CWL one year retrospective…has the dust settled?

[2222]

I actually agree with your sentiment, it is best if rosters are filled with actives.

Even if you put in your rule of no one who is inactive for 30 days allowed into CWL, all anyone would do is make sure the “inactive TH12” attacked once every 30 days and then they would be allowed back into CWL where they wouldnt attack anyways. The solution suggested would solve nothing in that case, you would still have lower THs facing defenses they cannot get any stars from. Since CWL is about both stars won and stars given up (which allows your opponents to climb higher than you do) it makes sense to garner as many stars as possible and limit your opponents stars so they dont outpace you. I personally wouldnt try to game the system by putting in high inactive THs but from a medal perspective it makes sense. All that being said, I dont believe this behaviour is rampant as inactives limit your ability to gain rewards so you are effectively limiting your rewards through self inflicted behaviour.

If the player is around enough to actually log in every 30 days to allow someone else to reap the benefits of having him in war then it really isn't a dead account I guess, although perhaps 2 weeks would be better than 30 days. It may not be much of a problem either way, but I thought the idea proposed (by the person no longer in the conversation lol) was interesting and valid.

[joshsgrandad]

If the player is around enough to actually log in every 30 days to allow someone else to reap the benefits of having him in war then it really isn't a dead account I guess, although perhaps 2 weeks would be better than 30 days. It may not be much of a problem either way, but I thought the idea proposed (by the person no longer in the conversation lol) was interesting and valid.

I get where you are coming from 2222, and arent in the least bit surprised.
I do learn much from your knowledge and insight, and usually my thoughts are in complete alignment..
You simply want a competitive system, whereby everyone gives it their all, with the clan only performing at their active best..
I applaud that, even tho I dont see the problem with utilising a dormant member.. And will continue to set up the best way for me..

But, moving on.. dead bases.. You are in the know mate.. I thought I read somewhere that "actual dead bases" eventually simply disappear from the game.. Am I mistaken?.. If not, then the "problem" will self fix at some point.

As you said, the OP seems to have backed off.. Maybe its his turn to add to his thread.. I am uncomfortable to be locking horns with one of my mentors.

[move4ward]

I think it is different because there is a stated requirement that the clan has sufficient members to fill aroster of 15, while there is no requirement that thowe 15 actually be active.



I suspect it would only make a significant difference if it were the (ridiculous considering CWL starts no more than a week into the season) "no league badge".

I doubt that very many of the "dummy" bases are actually completely inactive, which is why I say that. We have several times put in a dummy base when we couldn't get 15 wanting to war, but it has usually still been somebody who is somewhat active.

The problem with clan war in activity can be solved by changing the size requirements. A roster size of 15 may have been the most popular size for war. A roster size of 10 is common also.

It may good idea to do 10, 20 and 30 roster sizes for the next year. Many complaints for limited roster size of 15 went down, after the 30 v 30 format was release. It was a success.

[joshsgrandad]

The problem with clan war in activity can be solved by changing the size requirements. A roster size of 15 may have been the most popular size for war. A roster size of 10 is common also.

It may good idea to do 10 and 30 roster sizes for the next year. The number of teams would also go up, due to smaller clans participating. With more clans participating, it will translate to more gemming and revenue for clan war league work. It's a win/win for Supercell.

There is that move4ward..
i can think of another pro and con tho..

Pro.. Every attack would be critical, since the smaller the war size, the bigger the impact each has on the overall total.

Con.. During my laid back regular war approach, using lower halls (9 and down), I found it difficult to avoid perfect draws, due to the lack of bases.. So, it may lead to closer wars, if the accounts were similar, but it would enhance any weight discrepancies, as there is a lack of chances to offset the lopsidedness.

[Piper139]

I get where you are coming from 2222, and arent in the least bit surprised.
I do learn much from your knowledge and insight, and usually my thoughts are in complete alignment..
You simply want a competitive system, whereby everyone gives it their all, with the clan only performing at their active best..
I applaud that, even tho I dont see the problem with utilising a dormant member.. And will continue to set up the best way for me..

But, moving on.. dead bases.. You are in the know mate.. I thought I read somewhere that "actual dead bases" eventually simply disappear from the game.. Am I mistaken?.. If not, then the "problem" will self fix at some point.

As you said, the OP seems to have backed off.. Maybe its his turn to add to his thread.. I am uncomfortable to be locking horns with one of my mentors.

Dont worry about locking horns with 2222. Never seen them have a problem at all with good discussion. Interesting point about truly dead bases. I dont know. I we were hurting for 15 members to do cwl, I could see myself adding 1 of my no war 12s. At least it would slow someone down more than my th9 mini. Although in the right league, it could do a mean gowipe.

[PapaTroll]

Seem to be two valid points of view debated here.

One advocates placing a less active town hall 12 in the roster, for its superior defense. Could surrender fewer stars, even if the less active player sometimes fails to attack. The defense could help get a win.

The other advocates placing a active TH9 in the roster, even though the 9 is certain to be 3 starred and my struggle to get even a one-star attack (depending on clan tier).

New scoring system emphasises total stars for the week. Any attack not made is an automatic zero star. I would rather have the TH9 trying to get a one star than any town hall sitting idle.

There is also the clan fairness consideration. I prefer to reward an active 9 trying to grow his base over a casual 12, who misses attacks.

If both are active, there is no debate. 12 goes on the roster.

Math time.

12 gets two starred, no attack, net loss two stars.

9 gets 3starred, earns one star on attack, net loss two stars.

12 gets one starred....

9 earns no stars....

Run more scenarios to fit your tier.

[joshsgrandad]

Seem to be two valid points of view debated here.

One advocates placing a less active town hall 12 in the roster, for its superior defense. Could surrender fewer stars, even if the less active player sometimes fails to attack. The defense could help get a win.

The other advocates placing a active TH9 in the roster, even though the 9 is certain to be 3 starred and my struggle to get even a one-star attack (depending on clan tier).

New scoring system emphasises total stars for the week. Any attack not made is an automatic zero star. I would rather have the TH9 trying to get a one star than any town hall sitting idle.

There is also the clan fairness consideration. I prefer to reward an active 9 trying to grow his base over a casual 12, who misses attacks.

If both are active, there is no debate. 12 goes on the roster.

Math time.

12 gets two starred, no attack, net loss two stars.

9 gets 3starred, earns one star on attack, net loss two stars.

12 gets one starred....

9 earns no stars....

Run more scenarios to fit your tier.

I agree with your 12v9 Papa.. I might even be tempted to use a 9 myself, if it were decent, and had half a chance.

Given the current criteria is stars, then destruction, even a tie would give advantage to the 9, since it will actually score on both stars and destruction..

But, my replacement would be a 7.. And even in Gold 2, a 7 will struggle more often than not.

Each to their own.. I prefer to shore up.. maybe it isnt playing within the realms of good sportsmanship..

But then again, time is at a premium to me, I have to pre cook troops blind, ready for the next day, I have little time to plan each attack..
I think I can convince myself that I am playing with plenty of disadvantages, so that one positive roster strat isnt making me a closet cheat lol.

[2222]

I get where you are coming from 2222, and arent in the least bit surprised.
I do learn much from your knowledge and insight, and usually my thoughts are in complete alignment..
You simply want a competitive system, whereby everyone gives it their all, with the clan only performing at their active best..
I applaud that, even tho I dont see the problem with utilising a dormant member.. And will continue to set up the best way for me..

But, moving on.. dead bases.. You are in the know mate.. I thought I read somewhere that "actual dead bases" eventually simply disappear from the game.. Am I mistaken?.. If not, then the "problem" will self fix at some point.

As you said, the OP seems to have backed off.. Maybe its his turn to add to his thread.. I am uncomfortable to be locking horns with one of my mentors.

I definitely don't have a problem with you using a dead account to fill in. If you think that is the best strategy for your clan, go for it (I do think like Papa says, scoring stars yourself is important for the overall total so a th9 from global might be better anyway). I just think SC should do something to stop it.

As far as I know, dead bases aren't removed. They still exist. You could keep using it over and over in war forever if you wanted to I think. What you may be thinking of is that they seem to work their way out of the multiplayer pool and eventually no longer get attacked.

Don't worry about locking horns with me lol, I enjoy the discussion. This isn't something that even impacts me at all. I just thought it was interesting.

[Ajax]

I definitely don't have a problem with you using a dead account to fill in. If you think that is the best strategy for your clan, go for it (I do think like Papa says, scoring stars yourself is important for the overall total so a th9 from global might be better anyway). I just think SC should do something to stop it.

As far as I know, dead bases aren't removed. They still exist. You could keep using it over and over in war forever if you wanted to I think. What you may be thinking of is that they seem to work their way out of the multiplayer pool and eventually no longer get attacked.

Don't worry about locking horns with me lol, I enjoy the discussion. This isn't something that even impacts me at all. I just thought it was interesting.

Yes, dead bases do stay. Supercell reserve the right to remove them if inactive for 180 days, but AFAIK, they have never enforced that right.

We have one dead base that has been sitting in our clan for over a year now. We use it as filler in standard clan wars, where if you have to have an inactive, low level is best.

[Luicetarro]

But, moving on.. dead bases.. You are in the know mate.. I thought I read somewhere that "actual dead bases" eventually simply disappear from the game.. Am I mistaken?.. If not, then the "problem" will self fix at some point.

Due to a double-bug I lost access to my account for 1.5 years. It was clanless, no one logged into it for the entire time, so completely inactive and not involved in any activity. Got it back just fine without losing any progress, so there is no inactivity-timer.