I think instead of the clans being ranked by the trophies in that clan, that clans should be ranked by how many wars they have won. that's what clans are made for is clan wars so why aren't they ranked by the clan wars?
I think instead of the clans being ranked by the trophies in that clan, that clans should be ranked by how many wars they have won. that's what clans are made for is clan wars so why aren't they ranked by the clan wars?
Having trophie based ranking shows the most powerful factions.
Having war based ranking would just so wars won, which doesn't really mean anything.
Then what's the point of the war, if it means nothing. Trophies control individual fractions, and with the clan people just stack their clans with the highest people they can and then they only win 4 or 5 wars. Why have clans if the wars mean nothing. Also I've talked to about six clans and they all agreed that it be a super improvement if the clan wars were how you got rankedOriginally Posted by Ccooddyy
No, your logic is completely invalid. Your idea would make clan ranking largely based off of how old the clan is. Also, trophies are for one thing, clan XP is for another. Mixing the two wouldn't be smart. What'd be the point of trophies if you weren't ranked by them?
My point is:
Trophies = ranking.
wars won = clan level.
Last edited by Callywally; June 1st, 2015 at 10:37 PM.
Level 123 | TH11 | Former-Farmer (Thanks SC)
GG - 515m | EE - 500m
Maybe the new clan ranking could be determined by ratio of wins to losses, like a KD ratio in a first person shooter game. This way if a clan is long standing, it would have balanced wins as well as losses and result in a balanced ratio.
See I can agree with that I just don't like the piont of people being so high just cause they can fill their clan with high people
Posting Permissions
