Discussion of 'Camping'

Aw has 2 active clans yet still arguments over dirty gameplay...

Wr1tt3n by 4nic, 02.12.2019 at 09:59

Aw has 2 active clans yet still arguments over dirty gameplay...

Blame the last 2 years of doing almost no balance and new shit

NEW SUGGESTION

Since my suggestion of new cw system (WIN=3 points, LOSS= -2 points) seems not possible at this moment as it requires Dave's coding and total change,
I just came on one idea which would probably be the easiest way to solve camping pretty well immidealty, as it needs no over-involving of staff into any removal of Elo points or reseting Elo, without any coding or system change and encourages a little bit higher activity of clans, nothing drasically.
+ We could implement it even in current season.

It's about: setting the same fix number of CWs which needs to be played in first and second half of the season to qualify for trophy winning.

---

How should it work in praxis:

Season lasts for 3 months (~90 days).
Coalitions that are willing to qualify for the trophy winning need to play at least 20 cws in first half of season (first 45 days) and the same number of 20 cws in the second half of the season (second 45 days). In average, it's neither 1 cw in 2 days.
If a coalition wasn't active for the first season half or if a new coalition comes on cw scene and cannot achieve 20 played cws from the first half, it will have to achieve a fix number of at least 40 played cws in the second half to be qualified for the trophy winning.
If a coalition was active in first season half, but not in the second season half (didn't achive fix number of 20 cws), it cannot qualify for a trophy. It will encourage the consistency (as an example, it would be an absurd if Maratonci won a trophy by being active just in 1st season half and were disbanded in 2nd season half).

Shortly said, TO QUALIFY FOR THE SEASON TROPHY, a coalitions needs:

• 1st half of season: at least 20 played cws
• 2nd half of season: at least 20 played cws
• IN TOTAL: 40 played cws

---

Positive sides:

It requires no staff involving, keeps everything as it was before, but on the other side, it forces coalitions to keep the quite same activity in both season halfs.
It encourages a little big higher activity of clans in general, as I said, nothing drastically.
It should stop farming. Which happened 2 seasons ago, when Illyria fast farmed Elo in 18 games at the end of season, without competing almost whole season and won 1st place trophy.
It should also stop camping. Which happened last season, where MK camped at 1st place with only 5 or 6 cws played in the second half of the season.
Also, by implementing of this, we should resolve already suggested thing that coalitions without certain amount of CWs cannot qualify for a trophy and I think 40 is the perfect border of qualifying.



What you guys think of this one?

I got something simpler: make the 3 top clans in the seasonal leaderboard automatically lose ELO if they don't play a game in 3 days in a row.

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 12.12.2019 at 11:03

I got something simpler: make the 3 top clans in the seasonal leaderboard automatically lose ELO if they don't play a game in 3 days in a row.

Not practical, coalitions may go through small spells of inactivity and this forces clans to constantly play, making it a chore.
With croat's system however, the clan's can be inactive for 1 or 2 weeks while still meeting the minimum cw requirement and being considered, overall, as 'active'.
Furthermore, the system requires no coding whereas yours requires an algorithm to assign an "elo decay".

Wr1tt3n by Wheelo, 13.12.2019 at 08:43

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 12.12.2019 at 11:03

I got something simpler: make the 3 top clans in the seasonal leaderboard automatically lose ELO if they don't play a game in 3 days in a row.

Not practical, coalitions may go through small spells of inactivity and this forces clans to constantly play, making it a chore.
With croat's system however, the clan's can be inactive for 1 or 2 weeks while still meeting the minimum cw requirement and being considered, overall, as 'active'.
Furthermore, the system requires no coding whereas yours requires an algorithm to assign an "elo decay".

Ok, reduce it to playing a game every week. That's fair enough. With croat's system they can basically farm during the first week of every "season" and not play again. How is that suposed to work for a competition? The esential here is not the amount of games as much as the consistency in playing.

Every single change in the game requires a coding tho.

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 13.12.2019 at 13:02

Wr1tt3n by Wheelo, 13.12.2019 at 08:43

Wr1tt3n by RaulPB, 12.12.2019 at 11:03

I got something simpler: make the 3 top clans in the seasonal leaderboard automatically lose ELO if they don't play a game in 3 days in a row.

Not practical, coalitions may go through small spells of inactivity and this forces clans to constantly play, making it a chore.
With croat's system however, the clan's can be inactive for 1 or 2 weeks while still meeting the minimum cw requirement and being considered, overall, as 'active'.
Furthermore, the system requires no coding whereas yours requires an algorithm to assign an "elo decay".

Ok, reduce it to playing a game every week. That's fair enough. With croat's system they can basically farm during the first week of every "season" and not play again. How is that suposed to work for a competition? The esential here is not the amount of games as much as the consistency in playing.

Every single change in the game requires a coding tho.

OMG RAUL IS BACKK AGAIN!!!!!!!11!@!#131@!! now all we need is Tact, and aw is back on tracks

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=38700
I dont even know if this is gonna work today.

But regardless, i think 1st camping that i remember was done by JNA or evol back in '14-'15, and ever since then you could see threads like this of people complaining and suggesting ideas to deal with it. So unless there is a real will behind this thread to do something about it, you might as well delete it cuzz its just gonna become another pointless trash talking dick measuring contest.

Wr1tt3n by Steve Aoki, 13.12.2019 at 23:01

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=38700
I dont even know if this is gonna work today.

But regardless, i think 1st camping that i remember was done by JNA or evol back in '14-'15, and ever since then you could see threads like this of people complaining and suggesting ideas to deal with it. So unless there is a real will behind this thread to do something about it, you might as well delete it cuzz its just gonna become another pointless trash talking dick measuring contest.

If clans agree to this, i'd have no issue hosting such a tournament. It seems like one way to solve the issue.

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 14.12.2019 at 19:20

If clans agree to this, i'd have no issue hosting such a tournament. It seems like one way to solve the issue.

Final four tournament with 10k protocoins as reward for the winner?

Wr1tt3n by Mauzer Panteri, 15.12.2019 at 12:55

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 14.12.2019 at 19:20

If clans agree to this, i'd have no issue hosting such a tournament. It seems like one way to solve the issue.

Final four tournament with 10k protocoins as reward for the winner?

Seems fair... anyone object to this?

Wr1tt3n by Mauzer Panteri, 15.12.2019 at 12:55

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 14.12.2019 at 19:20

If clans agree to this, i'd have no issue hosting such a tournament. It seems like one way to solve the issue.

Final four tournament with 10k protocoins as reward for the winner?

Bo3 or something else?

Wr1tt3n by Froyer, 16.12.2019 at 16:24

Wr1tt3n by Mauzer Panteri, 15.12.2019 at 12:55

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 14.12.2019 at 19:20

If clans agree to this, i'd have no issue hosting such a tournament. It seems like one way to solve the issue.

Final four tournament with 10k protocoins as reward for the winner?

Bo3 or something else?

Bo3, Bo7, whatever works...

Semifinal best of 3 or bo5.

In final till 3 or 5 wins.

I think we should use the NBA system since only 4 clans will play. Both Semis and Finals to be best of 7, or first one to reach 4 wins

Just implement croat idea

+3 per win
-2 / -1 per defeat

It's simple, intuitive and create no distorsion between the clans according to their elo

Wr1tt3n by Kaska, 19.12.2019 at 07:20

+3 per win
-2 / -1 per defeat

Not gonna happen. Unbalanced.

Mauz once told me that camping earlier than 2 weeks before the end of a season was "gay".

Wheres now anti-camping clans, who want to play 50 cws per day?



Its just fake pressure at the end of season.

Had a request to confirm what we are doing this season, as we are at the halfway point of the season. i will contact teams that have played more than 20 games and if no one objects, i can host a 4 team Best of 7 tournament as a solution to the camping problem for this season, until there's something more permanent in place. I will also contact EC and SoM for their input.

Format will be 1st vs 4th, 2nd vs 3rd for the semi-finals, with winners advancing. The losers bracket will then play for 3rd place. No promises on the PC rewards (10k is too high, but i'll ask Dave about 1k)

Support for final four.

To be clear MK, won't take participate in that tournament if reward for the winner be less then 5k pcs.

I find this unfair however, because all the troubles we've gone through will be for nothing, if we are to risk first or second or third place all over again. I mean, what were we trying to achieve by getting to the first place of this season? Just a participation in a tournament where you have to be 4th to participate? Seems pretty wrong to me and it reminds me of what greek football organisation started to make this more interesting.

Anyways, I would really like if we could find an alternative way of dealing with camping. With this type of solution we only give hopes to the rest 3 clans to get first place.

Wr1tt3n by Cold Case, 17.01.2020 at 03:34

I find this unfair however, because all the troubles we've gone through will be for nothing, if we are to risk first or second or third place all over again. I mean, what were we trying to achieve by getting to the first place of this season? Just a participation in a tournament where you have to be 4th to participate? Seems pretty wrong to me and it reminds me of what greek football organisation started to make this more interesting.

Anyways, I would really like if we could find an alternative way of dealing with camping. With this type of solution we only give hopes to the rest 3 clans to get first place.

ELO DECAY AFTER 1000 ELO WILL PREVENT CAMPING

Wr1tt3n by Cold Case, 17.01.2020 at 03:34

I find this unfair however, because all the troubles we've gone through will be for nothing, if we are to risk first or second or third place all over again. I mean, what were we trying to achieve by getting to the first place of this season? Just a participation in a tournament where you have to be 4th to participate? Seems pretty wrong to me and it reminds me of what greek football organisation started to make this more interesting.

Anyways, I would really like if we could find an alternative way of dealing with camping. With this type of solution we only give hopes to the rest 3 clans to get first place.

maybe we can have 2 trophies 1 for most elo this season and another one for best clan of the season for the winner of the playoff
activity and skills are rewarded but only playoff got pc ofc

As a player i do not like to lose ELO cause l lose prestige and people discriminates low ELO

Same with the clans if they canhold excepting for tournaments they have prepared very well they will and it does not have solution

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 30.11.2019 at 16:46

Ideas of what could/should be done to make things a bit more interesting?

Elo decay doesnt solve any problem , it makes new problems instead
with this shortness of CWs , the one that finds more cws will be more successful and quantity will be more important than quality
neither does changing elo earn from cws to +3 for win -2 for loss(giving fixed eloes for win/loss) which ruins the meaning of elo system


my idea is changing coefs in calculating elo earning from CWs for example IN CURRENT SITUATION if you have 1200 eloes and opponent 1000 elo , if you win you will get 5.4 eloes and if you lose you lose 19.6 eloes
I think if the Effectiveness of elo difference between opponents be less than current state (for example in the given case you get 8 eloes instead of 5.4 from winning and lose 15 eloes , instead of 19.6 it would make camping less effective strategy for higher elo clans)

at the same time it doesnt ruin meaning of elo ( like the idea of giving fixed eloes for win and loss)
i dont know how its calculated right now.
but the coefficients used in the formula should become slightly less than current situation

Also forcing clans to play at least 20 matches each semi season will make it mostly a league
but might not be a bad idea but if you do so you will be left with competition between 2-3 clans in the seasons of shortness in all atwar and the latecomers will stand no chance tho there will be less number of cws
and also it will make new problems(challenges) for clans to find the given number of matches . and as well clans will use that as a way of winning season. for example not playing a clan to get it off the board (when participating clans are few)
and we will run into more sophisticated problems .

Doxa with 1100 elo.

Wr1tt3n by Mauzer Panteri, 07.02.2020 at 16:52

Doxa with 1100 elo.

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHHAAHA