Simple changes for coalitions

There are many topics about changing the coalition system, because the current system doesn't motivate coalitions to play coalition wars. All suggested systems seem too much work to be implemented, so the problem is not solved. Here are a few of simple changes, that will encourage activity and are just small changes to the current system.

There will be 2 coalition pages. One will be called 'leaguetable' and the other 'coalitionlist'.

All coalitions will be shown in the 'coalitionlist'. Only the coalitions that did play a match within the last 90days, will be in the league table.

The league table is leading, meaning if you open the coalitionpage you see the league table. There you have a new button to show all coalitions.

When you play a CW, you get double SP

On the players profile will be logged which coalition wars you played

This will take not much time to create (i guess), and will give much more fun and competition to the current system. Also it will encourage coalitions to keep on playing.

If there is some time left, then also add a simple 'challange' system that works like this:

When you have 3 or more members on: Coalitionleaders and Officers can challange other coalitions to play. The challanged coalition needs 3 or more members on too offcource (of which also at least one officer or leader).

Officers or leaders can reject any incomming challanges. I don't think we have to set a limit on it either. But rejected/accepted proposals will be logged and shown on your own coalitionpage.

I like the idea of more sp in a coalition, i said it might be a good idea when me and acqui talked about the coalition system a little bit last night.

the only thing is would say is that it should be 25%-50% more sp, not 100% more. The reason for this is because if yo lose with double sp, you still get as much as if you would win in a normal 3v3 game. so people who aren't competitive and don't really care for the result and more about the sp will play cw's.

25%-50% gives you the incentive that if you win it's very worth it, and if you lose that's ok too.

Agreed 100%

Agreed again

Just implement it...

Support.

Thanks for all the supports and replies! Hope we'll make it!

@Malice: The exact details doesn't really matter to me. I can agree with your point to give 25 or 50%. The goal of my post is to encourage players to play more CW's.

作者： Hugosch, 08.04.2013 at 03:50

Officers or leaders can reject any incomming challanges. I don't think we have to set a limit on it either. But rejected/accepted proposals will be logged and shown on your own coalitionpage.

I believe when rejecting a proposal a coalition should have the option to place a reason for the rejection. This way the coalition does not garner a negative image for rejecting CWs for good reasons. For example, having ranks 876 online and being offered a CW by another clan for ranks 10 10 10.

Also, instead of double SP, why not only a 25% or 50% increase. Double SP is a little bit of an overkill. Someone could make a coalition for lolz and do only CWs to farm all that SP.

Everything else I support unchanged.

作者： Goblin, 09.04.2013 at 11:18

作者： Hugosch, 08.04.2013 at 03:50

But rejected/accepted proposals will be logged and shown on your own coalitionpage.

This is the only thing i dont like. What would be the point of this? ...besides mocking a clan for declining a CW.

Yep, having the social pressure to accept CWs and compete.

作者： Goblin, 09.04.2013 at 11:18

This is the only thing i dont like. What would be the point of this? ...besides mocking a clan for declining a CW.

The idea is to encourage CW's. Simply rejecting every CW (which a lot of coalitions do) is not encouraging the competition. My first idea was to set a limit on the times you can reject. But this can be simply abused by the challanger and needs a more advanced system to really work. So thats why i decided to just log the number of declines, to have a 'social pressure' like Pulse said.

Then it should say something like:

Challenges
--
Accepted Challenges: 3
* Coalition X: won +25 CP
* Coalition Y: lost -16 CP
* Coalition Z: won +36 CP

Declined Challenges: 6
* 3x Coalition A
* 2x Coalition B
* 1x Coalition C


Therefore you'd know that the coalition declined the challenge of a much stronger one.

As I stated before, this is I was suggest that we give the coalition that rejects a CW a chance to state a reason for rejection. Example Given: They Offered Ranks 11 10 10 and we only had ranks 8 7 6.

After thinking it over I've concluded that a weekly admin organized clan tournament is the way to go. All these options being discussed are a step in the right direction but no matter what is done, they will fall short of the interest and excitement generated from a tournament. CW then would become 'friendlies' and practice for the end of week tournament. Each clan limited to a max of 2 teams. Just pick a time and if you can make it you can make it.

作者： Hugosch, 08.04.2013 at 03:50

There are many topics about changing the coalition system, because the current system doesn't motivate coalitions to play coalition wars. All suggested systems seem too much work to be implemented, so the problem is not solved. Here are a few of simple changes, that will encourage activity and are just small changes to the current system.

There will be 2 coalition pages. One will be called 'leaguetable' and the other 'coalitionlist'.

All coalitions will be shown in the 'coalitionlist'. Only the coalitions that did play a match within the last 90days, will be in the league table.

The league table is leading, meaning if you open the coalitionpage you see the league table. There you have a new button to show all coalitions.

When you play a CW, you get double SP

On the players profile will be logged which coalition wars you played

This will take not much time to create (i guess), and will give much more fun and competition to the current system. Also it will encourage coalitions to keep on playing.

If there is some time left, then also add a simple 'challange' system that works like this:

When you have 3 or more members on: Coalitionleaders and Officers can challange other coalitions to play. The challanged coalition needs 3 or more members on too offcource (of which also at least one officer or leader).

Officers or leaders can reject any incomming challanges. I don't think we have to set a limit on it either. But rejected/accepted proposals will be logged and shown on your own coalitionpage.

Sorry that it took me so long to find this post. Some very good suggestions here, I'm going to implement most of the first part

Great