't be able to dip too low bcz it will offer lesser medals. And a 2star on same lvl gives same as 3star on 1 down, this way there is the possibility of strategy involving th11s hitting th12s and th12s hitting th11s.

    The other problem I find in this idea is it rewards those who play more wars. It is hard to manage and make sure that the members participate in same no. of wars. Yeah, it is the case right now too more wars more medals, but a skilled player getting 3star can overcome that even tho he/she is put in lesser wars. So, maybe solution be that playing about half amount of wars i.e 3 or 4 gives a person full rewards.
    The current system also rewards those who take part in more wars, so it would remain consistent with that. It could easily be set up such that it exceeds what players usually earn right now taking part in 1, 2, 3, etc. wars.

    The system rewards stars in the sense that you must get one and in the sense that the more stars you get the better the clan does which results in you getting more medals. You are correct it doesn’t make a player getting 3 stars in one attack earn more medals than a player getting 2 stars. Medals for stars like that is exactly what needs to be avoided because that is the problem with the current system.
    Last edited by 2222; February 8th, 2019 at 05:55 PM.
    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by 2222 View Post
    The current system also rewards those who take part in more wars, so it would remain consistent with that. It could easily be set up such that it exceeds what players usually earn right now taking part in 1, 2, 3, etc. wars.

    The system rewards stars in the sense that you must get one and in the sense that the more stars you get the better the clan does which results in you getting more medals. You are correct it doesn’t make a player getting 3 stars in one attack earn more medals than a player getting 2 stars. Medals for stars like that is exactly what needs to be avoided because that is the problem with the current system.
    I edited and added some cases in above post.
    Never Give Up Without Even Trying!

  7. #7
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    1,850
    i am a bit uncomfortable with getting 1/7 of the rewards for each battle day assuming you attack and get a star. It starts to set up an individual vs clan mentality and will cause unneeded strife. I would prefer that you have to attack and get a star sometime during CWL week to be eligible for the total tier awards. i dont think we need to have individual attacks or attackers rewarded differently based on each battle day. it is a clan effort, if you are in CWL and you attack at least once in 7 days and acheive at least one star dur8ng that seven days, full tier rewards.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    325
    I understand the sentiment and the idea. You articulated your point very well.

    I think there are more clans who do regular wars less than 3 days per week than there are clans that war back to back. I think clans that are fighting in lower leagues like the reduced difficulty. 7 days of war is a lot for these clans. Yes they could substitute burned out players but only if they have more than 15 active warriors.

    All that being said, I think restructuring the rewards will help a little bit. But I also think clans that like the easier wars will still continue to do so and continue to fight below their skill and progression level even if it means less medals.

    The frustration of losing and fighting tough clans for more medals won’t overcome the feeling of winning and easier wars for less medals. I could be wrong. I think there are more players that do not have a competitive mentality than do.

    Also, CWL gives a low skilled clan the opportunity for a fun experience that regular weight based wars cannot. And under a restructured system they could still operate the same but would they push?

    So yes it I think it will help some. I think it will benefit clans with a competitive mentality more than others. Ultimately which type of player base does SC want to see progression speeds increase?
    Last edited by Easyluck; February 8th, 2019 at 06:36 PM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BlazeStormz123 View Post
    I edited and added some cases in above post.
    I don’t see the disadvantage of continuing the current method of awarding players more who take part more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tosti111 View Post
    i am a bit uncomfortable with getting 1/7 of the rewards for each battle day assuming you attack and get a star. It starts to set up an individual vs clan mentality and will cause unneeded strife. I would prefer that you have to attack and get a star sometime during CWL week to be eligible for the total tier awards. i dont think we need to have individual attacks or attackers rewarded differently based on each battle day. it is a clan effort, if you are in CWL and you attack at least once in 7 days and acheive at least one star dur8ng that seven days, full tier rewards.
    Can you explain that one more? Given everyone wins more if the clan moves up, it encourages everyone to follow whatever plan is best for moving up. It discourages attacking for more stars just because they are easy, it rewards attacking up against a harder base if that is what is needed for the win, etc. This system would result in players getting more stars than they are now for the same effort. I can’t imagine SC would allow players to get in one war what right now takes them 7 wars to accumulate. You’d be having players attack one time to earn as much as they can right now attacking in every war, winning every war and getting all 3 stars?

    Quote Originally Posted by Easyluck View Post
    I understand the sentiment and the idea. You articulated your point very well.

    I think there are more clans who do regular wars less than 3 days per week than there are clans that war back to back. I think clans that are fighting in lower leagues like the reduced difficulty. 7 days of war is a lot for these clans. Yes they could substitute burned out players but only if they have more than 15 active warriors.

    All that being said, I think restructuring the rewards will help a little bit. But I also think clans that like the easier wars will still continue to do so and continue to fight below their skill and progression level even if it means less medals.

    The frustration of losing and fighting tough clans for more medals won’t overcome the feeling of winning and easier wars for less medals. I could be wrong. I think there are more players that do not have a competitive mentality than do.

    Also, CWL gives a low skilled clan the opportunity for a fun experience that regular weight based wars cannot. And under a restructured system they could still operate the same but would they push?

    So yes it I think it will help some. I think it will benefit clans with a competitive mentality more than others. Ultimately which type of player base does SC want to see progression speeds increase?
    I agree clans that like easier wars will still do so, but they will be smaller in number if they aren’t also given more medals for doing so. Also, for those clans who prefer to actually try their hardest each season, they won’t at the same time know they are actually being punished with less medals for doing so.
    Contact SC here. Click here to see how trophies are calculated. I'm still thinking starting the "new" legends at Legends2 at 5500 and having Legends3 be for 5000-5499 would be good (with season resets to 5000 and 5500 depending on your trophies at season end) but overall I LOVE the Legends change. Thanks SC.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by 2222 View Post
    I don’t see the disadvantage of continuing the current method of awarding players more who take part more.
    How's there no difference between the system right now and the proposed solution? Right now, difference of 1 war in masters1 is 30 stars i.e if one gets 3stars. But in the proposed solution there's a difference of 50+medals just for getting 1 extra 1 star. I think it is a huge difference. Also plz while replying use the quotes in the edited main post than this post, bcz here situation is explained in one sentence whereas there I have given some examples to add the difference between 1 star attacker and 3star attacker.
    Never Give Up Without Even Trying!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •