New Coalition System

New Coalition System

As you all might know. The current coalition war system is kind of boring. There is no real competition. The medal which are given have been nice in the first two seasons they got invented, but now its nothing special anymore. Therefore i suggest we make a league system like i will describe it here:

1. Seasons
First change will be the time of 1 season. It will go from 1/4 year to 1/3 of a year. According to that we have then 3 seasons with 17 weeks (+1 or 2 weeks where is nothing).

2. League system overview
In the following picture you can see a example of 3 leagues A, B and C. In A will be the best coalition and in C the newcomers or worst ones. If you start a new coalition you will be in the last league and if you will be 1st you will get to the next higher league (if you are 2nd,... and one of the coalition in a higher league gets inactive you will also get a ticket for the next higher league).
In each league will be 8 coalitions. Every weeks has to be played one game. So there will be 14 games (every coalition plays 2 times against each other). If you have recognised there are 3 weeks left (14 of 17). So there are 2 free weeks and 1 week, where the so called "Supercup" is held. In the Supercup (where are only the top 4 coalition of the league A) the best 4 coalition play against each other for a super great medal (1st plays against 3rd and 2nd against the 4th. and the winner of both games play as a final game again each other).


3. How do you get into a league
First of all you have to sign up for the league system. then you will get into the lowest league. (in the first time, the coalition will be set by CP or average rank). to sign up one of the leaders of the coalition have to sign up for the coalition in the coalition menu.


4. inactivity
To be sure that the coalitions are active, each coalition has to set 5 time intervals (1h windows), where they can play CWs, because they have usually no members online. Everytime in this time window a leader or officer of this coalition has to check that his coalition could play (the button can just be pressed if there are min 3 members online). Now lets say the week is over and the two teams haven't played yet, so the team, which was more online according to the time window confirmations, will win. In case both coalition have the same number of confirmations a group of people - the so called "tournament referee" (could be a additional job of mods or a seperate one), will decide what happens.
Note: If both coalition have got at least an officer and 2 other members online, the game has to be played. No matter if this is the top squad or not!
5. Coalition Points
The old coalition points system does not fit anymore to this system. (but they can still remain for friendly coalition wars, between coalitions). I suggest that the points will be given the following way: lets say there are 3 leagues. then a win in league A counts 3 points, in league B 2 points and league C 1 point. If you lose you get no points.
The games in the Supercup and friendly Wars are not counted this way (the old system can remain therefore). In the supercup the 4 coalition fight for a medal and friendly cw are friendly anyway.

So that my basic idea. if you have any further suggestions, please tell them or maybe i forgot something

Cheers Safari

Hey Safari. First of all: Very good idea, its about time the coalition system gets entirely re-designed. There is no competition in it for ages. Both low- and highranked coalitions have no competition. But i think the system could be much more 'simple' then you descibe now. If i'm in the 3rd league, its damn hard to get in the first league. Also i don't know if we have enough active coalitions to get 3 full leagues, and, looking at tournaments, current CW's and coalition activity, i think there is a big chance that the league will die with the lack of activity.

If you allow me (otherwise just remove my post), i want to repost my original idea again of a new coalition system.

Why should we invent the wheel again when there are so much other 'simulair' competitions on the internet? I've played in more leagues in the past and they all have their systems, of witch the most work very good. I will advice everyone to look at working systems with millions of players like: clanbase and ESL. Also, we don't need big changes, it can be way easyer so its easyer to implement.

Here is my proposal, take your time to read it (its simulair to existing league systems):
1. Remove competence and restore the old 'CP' system
2. Inactive coalitions needs to be removed from the coalitionlist and need to be placed in 'Hybernate'. When a coalition did not play a CW for 30days, it will automaticly be moved to the Hybernate mode and will not be shown in the coalition rankings.
3. Add a new feature "challanges" with the following options:
a. Coalition leaders and officers are allowed to arrange new challanges, or to accept/decline incomming challanges
b. When challanging a other coalition, all the 'gamerules' must be stated in the challange. Also there must be a date and time.
c. If someone is challanged, then there are 3 options: Accept, Change (date or rules) or Decline. Here is how it works:
- Accept: If you accept a challange, then everything is set. If one of the opponents doesn't show up on the scheduled date/time, the opponent wins by forfeit.
- Change: Challanges can be 'rechallanged' (changed):
- To propose a new date/time
- To propose a new rule/map
- Decline:
Rejecting a challange should only be possible in one of the following cases:
- The coalition war is scheduled within 5days from the challange date
- The opponent coalition has 100CP more or less then yours. You don't have to play against opponents that are far better or worse then your coalition
- If you already played against this opponent in the last 60days
- You are currently in Hybernate mode
- If you or your opponent proposed new rules or a date time for the 5th time and still doesn't have any agree with the opponent, then both side's can cancel the match. Canceling with this option should be limited though, so it can't be abused.
- If you decline a challange when you do not meet any of the requirements above, then you will be placed in Hybernate automaticly.
d. Once a match is accepted, its not possible to undo/reschedule this. Except when moving to hybernate mode.
4. Not responding to a challange within 7days, will automaticly result in a hybernate mode.
5. Going into Hybernate mode will cost the coalition -50CP. So activity is rewarded and you can't abuse the hybernate mode to decline incomming challanges.
6. Coalitions in hybernate mode can't respond on incomming challanges and can only challange themselves. Once played a CW again, you are back in the 'active' league with all your history.
7. New coalitions will start in Hybernate mode without the CP loss, so they don't have to play directly when created.

Then also i have 3 points that would be nice to add, but not directly necessary for a good coalition league:
8. Show all the played matches on the league page, so everyone can see what coalitions played recently and what the result was. So i don't have to click on a coalition to see the last results. (I already proposed this before). Also (if my idea's are implemented), show 'upcomming matches' with all the agreed matches that are comming up. This way everyone can see what matches will be played and can maybe spectate them.
9. The CP you earn on winning or losing a CW, depens on the ranks of the players in the game (not on the CP of the coalition). This gives a opportunity for higher ranked coalitions to get more points.
10. If the rating system is going to change, then i prever to stick at the ELO system that has been discussed earlyer. This is how it works:

How many points you gain after a win or lose after a defeat depends on the rating difference between you and your opponent before the match. The ELO formula is very complicated (see last topic or WIKI), but the following easy examples will give you a good idea:
- Beating an opponent with the exact same rating gets you 60 points.
- The maximum amount of points you can win for a single victory is 120, but to get this many points you'll have to beat an opponent who is 700 or more points ahead of you in the ranking. You get 100 points for beating an opponent who is 200 points ahead.
- Beating lower ranked opponents gets you less than 60 points. If they were 200 points below you you only gain 20 points, if they were 300 points below you only get 10 points, and if they were 400 points below you get a mere 5 points.
- The number of points you can win and the number of points you can lose always add up to 120. So if you can only win 30 points with a victory, you can lose 90 points with a defeat.

However, you can also add players ranks with the total SP like this: players rank * 10.
For example:
3x rank 9 gives you a virtual +270. (3 * 9) * 10. (so the 270 will be counted + your total CP)
3x rank 10 gives you a virtual +300. (3 * 10) * 10 (so the 300 will be counted + your total CP)

At this moment, you can be #1 by just playing noob coalitions, and refuse to play all other coalitions.

Support. Tho won't be easy to implement I guess.

Hugosch i like your suggestion.

both systems (Hugosch's and my suggestion) have pros/cons. But all in all I think your system is for now better, because we dont have that much active coalitions and its much faster to implement.

So i can just say: ELO + new CW system after custom maps

Napsáno Guest, 16.11.2012 at 09:28

Support. Tho won't be easy to implement I guess.

sure its not the easiest one to implement, but if they could program custom maps, this should be no problem

Napsáno Hugosch, 16.11.2012 at 09:14

However, you can also add players ranks with the total SP like this: players rank * 10.
For example:
3x rank 9 gives you a virtual +270. (3 * 9) * 10. (so the 270 will be counted + your total CP)
3x rank 10 gives you a virtual +300. (3 * 10) * 10 (so the 300 will be counted + your total CP)

At this moment, you can be #1 by just playing noob coalitions, and refuse to play all other coalitions.

I don't get what you mean with this. What i think when i read this is that you can get 300 more CP if you play with 3 rank 10's, but i guess thats not what you're trying to say here :/

Napsáno Dbacks, 16.11.2012 at 09:45

Napsáno Hugosch, 16.11.2012 at 09:14

However, you can also add players ranks with the total SP like this: players rank * 10.
For example:
3x rank 9 gives you a virtual +270. (3 * 9) * 10. (so the 270 will be counted + your total CP)
3x rank 10 gives you a virtual +300. (3 * 10) * 10 (so the 300 will be counted + your total CP)

At this moment, you can be #1 by just playing noob coalitions, and refuse to play all other coalitions.

I don't get what you mean with this. What i think when i read this is that you can get 300 more CP if you play with 3 rank 10's, but i guess thats not what you're trying to say here :/

He means:

if 3 rank 9 are playing against 3 rank 10, then if the rank 9 wins, they get 300 points, if the rank 10 win they get 270 points.
But this is system is not very good i think, because if you play a 5vs5 you can get massive points. So i would suggest using this formula instead:
(sum of opponent ranks) * 10 * 3 / (number of players)

Realise ranks don't matter, unless you're nateballer

Napsáno Dbacks, 16.11.2012 at 09:45

Napsáno Hugosch, 16.11.2012 at 09:14

However, you can also add players ranks with the total SP like this: players rank * 10.
For example:
3x rank 9 gives you a virtual +270. (3 * 9) * 10. (so the 270 will be counted + your total CP)
3x rank 10 gives you a virtual +300. (3 * 10) * 10 (so the 300 will be counted + your total CP)

At this moment, you can be #1 by just playing noob coalitions, and refuse to play all other coalitions.

I don't get what you mean with this. What i think when i read this is that you can get 300 more CP if you play with 3 rank 10's, but i guess thats not what you're trying to say here :/

When you play a CW, then AW starts calculating the strength of both coalition. beating an opponent with the exact same rating gets you 60 points. The stronger your opponent, the more CP you can win. The number of points you can win and the number of points you can lose always add up to 120. So if you can only win 30 points with a victory, you can lose 90 points with a defeat.

The ELO is a compicated formula (i have to find that up and get you a good example). But this is also used in many other game leagues and also in Chess for example. The example i used, was to determine the strength of your coalition against the strength of a other coalition, what can be used to calculate the outcome of CP you will win/lose.

Napsáno Aristosseur, 16.11.2012 at 10:08

Realise ranks don't matter, unless you're nateballer

It does matter. Less SP = less upgrades = less stronger. Simple as that. However; the extra CP that you can gain based on low ranks, is not much.

ELO first, then use similar method for clans + ideas from Hugo.

I support the league based idea of Safari. Maybe it could be changed so that there's only one or two leagues... but it would still be different to the SP formula by having all teams play the same amount of matches. And that way you'd have none of this worrying about ranks nonsense.

I support the ELO idea.
P.s: Never noticed that you edited the first image with Paint lol .

Safari You made a typo. You said "Supersup" then Supercup afterwards. Just pointing it out. No offense intended.

Upgrades don't win games, I am sure you have noticed that there are much better rank 7s than rank 10s in the game and I won't have to mention examples and they are not even 1-2 exceptions, if a guy cares about learning the game and improving he can be very good at a very early rank.

Napsáno Aristosseur, 17.11.2012 at 00:24

Upgrades don't win games, I am sure you have noticed that there are much better rank 7s than rank 10s in the game and I won't have to mention examples and they are not even 1-2 exceptions, if a guy cares about learning the game and improving he can be very good at a very early rank.

like you? winning a tournament at rank 7 :O

I could have been an exception then because there were no training clns, however there are training cls now and some clns accept few low rank people to train them who are usually active and noticable, this is mostly why upgrades don't matter to win a game.

I like both ideas but they're a bit too complex for nothing.

Coalitions should be split in three fields of competition: A division, B division and C division.
A being the top clans, B the middle, and C the lower ranked clans.

If lets say we establish a 10 game season, here's how the match ups should go.

A coalitions need to play at least 6 games against A coalitions, 3 against B and 1 against C.
B coalitions need to play at least 6 games against B coalitions, 2 against A and 2 against C.
C coalitions need to play at least 6 games against C coalitions, 3 against B and 1 against A.

A system like this or similar to this should make things fair enough.

Scheduling specific match ups is a bad idea for various reasons; activity, time zones, reliability etc.... it would be nearly impossible to succeed like that.

Finally, implementing ELO for this sounds more efficient than the current competence system. The old CP system would also associate well with this.

Here's an example:

A division:
Dalmati
BiteMe!
Warborn Legion
Valley of the Wolves
Val's New World Order
Stalins Martians
Empire SRB

B division:
Eurasian Union
Syndicate
A-Team
Deutsche Koalition
Dalmati Pups
Sons of Anarchy
Gory Floralzooka
United We Stand
Victotious Secret

C division:
everyone else (active)

Hibernated Coalitions:
inactive clans

Napsáno tophat, 17.11.2012 at 14:33

A division:
Dalmati
BiteMe!
Warborn Legion
Valley of the Wolves
Val's New World Order
Stalins Martians

lol where are we ? oh i see. we already won. good luck for 2.place guys

Napsáno tesla, 17.11.2012 at 15:15

Napsáno tophat, 17.11.2012 at 14:33

A division:
Dalmati
BiteMe!
Warborn Legion
Valley of the Wolves
Val's New World Order
Stalins Martians

lol where are we ? oh i see. we already won. good luck for 2.place guys

lol, omg sorry. i had put it on the first post i made forgot the 2nd time around.

Fixed

I actually wouldn't mind Tophats idea, so I will support his.

I like top hats idea , i like hugo too but it is too complex. btw i hope cw system will change , someone of u know what admins think about chnging system?

@Aristo: I'm sorry but i can't see how you can defend your argument that upgrades doesn't matter. Offcource there are some level7 players better then level10. But that doesn't change the fact that the level10 has a advantage on the level7 player, just because he has better attack, more range and more transport capacity (for example). Its the same if i tell a footballteam to play with 10guys against 11guys. Offcource the 10man team can still win from a team with 11, but the opportunities are not equal, simple is that.

@Tophats: Good idea, but i don't like the 'divisions' thing. I think we are too inactive for that and coalitions won't play all their matches. And once i'm played in a 3rd division, its very hard to move up. Again: My idea is not complex, a simulair system is used in 90% of the online game leagues.

Napsáno Hugosch, 19.11.2012 at 03:18

@Tophats: Good idea, but i don't like the 'divisions' thing. I think we are too inactive for that and coalitions won't play all their matches. And once i'm played in a 3rd division, its very hard to move up. Again: My idea is not complex, a simulair system is used in 90% of the online game leagues.

Yes, it would difficult to move up, however, 3rd division coalitions would be the lower ranked one's, meaning they will get better as they become more experienced. Even if they have a record of lets say 3-14. If they have an average rank of 7 or 8 in the next season they would be placed automatically in 2nd division. (or by ELO) We're not too inactive to have this kind of system implemented. Our seasons are already have 10 games, the one I'm suggesting is also that of 10 games, except sorted for balancement reasons.

!!!!

i am writing here a comment that we really need a new cln war system, because cln are hardly playing CWs.

Most cln are refusing CW request because of unreal reasons, therefore we need a system, where clns who call themselves active are forced to play against other active cln, no matter if they have much higher ranks or not, ....

Napsáno Safari, 30.12.2012 at 16:54

!!!!

i am writing here a comment that we really need a new cln war system, because cln are hardly playing CWs.

Most cln are refusing CW request because of unreal reasons, therefore we need a system, where clns who call themselves active are forced to play against other active cln, no matter if they have much higher ranks or not, ....

Here's an idea - we keep the current system, but introduce some kind of penalty for inactive coalitions. For example, if they haven't played any CW in 2 weeks, we'll subtract, say, 50 points, and then 15 with every subsequent week.

Napsáno Amok, 31.12.2012 at 03:09

Napsáno Safari, 30.12.2012 at 16:54

!!!!

i am writing here a comment that we really need a new cln war system, because cln are hardly playing CWs.

Most cln are refusing CW request because of unreal reasons, therefore we need a system, where clns who call themselves active are forced to play against other active cln, no matter if they have much higher ranks or not, ....

Here's an idea - we keep the current system, but introduce some kind of penalty for inactive coalitions. For example, if they haven't played any CW in 2 weeks, we'll subtract, say, 50 points, and then 15 with every subsequent week.

thats not enough. because most cln can reject your request for CW and then you can't play and lose CP this way. And you also dont want to play against the same 3-4 clns all time

Napsáno Safari, 31.12.2012 at 03:15

thats not enough. because most cln can reject your request for CW and then you can't play and lose CP this way. And you also dont want to play against the same 3-4 clns all time

That would at least make coalitions to play more CW's, regardless. The request system is nice, but obviously it's more difficult to implement.
Actually, how about this: we add a button in the cln page - "request CW", and other cln's leaders will have the power to either accept or reject that request. If the request is accepted, then the CW between these two clns must be played within the following week. If it's not, then both clns will suffer a penalty of some kind (50 CWP?). There will also be a limit on how many CW you may reject.

Napsáno Amok, 31.12.2012 at 03:36

Actually, how about this: we add a button in the cln page - "request CW", and other cln's leaders will have the power to either accept or reject that request. If the request is accepted, then the CW between these two clns must be played within the following week. If it's not, then both clns will suffer a penalty of some kind (50 CWP?). There will also be a limit on how many CW you may reject.

This seems like a good solution to me for the time being. One more thing with this: Is there is a limit to reject (which i think is good), there must also be a limit on invites you send to the same coalition. Otherwise you can just send 100invites, which the other coalition can't reject all.

Napsáno Amok, 31.12.2012 at 03:36

That would at least make coalitions to play more CW's, regardless. The request system is nice, but obviously it's more difficult to implement.
Actually, how about this: we add a button in the cln page - "request CW", and other cln's leaders will have the power to either accept or reject that request. If the request is accepted, then the CW between these two clns must be played within the following week. If it's not, then both clns will suffer a penalty of some kind (50 CWP?). There will also be a limit on how many CW you may reject.

I like it because CWs can be played more often but it's kinda forceful don't you think? Some people have got RL stuff to do and I'd rather be more relaxed into arranging cws. What if someone accepts it and then couldn't make the cw because they are busy in real life?