There is a need to degrade coalition's points over time.

Coalitions that are not active should lose points over time. That is all.

I agree.

I agree as well. Degrade untill 1000 slowly over time. Those that have lost points can stay as they are.

Good idea.

Agreed

This is a good idea infa 14.88% if it is applied to the right extent. It will hopefully keep coalitions active and promote more competition between them... just what we need.

Why do BiteMe members seem to be the smartest or at least the most rationalist members on this board? Such cases.

I was thinking about it too because we can't steal pirati's points as we did with others since they only have 1 active member.

It's true, I require more pirati points.

Napísal YOBA, 18.06.2011 at 09:40

Why do BiteMe members seem to be the smartest or at least the most rationalist members on this board? Such cases.

>me
>smart

Hmm been thinking some more about this.. The problem with cw's, are people scared of playing them. Maybe add some small reward for playing? At any rate the whole cp thing needs to be reinvented. It doesnt work as a carrot for cw's, more to the opposite.

Some suggestions (some can be exploited i know.. but still)

1. Flat SP gain for all who play a cw. say 1k sp each?
2. 1 week without cw = small drop in cp (say 100 cp), 2 weeks = double that, 3 weeks = quadrouple it, 4 weeks = set it to 500. (the drops cant drop u below 500) (ok 1 week might be harsh.. but just a hardline suggestion)
3. Alternative: losing team doesnt drop in cp. The only way to lose points will be inactivity. This way u have everythign to gain by playing any opponent. The algorythm for winner cp stays the same.
4. Set Max 20 members to any coalition. (and thats beeing nice, personally i think 10 is enough) Phil. SIlvis and /int/ gonna cry now, but i don't care :p doing NoE newbies a favor though. They'll never play any cw's.

These are good carrots for an increase in coalition activity and competitiveness imo. I know this is a small part of the game, but it is an important part imo. In any game i've played, the clans, coalitions and alliances have allways been the driving force behind the community. increasing that part of the community, will usually benefit the game in the long run.

Hope this sounds reasonable.

Btw, any mods wanna move this post to Suggestion Forums?

I agree to 1 and 2 but not to 3. 4 doesn't apply to us, but it has no point.
Philosophorum Silvis is the biggest fail coalition, both leaders inactive, 1 officer and they have the highest SP player in game yet no CW played ever, nobody cares about them.
Check this: http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=1513

Well i guess 4. will sort itself out if they implement 1.

3. was more of a carrot to get the dormant and scared ones out of their slumber. half the loss of cp could work just as well though. point is to reward activity anyway, which the current system doesn't do.

Nah, pussies don't deserve carrots.

I agree completly, it would benefit the game in several ways, more dynamic coalition list, more active and coalitions and bigger competition among players! Realise this as soon as possible.

Napísal Zol, 20.06.2011 at 09:30

Btw, any mods wanna move this post to Suggestion Forums?

Done.

That's a good idea, though we still need to figure out the rate with which the inactive coalitions will lose their points.
1 point a day should be fair?

1 is day is not enough.
1 a day means they can win 1 CW every 50 days and not lose any points.

There Coalitions with 80 days inactive in the top 10

I think it should be incremental, so 5 points every day for the first week, 10 every day on the second week inactive, 20 each day on the 3rd week inactive, 40 per day on the 4th week, etc.


examples

pirati - Ranked 3rd, last CW played 65 days ago
Semper fi ranked 4th last game played 38 days ago
warborn legion - ranked 5th last played 92 days ago!!!!

tanodes 54 days
muhajadins 42 days ago

these are all in the top 10...

Napísal Amok, 30.06.2011 at 03:07

1 point a day should be fair?

Yes.

There is no need to "punish" coalitions more than this, since it's not an easy task to have in fact, a coalition war. I'm not even considering the fact that, for example, if others coalitions don't to, we can lose points even being able to play, but without having opponents.

1 point for first 2 weeks, 2 points per day after 2 weeks.

Napísal the99percent, 30.06.2011 at 11:44

examples

pirati - Ranked 3rd, last CW played 65 days ago
Semper fi ranked 4th last game played 38 days ago
warborn legion - ranked 5th last played 92 days ago!!!!

tanodes 54 days
muhajadins 42 days ago

these are all in the top 10...

This is the problem of not having enough active clans.
We dun even hv 10 clans that are so active in playing CWs.
If u set a heavier punishment, all those inactive clans just keep on losing the marks and they will still keep on top10.
The result is u will still hv top10 clans of hving <1000, or even 900, 800, 700....CW pts.

Yeah Philip, that's the point, they need to be motivated to be active. Only Active Coalitions will be in the top 10. as it should be. A noob coalition that is active will be higher than these guys who never play.

Then something is wrong.

The coalition ranking is not about the number of games you can play, but who is the best coalition after-all.

If a "noob coalition" wants to pass the guys who never play they can simple keep playing and maybe winning their games? Yes, 1 point a day is fine and we might double it after a specific time, but you can't force the system to change so those coalitions that have 2 wins and 10 loss have a higher CP's then a 4/1 for example.

I can talk about Warborn Legion, we are a coalition with players from different parts of the world and it's not that easy to get the players online at the same time, plus many of our members are busy at the moment, but will come back soon.

Why should we be penalized so hard if we are already not winning any CP? 3 months ago WBL was the top Coalition and now we are in the 5th position. I disagree that we should be kicked back to 1000, so our victories count for nothing.

This 'inactivity' rule won't be fair to all coalition. Sometimes i search for a CW for a long time, but every coalition is rejecting my requests (for example i asked Warborn about 20times). So even if i want to play, i can't and i will lose points for inactivity. If a system like this is going to be introduced, it must also be possible to arrange CW's by challanging or something. Rejecting a challange will cost you points.

Also pinheiro is right: Activity is good; but it's the skill that gets you high in the coalition toplist, not activity!

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:41

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

I only ask for a CW when the opponent has at least 3members online (including at least 1 Officer). It's not only your coalition, it's also others that refuse to play us. Most times i get reactions like "we don't have the right players online atm". If that are not the right players, then why are they in the coalition anyway?

Napísal Hugosch, 09.08.2011 at 02:46

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:41

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

I only ask for a CW when the opponent has at least 3members online (including at least 1 Officer). It's not only your coalition, it's also others that refuse to play us. Most times i get reactions like "we don't have the right players online atm". If that are not the right players, then why are they in the coalition anyway?

your right even noob players should be allowed to play who cares if you lose a CW at least the noob gets expirience Pin let me play CW even though i never played one before we lost but now i know what to do if we were to get a cw i got the basic thing down and your right if your not going to CW why let them in the coalition no point

Napísal Hugosch, 09.08.2011 at 02:46

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:41

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

I only ask for a CW when the opponent has at least 3members online (including at least 1 Officer). It's not only your coalition, it's also others that refuse to play us. Most times i get reactions like "we don't have the right players online atm". If that are not the right players, then why are they in the coalition anyway?

we're awaiting our CW hugosch, get your PD cronies on at the same time and maybe we can play

also hugosch, You made a training division for undesirable players to play in CW; you're really not one to talk about "are not the right players". Some coalitions do not have the luxury to move bad players to another coalition then farm them!

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:50

Napísal Hugosch, 09.08.2011 at 02:46

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:41

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

I only ask for a CW when the opponent has at least 3members online (including at least 1 Officer). It's not only your coalition, it's also others that refuse to play us. Most times i get reactions like "we don't have the right players online atm". If that are not the right players, then why are they in the coalition anyway?

your right even noob players should be allowed to play who cares if you lose a CW at least the noob gets expirience Pin let me play CW even though i never played one before we lost but now i know what to do if we were to get a cw i got the basic thing down and your right if your not going to CW why let them in the coalition no point

Pinheiro refused to CW Solunae right in front of about 4 players in WBL in a game, quite the coalition you got there. Solunae has never played with our best player, Ironail, in a CW ever. We're probably the only ones(including kanker) to put our 2nd-3rd picks in (though they are all quite good in their own right). I am a strong believer in the only way for people to truly train players is to put them in CWs, Biteme while sort of practicing this has a training division due to their fear of losing CP.

While I have noticed lots of refusals (and I mean a lot, we've asked almost everyone possible because we want to CW all the time) due to people fearing us, They know we're the best (come at us BiteMe) - However, It is also true this will likely motivate people to play CWs which will be great. There is nothing wrong with coalitions not having active players, honestly if you can't keep a constant attendance of players I believe it might be time to disband the coalition - No use having a group of players if you're the only person in the group that shows up.

As I can see from this thread, the only people opposing this are people in inactive coalitions who don't want to lose their precious CP. I think this should be implemented; possibly not 1 per day though...maybe 20 per week inactive or something.

Napísal Fruit, 09.08.2011 at 03:24

Napísal Hugosch, 09.08.2011 at 02:46

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:41

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

I only ask for a CW when the opponent has at least 3members online (including at least 1 Officer). It's not only your coalition, it's also others that refuse to play us. Most times i get reactions like "we don't have the right players online atm". If that are not the right players, then why are they in the coalition anyway?

we're awaiting our CW hugosch, get your PD cronies on at the same time and maybe we can play

also hugosch, You made a training division for undesirable players to play in CW; you're really not one to talk about "are not the right players". Some coalitions do not have the luxury to move bad players to another coalition then farm them!

Pff, Fruit come on!

Your reaction is completely off-topic again, and just posted for nothing but trolling, flaming and insulting us.

But: Just because you are Fruit, i will explain you just 1more time:
First of all, we already played your old clan (Kanker) 4times, so you can't say we are refusing your CW's (we play everyone!). With that, i also asked you for a CW just 2days ago but one of your members went offline during my request.

Second: We made a second coalition so everyone is able to play CW's. More coalitions should do this; so they can't say "We don't have the right players online". Every player within one of our coalitions have played a coalition war, or will be playing one. When 3 are on; just play your CW. And about the pointfarming: Simply; not true. We don't play Biteme Too! more then other coalitions. Kanker played against them as much as we did, and we even lost one cw against them; they didn't. With that; they are always available to play a CW against everyone, so it's easyer to play them then to get refused 10times by other coalitions. Please don't make this insult 10times again if you know you are wrong.

Napísal Hugosch, 09.08.2011 at 03:54

Napísal Fruit, 09.08.2011 at 03:24

Napísal Hugosch, 09.08.2011 at 02:46

Napísal FaLLenXH3R0ESx, 09.08.2011 at 02:41

Maybe we didnt have any officers online?or not enough players? some coalitions dont play for those reasons Warborn hasnt been active in over 100 days and their most active memeber are Pin and Sif and recently started getting recruits and we still are(BillClintonMask joined today along with cuil a couple of days before) so think of those reasons before you start saying that coalitions are "pussies"

I only ask for a CW when the opponent has at least 3members online (including at least 1 Officer). It's not only your coalition, it's also others that refuse to play us. Most times i get reactions like "we don't have the right players online atm". If that are not the right players, then why are they in the coalition anyway?

we're awaiting our CW hugosch, get your PD cronies on at the same time and maybe we can play

also hugosch, You made a training division for undesirable players to play in CW; you're really not one to talk about "are not the right players". Some coalitions do not have the luxury to move bad players to another coalition then farm them!

Pff, Fruit come on!

Your reaction is completely off-topic again, and just posted for nothing but trolling, flaming and insulting us.

But: Just because you are Fruit, i will explain you just 1more time:
First of all, we already played your old clan (Kanker) 4times, so you can't say we are refusing your CW's (we play everyone!). With that, i also asked you for a CW just 2days ago but one of your members went offline during my request.

Second: We made a second coalition so everyone is able to play CW's. More coalitions should do this; so they can't say "We don't have the right players online". Every player within one of our coalitions have played a coalition war, or will be playing one. When 3 are on; just play your CW. And about the pointfarming: Simply; not true. We don't play Biteme Too! more then other coalitions. Kanker played against them as much as we did, and we even lost one cw against them; they didn't. With that; they are always available to play a CW against everyone, so it's easyer to play them then to get refused 10times by other coalitions. Please don't make this insult 10times again if you know you are wrong.

First: Yes, you CW'd us, but that was before PD was fixed(though still unfair, really)

Second: If they are truly a part of your coalition, they should effect your main coalition as well. Only a coward will not put their weaker players in their main cln's CWs. (hell, we even played with sonyhaxor already and he was former biteme too). The only reason kanker fought biteme too was because other coalitions feared us too much to play us. The difference however, is that they are your training division (a part of your coalition yes?) It's like in training games for say a sports team and split the team up, the team as a whole always wins don't they? Basically you're playing both sides and not risking CP; you are simply transfering CP that biteme too wins into the main coalition and risking nothing! On that note, you are incorrect that we fought them the same amount, you fought them a lot more than us.


however this is off-topic and I just wanted to respond to something that seemed rather untrue (the fact no-one wants to CW you)