New Coalition System

Prispeval Hugosch, 31.12.2012 at 03:40

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.

Prispeval Guest, 31.12.2012 at 03:46

Prispeval 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?

Prispeval Amok, 31.12.2012 at 03:48

In this case they would need to negotiate with other cln to try to cancel the CW (which would require an agreement from both sides).

Prispeval Safari, 31.12.2012 at 05:32

I like the idea with sending an invitation for CW. I would just add another button where you can switch your cln status between active and inactive. So you can play CW just if you have member, if most of your members are on holidays then for example then you just make your cln inactive and nobody can invite you to a CW.

To sum up:
1. Button to send invitation to active cln
this button could be in atwar-game.com/cln/ where you can then send invitations with help of an dropdownlist or at the cln page of the cln you want to send an invitation to.
2. something like the Notifications to accept/reject the CWs
Best place for it would be in the own cln page where the player, application, invitation list is. Just add one for the CW requests, where a leader or offiver can accept/deny
3. if a CW got accepted, but is not played after a time specified in the invitation (or a fixed time) then both clns lose 50CP
4. cln should be able to toggle between active and inactive.

Prispeval Caulerpa, 31.12.2012 at 05:41

I like it, what if coalition A sends request to coalition B and doesn't show up, but coalition B showed up. Still both lose 50 points?

Prispeval Amok, 31.12.2012 at 05:33

After talking to Ivan we came up with the following:
As mentioned earlier, we'll introduce the concept of CW requests, where any officer could send a CW request to another coalition. Each 1 (or 2) weeks one of the requests (if any) will be picked randomly for the coalition to play. Coalitions that regularly play CW's will be awarded with a special trophy, which will be revoked if they miss a CW. Independent from that system there will also be a CWP decay for not playing any CW's in 1 (or 2) weeks. CWP decay will be around 5-10 points.
What do you guys think about that?

Prispeval Safari, 31.12.2012 at 05:52

Prispeval Amok, 31.12.2012 at 05:33

After talking to Ivan we came up with the following:
As mentioned earlier, we'll introduce the concept of CW requests, where any officer could send a CW request to another coalition. Each 1 (or 2) weeks one of the requests (if any) will be picked randomly for the coalition to play. Coalitions that regularly play CW's will be awarded with a special trophy, which will be revoked if they miss a CW. Independent from that system there will also be a CWP decay for not playing any CW's in 1 (or 2) weeks. CWP decay will be around 5-10 points.
What do you guys think about that?

thats ok. so you play at least 1 CW each 2 weeks.

but i still recomment to add a cln status active or inactive, because many clns dont want to CW, because they are just a group of friends who want to have their own group chat or w/e

Prispeval Safari, 31.12.2012 at 05:49

yes i guess. but therefore the loss should be higher than 50. So that if you accept a CW you better play it, because not playing is a bigger loss.

Prispeval Caulerpa, 31.12.2012 at 05:56

Prispeval Safari, 31.12.2012 at 05:49

yes i guess. but therefore the loss should be higher than 50. So that if you accept a CW you better play it, because not playing is a bigger loss.

Yes, in a perfect game where are no troll clans who will invite you for a CW and won't play. It will happen, I am sure, and I don't see why one side should lose anything because of the opponent's mistake.

Prispeval Safari, 31.12.2012 at 06:14

Dont forget to add when you reject a CW, that the cln who got rejected can't send a new invitation for like 1 or 2 weeks. otherwise they could abuse it and send like 5 invitations in a row (the number of how many CWs they can reject each season) and then they are forced to play

Prispeval Guest, 31.12.2012 at 13:34

Prispeval Safari, 31.12.2012 at 06:14

Dont forget to add when you reject a CW, that the cln who got rejected can't send a new invitation for like 1 or 2 weeks. otherwise they could abuse it and send like 5 invitations in a row (the number of how many CWs they can reject each season) and then they are forced to play

Or there could be a limit on rejects. I still don't like this idea of being "forced to play". Look at the first post. Would it be fair to your clan if you agreed to a cw but then yourself or a key member of your clan had a RL emergency or had to go on holiday and couldn't play but lost CP as a consequence? Some leaders want to be relaxed in arranging CWs, not rushed into making stupid decisions. No one should be forced to do anything, remember this is just a game.

Prispeval Safari, 01.01.2013 at 05:25

Ok first of all i have to say that I would also like to have such a casual system like it is currently. Lately I talked to a very wise person here in atWar and we came out that this is not working with the current thinking of most people of atWar. The problem is that most people are afraid to lose a CW (the same is btw. also for duells). Therefore if they just play with their best squad. Always when i hears from coalitions that their CW squad consists of Player A, Player B and Player C then i just think thats nonsense. These coalitions seem to ignore their other players accoring to CW and this is definitly not good. People should start thinking if you have at least 3 people online (one of them a officer/leader) then you are able to play CWs and then there should be no reason not to play. In my opinion is better to lose a CW with honor then not playing at all!!! If you now think about the rank differences then i have partly to admit that this is a bit unfair, but who cares it's just a game like you said. Btw. if people play more CW they automatically get better, So a rank 6 could be as good as a rank 8 very fast The differences between ranks will be less, then just the skills of each player really matters.
I just want to point out that you don't lose CPs if you lose a CW (not like in the first days of CWs), so just go and fight
Last but not least i want to say, if you can change the peoples mind then we don't need a change for CW's at all, but still they think that old school way we need to bite them into their asses and force them a bit

Prispeval Guest, 01.01.2013 at 05:35

In some sense you are right. But you are only saying this, because your clan already has strong members, not just "3 strong members". Some clans don't all have "strong members" and of course they want to field out their best members to play against a good clan. It raises their confidence and makes them play well. It raises their chances of winning which is a good feeling to have. If we could just have a type of "League" where clans are put into the same ability type clans and they could be promoted or relegated (demoted) into higher/lower leagues will be great and yet it is hard to implement, which is why they say the best things are probably the most less likely things to arrive. We could implement both Amok's idea and put the league structure (not now because the admins have better tasks to do), and we could get a better system on the road.

Prispeval b0nker2, 01.01.2013 at 10:46

Get rid of the 10 game cap also competence and simply have a point for a win and nothing for a loss, sounds very simple I know and may still be hard for top coalitions to get cw's, but with this at least when they do they will be given an equal playing field and not be penalised for being good. Knowing that the more games you play will give you a better chance of finishing top will increase participation regardless or which clan it is.