15-20 Member Per Clan Limit

Wr1tt3n by BannedFor1Year, 15.07.2019 at 02:04

Rip EC, No rankism, The_Empire and all those full of noobs coalitions.

Who the hell are you

No every one likes to play competiveness.

I sure don't see the point in playing Eu+ 10k 3v3 Everyday. It's fun, sure, but that's not why I and many other users play the game.
I like scenarios, and my clan has a lot of scenario players, so It's good for me.
What's killing AW are not big clans, but WW1FAGS.
When there is a WW1 up, NOTHING else in the game fills up.
#DeathToWW1

Wr1tt3n by PleaseMe, 20.03.2019 at 03:57

Might help bring out new clans. Lot's of other video games do this and I feel it would bring diversity of new clans instead of having 300 members in the same one.
Also you don't need more than 20 people in one clan really.

It is a big waste to have 300 members in one clan, since you only need a few to play anything competitively and that's what this game revolves around is it's competitiveness, why else would we have seasons with trophies right?

massive support for this , clans with smaller number of players have greater integrity and for ppl training others its easier to communicate and band together..
300ppl clans are useless and abomination we should put a stop to this pls

Wr1tt3n by Ghostface, 22.07.2019 at 11:38

Wr1tt3n by PleaseMe, 20.03.2019 at 03:57

Might help bring out new clans. Lot's of other video games do this and I feel it would bring diversity of new clans instead of having 300 members in the same one.
Also you don't need more than 20 people in one clan really.

It is a big waste to have 300 members in one clan, since you only need a few to play anything competitively and that's what this game revolves around is it's competitiveness, why else would we have seasons with trophies right?

massive support for this , clans with smaller number of players have greater integrity and for ppl training others its easier to communicate and band together..
300ppl clans are useless and abomination we should put a stop to this pls

You clan has more than 100 members

Wr1tt3n by franklinruan22, 22.07.2019 at 18:38

Wr1tt3n by Ghostface, 22.07.2019 at 11:38

Wr1tt3n by PleaseMe, 20.03.2019 at 03:57

Might help bring out new clans. Lot's of other video games do this and I feel it would bring diversity of new clans instead of having 300 members in the same one.
Also you don't need more than 20 people in one clan really.

It is a big waste to have 300 members in one clan, since you only need a few to play anything competitively and that's what this game revolves around is it's competitiveness, why else would we have seasons with trophies right?

massive support for this , clans with smaller number of players have greater integrity and for ppl training others its easier to communicate and band together..
300ppl clans are useless and abomination we should put a stop to this pls

You clan has more than 100 members

who said hes agree with this shit

Won't help, if you check, you will realize same players do CW, just in different clans: Aristokrats, Ionia, Vibe, ENIGMA, Peaky Blinders, all same players (with some exceptions) who create new clan, do little cw and then move on. So more clans won't help grow competitive scene, it will just speed up the player clan-to-clan migration.

I agree that there should be registered clan squads, relevant to a season, with restrictions on transfers just like normal sporting events, this fixes so many issues relevant to cw. Whilst also regaining some form of credibility.
Limiting number of clan members per clan will do nothing to engage activity, as is normally only 6 or 7 'squad' players that even engage with regular cw activity, per clan and this solution proposed - also suggested many times before - will do very little to stimulate any form of competitive activity.

More should be done for cw leagues with different maps and settings and more competitive protocoin drops/prizes.
With the disparity in map content the games are almost completely different and therefore the scoring system is out of kilter as a general rule.

~edit:
It is the equivalent to mixing table tennis and tennis in the same league. 2 completely different games, just with many similarities in terms of how they are played.

Limiting the clans will in fact improve the competitive scene and it will stimulate more clans to play more clanwars.

Back then most clans had around 15-20max players per clan. Most of these players were pretty loyal and didn't jump to a new clan every month, instead of that they kept clanwarring with their current clan, which created a better clan dynamic and a better friendly relation between the players in that clan, furthermore it led to more clanwars per season overall, instead of just 2 or 3 clans dominating every season. I do understand the counter-arguments people made in this thread about wanting to be 'one big happy family' and stay in 1 clan with all their friends.

So i'd say make it a standard that a clan has a max of 20/25 players when its created and if a clan wishes to expand its playerlimit it has 2 options:

1. Clanwarring
The current price you get for clanwarring per season is a trophy on your clanpage if you end up being the #1, #2 or #3. As it may be satisfying for some people, because they can dickmeasure with the amount of trophies against other clans, there is another thing we could add for ending as the #1, #2 or #3.

For instance we can reward a clan by expanding their playerlimit. This means that everytime a clan ends up as #1, #2 or #3, its playerlimit will be expanded by a reasonable amount. This will give clans, that wish to expand, a boost to actualy to become bigger and fight for it. As it seems that most scenario-clans seem to like (imo) overstack their clans, this is the perfect opportunity for them to get introduced to clanwarring.

2. Protocoins
For those who dont like to play clanwars, or simply dont want to work for it, but still want to expand their playerlimit, there could be an option to buy an extra amount of playerslots for a reasonable amount of protocoins. This will make protocoins more useful, and perhaps it could become a seasonal price later on.

Wr1tt3n by Waffel, 23.07.2019 at 17:51

Let's look at the 4 reasons players will join a clan - of course it can be argued that some clans clans have 1 or more of the following focuses, explaining the reasons, preseason player registrations will fix the confusion and issues related to cw:

Cartography clans - The unspoken heros of the game these are usually niche groups of closed members, usually 10 players maximum, usually private and closed off to people - this rules this form of clan out of needing any form of restriction.

Scenario clans - This form of clan is for players who enjoy scenarios and playing on customised maps - As each map is different, finding players who are able to play at the same level on the same preferred maps is a challenge, with the high turnover of players in the game generally, this means large numbers of players are required in the clan to help organise games and events in relation to their niche map preference. Therefore a clan player limit would be highly counter intuitive in terms of encouraging activity on this front. It is such a shame that scenario based players have never had any form of serious competitive element, as this would no doubt encourage the highest standard of competitive players to diversify their interest within the game.

Friendship/Association - These clans are formed of players who are only passive and form the massive majority of players on the game, these clans consist of hundreds of players and serve no other purpose then for said players, to have recognisable names they can trust and talk to in game. Again limiting this clan memberships would be counter intuitive to the reasoning of restricting clans in the first instance, as the chances of seeing the same players online at the same time again are unlikely, within these clans, as the users normally engage with 3 or 4 playing sessions every 3 months (from what i remember and it doesn't appear that anything has drastically changed...). It can be said the players in these clans are highly unlikely after 2 or more years of only passive play, to then 'see the light' and become engaged with competitive activity. There are even 'graveyard' clans, where players go to die and only engage in sessions 3 or 4 times a year, I would then assume these clan types to be in the same group, even though the average skill level is normally much higher, usually such players will only come to atwar for chatting /trolling.

Competitive Clans - Yes - I agree with most of the sentiments in this thread, that in order to give back some credence to cw activity that players swapping clans mid season makes a mockery of the system, allowing alts to compete and top loading the best clans with all the best players is not conducive to a truly competitive e-sport/game.
This is why clans should be forced to register with 10 players prior to a cw season, allowing 1 or 2 substitutes mid season for players who go inactive or don't wish to participate etc. Assuming this common sense approach is implemented, hopefully this would also be relevant to scenario based competitive games, once this is finally realised and implemented.

I GOT THE SOLUTION!!!!

ALL JOIN THE EMPIRE AND WE HOST WW1 CWS ALL DAY LONG BETWEEN US !!
ITS SAME AS EUROPE BUT HISTORICAL OMG HOW AMAZING!!

Wr1tt3n by Waffel, 23.07.2019 at 17:51

Limiting the clans will in fact improve the competitive scene and it will stimulate more clans to play more clanwars.

Back then most clans had around 15-20max players per clan. Most of these players were pretty loyal and didn't jump to a new clan every month, instead of that they kept clanwarring with their current clan, which created a better clan dynamic and a better friendly relation between the players in that clan, furthermore it led to more clanwars per season overall, instead of just 2 or 3 clans dominating every season. I do understand the counter-arguments people made in this thread about wanting to be 'one big happy family' and stay in 1 clan with all their friends.

So i'd say make it a standard that a clan has a max of 20/25 players when its created and if a clan wishes to expand its playerlimit it has 2 options:

1. Clanwarring
The current price you get for clanwarring per season is a trophy on your clanpage if you end up being the #1, #2 or #3. As it may be satisfying for some people, because they can dickmeasure with the amount of trophies against other clans, there is another thing we could add for ending as the #1, #2 or #3.

For instance we can reward a clan by expanding their playerlimit. This means that everytime a clan ends up as #1, #2 or #3, its playerlimit will be expanded by a reasonable amount. This will give clans, that wish to expand, a boost to actualy to become bigger and fight for it. As it seems that most scenario-clans seem to like (imo) overstack their clans, this is the perfect opportunity for them to get introduced to clanwarring.

2. Protocoins
For those who dont like to play clanwars, or simply dont want to work for it, but still want to expand their playerlimit, there could be an option to buy an extra amount of playerslots for a reasonable amount of protocoins. This will make protocoins more useful, and perhaps it could become a seasonal price later on.

This only works if the point of clans is solely to CW. Most clans (especially the big ones) don't CW. If clans were only for CWing then sure a small size that had players active in training new people and groups to play often in CWs would work. I certainly can see clans that focus on playing 3v3 and training do not benefit from large sizes. But then those clans should just cap their own clan. My clan is not actively CW training, and I rarely think they even CW outside of occasional WW1 CW (yuck), so why would they need to be capped at 20 players when there is no reason for them.

Edit: The competitive scene has been dying for years and it's so small now that they need realize that clans were created for them but they mean so much more now. If the competitive community wants rules on their clans then they should just make their own rules per clan and stop expecting the big scenario/map-maker communities to follow their rules.

Wr1tt3n by franklinruan22, 22.07.2019 at 18:38

Wr1tt3n by Ghostface, 22.07.2019 at 11:38

Wr1tt3n by PleaseMe, 20.03.2019 at 03:57

Might help bring out new clans. Lot's of other video games do this and I feel it would bring diversity of new clans instead of having 300 members in the same one.
Also you don't need more than 20 people in one clan really.

It is a big waste to have 300 members in one clan, since you only need a few to play anything competitively and that's what this game revolves around is it's competitiveness, why else would we have seasons with trophies right?

massive support for this , clans with smaller number of players have greater integrity and for ppl training others its easier to communicate and band together..
300ppl clans are useless and abomination we should put a stop to this pls

You clan has more than 100 members

I would kick 100+ those members in a minute , if it wasnt for some noob leaders in my clan that would get mad at me

Bump

We could just differentiate between Competitive, RP, Scenario etc clans. To be fair, this will only divide the community further; AtWar seems better off being two seperate games at this point it seems, sometimes.

Lets make this happen

Wr1tt3n by Beast, 23.09.2019 at 21:05

I don't think it's a bad idea for a clan to have a max limit of like 25-30 if clan wars are to occur.

HOWEVER, there's no use breaking up the shitty larger clans which are made for other purposes, maybe just make them ineligible to CW? That way clans clearly meant to remain uncompetitive can keep their bloated size while reducing "hoarding" within the CW community, but just my two cents.

agree ... no reason to force clans with 50+ members into smaller clans to stimulate CWs - presumably most of those members don't want to CW. There seems to be a belief among proponents of a clan cap that there are hundreds of players in the large clans itching to CW. i am just not seeing it.

Clans are free to self-impose their own caps if they wish- having them imposed from outside to achieve a specific outcome seems unnecessarily manipulative and infringes on a coalition's autonomy.

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 24.09.2019 at 18:37

I don't think thats the main reason to introduce a member cap. I think people will be more inclined to start their own coalitions if coalitions are already at maximum occupancy. I didn't intend to revolve this around just Clan Wars. I think it would benefit everyone having a cap on members. It would give diversity to more people and finally we would see more people becoming leaders of new clans.

Wr1tt3n by PleaseMe, 24.09.2019 at 19:00

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 24.09.2019 at 18:37

I don't think thats the main reason to introduce a member cap. I think people will be more inclined to start their own coalitions if coalitions are already at maximum occupancy. I didn't intend to revolve this around just Clan Wars. I think it would benefit everyone having a cap on members. It would give diversity to more people and finally we would see more people becoming leaders of new clans.

Not saying diversity is a bad thing, but it needs to be organic. Forcing it in the way that is being proposed will not guarantee a higher number of viable coalitions, and again, it violates the preferences of those players who are happy to be sheep in a large heard part of a big group.

Agree great idea glad i thought of it a year ago. My original premise to this idea was how i came into the game in stalins martians. It was me vdog bertank dbacks, dburris and a few others training every day to get better, regardless of prefered game mode comradery is easier to achieve in smaller groups, and the chances of forming more meaningful bonds increases. Thats how i fell i love with atwar 8 years ago now, and i believe its a missing ingredient in atwar today.

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 26.09.2019 at 17:24

Agree great idea glad i thought of it a year ago. My original premise to this idea was how i came into the game in stalins martians. It was me vdog bertank dbacks, dburris and a few others training every day to get better, regardless of prefered game mode comradery is easier to achieve in smaller groups, and the chances of forming more meaningful bonds increases. Thats how i fell i love with atwar 8 years ago now, and i believe its a missing ingredient in atwar today.

Bad idea brian eplained why.

Also you were an evol fag before 8 years.

Wr1tt3n by JUGERS2, 26.09.2019 at 17:38

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 26.09.2019 at 17:24

Agree great idea glad i thought of it a year ago. My original premise to this idea was how i came into the game in stalins martians. It was me vdog bertank dbacks, dburris and a few others training every day to get better, regardless of prefered game mode comradery is easier to achieve in smaller groups, and the chances of forming more meaningful bonds increases. Thats how i fell i love with atwar 8 years ago now, and i believe its a missing ingredient in atwar today.

Bad idea brian eplained why.

Also you were an evol fag before 8 years.

I joined evoL in 2015

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 26.09.2019 at 17:44

Wr1tt3n by JUGERS2, 26.09.2019 at 17:38

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 26.09.2019 at 17:24

Agree great idea glad i thought of it a year ago. My original premise to this idea was how i came into the game in stalins martians. It was me vdog bertank dbacks, dburris and a few others training every day to get better, regardless of prefered game mode comradery is easier to achieve in smaller groups, and the chances of forming more meaningful bonds increases. Thats how i fell i love with atwar 8 years ago now, and i believe its a missing ingredient in atwar today.

Bad idea brian eplained why.

Also you were an evol fag before 8 years.

I joined evoL in 2015

Are you sure?

Wr1tt3n by JUGERS2, 26.09.2019 at 18:36

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 26.09.2019 at 17:44

Wr1tt3n by JUGERS2, 26.09.2019 at 17:38

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 26.09.2019 at 17:24

Agree great idea glad i thought of it a year ago. My original premise to this idea was how i came into the game in stalins martians. It was me vdog bertank dbacks, dburris and a few others training every day to get better, regardless of prefered game mode comradery is easier to achieve in smaller groups, and the chances of forming more meaningful bonds increases. Thats how i fell i love with atwar 8 years ago now, and i believe its a missing ingredient in atwar today.

Bad idea brian eplained why.

Also you were an evol fag before 8 years.

I joined evoL in 2015

Are you sure?

No i must be senile was an evoL fag me whole lyfe

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 24.09.2019 at 19:52

Not saying diversity is a bad thing, but it needs to be organic. Forcing it in the way that is being proposed will not guarantee a higher number of viable coalitions, and again, it violates the preferences of those players who are happy to be sheep in a large heard part of a big group.

Who cares if it violates the preferences of some players? No change in AW ever has the full support of every player.

The fact is there's literally no reason for a clan to have over 100 players. You can't even get to know 20 people well. What benefit is served by having these mega clans where everyone is just another stranger when we could have more small clans with a spirit of brotherhood between the members?

The truth is, clans are easily the most interesting part of AW. We should be taking greater advantage of this area to promote activity and player retention. It's not about having more CWs (thought that could be a clear benefit). It's about making AW resemble something more deliberate. When you see some clans with 4 players and other with 200 it just looks sloppy, like we haven't figured out what clan's are supposed to be. I would also get rid of the "free for all" option. Every clan should be application or invitations.

Wr1tt3n by Acquiesce, 27.09.2019 at 13:43

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 24.09.2019 at 19:52

Not saying diversity is a bad thing, but it needs to be organic. Forcing it in the way that is being proposed will not guarantee a higher number of viable coalitions, and again, it violates the preferences of those players who are happy to be sheep in a large heard part of a big group.

Who cares if it violates the preferences of some players? No change in AW ever has the full support of every player.

The fact is there's literally no reason for a clan to have over 100 players. You can't even get to know 20 people well. What benefit is served by having these mega clans where everyone is just another stranger when we could have more small clans with a spirit of brotherhood between the members?

The truth is, clans are easily the most interesting part of AW. We should be taking greater advantage of this area to promote activity and player retention. It's not about having more CWs (thought that could be a clear benefit). It's about making AW resemble something more deliberate. When you see some clans with 4 players and other with 200 it just looks sloppy, like we haven't figured out what clan's are supposed to be. I would also get rid of the "free for all" option. Every clan should be application or invitations.

A bit more radical then my interpretation, but they are some valid points

Wr1tt3n by Acquiesce, 27.09.2019 at 13:43

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 24.09.2019 at 19:52

Not saying diversity is a bad thing, but it needs to be organic. Forcing it in the way that is being proposed will not guarantee a higher number of viable coalitions, and again, it violates the preferences of those players who are happy to be sheep in a large heard part of a big group.

Who cares if it violates the preferences of some players? No change in AW ever has the full support of every player.

The fact is there's literally no reason for a clan to have over 100 players. You can't even get to know 20 people well. What benefit is served by having these mega clans where everyone is just another stranger when we could have more small clans with a spirit of brotherhood between the members?

The truth is, clans are easily the most interesting part of AW. We should be taking greater advantage of this area to promote activity and player retention. It's not about having more CWs (thought that could be a clear benefit). It's about making AW resemble something more deliberate. When you see some clans with 4 players and other with 200 it just looks sloppy, like we haven't figured out what clan's are supposed to be. I would also get rid of the "free for all" option. Every clan should be application or invitations.

Because of AWs small playerbase you say this.

Clan named Italia! is the best example of why we shouldnt change clan limit. If there were more people and more more clans with people from one region would be made and you cant just limit the number of the players from the certain region.

As for free for all its up to clan leaders to choose about it. Some like to brag about how many clanmembers they got. Some just like having a lot of players to play together and fill maps with.