@ bintang many wars are loop sided Cus of the mismatch. When u are outnumbered by 10-20pax giving the losing side more crystal usually means more meat and higher payout to the clan with more members lol
Old mercs wars no roster lock much better EE wars look like a mismatch nearly everywhere u go. Not as fun as before. Make it 3hr auto match up and include one hour open door (in only no outs) Suggested Rep is biased Eli. Clan owner or other members could be noobs. Better if system auto does it, eliminating personal thoughts/feelings etc
Indeed clan owner could be biased. But will be hard to rely on the server sys to rate players in war. But if we leave roster unlock u will see big merc crashing into wars and 70 vs 50 could turn out to be 75 vs 100 if they do hav big contacts lol
Jus like the ratings for PayPal or eBay transactions, there's always possibility of fake ratings. But it is still a Gd gauge of whether the seller is reliable and hav delivered Goods in Gd condition. Likewise this could help clan in selecting mercs
Some clans I see are already given up warring once they see they are outnumbered by 20 ppl. The plunder results is not much diff from a pw. Some ppl will not complain ab free mith. Others will be giving up hope for the dev to do something cus nothing much can be done with current sys. It's much easier to flock to a bigger / more popular clan than to test ur luck for a proper match up
No support for ratings, it's just a matter of opinion or if you are friend with owner, do you think the owner will rate you -5 if you were inactive ? Anyway, only fair matchup would be similar stats and numbers of members in each clan but it's impossible and you can't blame devs for that.
Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. I lost 36 of 48 mith a couple days ago. I didn't complain, just get over it...
Bottom 20 get automatic minus scores. Bottom 20 are normally smaller high koing hansel or pure spies that do a valuable role in war. But they earn less than other builds. Also if a member is sat on and cannot perform as usual in war then again they would be downgraded even though they have absorbed a lot of fire releasing others to potentially fight more easily. The performance of members is very complex. The tools that may help are an eb style battle log who did what when and how many hits in and out. Reputation would unfairly judge some good players down and those with larger builds that can barely be hit and just skim for max plunder would look better than they actually are. Easy to war if not many can hit you. Owners should already monitor cc and recognise disruptive members who are easy to warn and if needed ban from wars.
If an owner rate an inactive player 5, then it will lose its credibility as a responsible hosting clan and as an impartial clan leader. I honestly do not think this bears well for the clan tat gave inactive anything tats not negative. Those who are active will speak ill of this clan's judgement ability and will obviously not support it much for future wars. Yes indeed plunder alone is not a full indication of how a player performs in war. Activeness and ability to work as a team is more important. I doubt dev can come up with a rating logics to rate players's performance dynamically but having only 5 votes for positive and 5 votes for negative rating shd limit a full exploit of this rating sys. IMO it's cool tat clan owner can rate a player well in appreciation of his contribution while answer to the rest of the roster by givjng negative rating to inactives Many clans resort to farming inactives players. This shows the prob tat inactive players have created and its unfair to the rest who commited time and efforts to the war. The possibility of getting negative rating shd any players hoping to get a free ride some considerations b4 allowing inactiveness. And one major use of this reputation sys gives dev a reason and a tool to rightfully and officially drop lowly rated players to balance up a roster which is going to be one-sided due to the lack of sign up clans
I read through this entire thread. I still do not understand at all what you are trying to say. Have you sent this in to support and ask if they have problems with it?
So basically the clan owner would rate members that were participants in the war? Okay i actually like this idea and truly see 2downsides 1) Favoritism 2) Wars started soley to boost rep(not sich a bad thing, duh more war) I am sure it would help with war activity and willingness to follow war generals. Now, just get the devs on board. Short version i fully support this idea!
Yes indeed this idea will open to favoritism. Yet on the other side of the coin, it's a challenge to clan owner. He has to be judgmental, impartial and shows tact on his votes. Show favoritism to those who dun deserves it, he will lose the support, trust and respect of the ppl. Shdnt these be a challenge and responsibility of a Gd clan owner whose job shd not be as simple as handing out admins and deciding who to farm? Lol And yes he can't pleases everyone. I'm sure many will complain tat they deserve better scores. And yet many will appreciate the Gd ratings they achieved thru sheer commitment and responsibility? I sure most clan owners of war clans are mature players. This will serve as a Gd test to leaderships of a clan. If someone is exploiting this thru fake ratings, he will get his arse pound once he is shown to be inactive in wars. The owner and clan tat rates him will lose all credibility. Negative ratings will then pull his current fake "reputation" down. Thus I see it as a viable auto moderating rank sys. Those with Hi reputation rank will be pressured to maintain it. Those with low ranks will hav to buck up or no one will accept them for wars (which is a Gd thing to the frustrated warring community whose main issue is dealing with inactives) And best thing is dev hav a tool to judge and balance out rosters
With the amount of complaints on the forum maybe the dev can update us what are they doing to improve match ups?