MIN number of played CW's

लेखो: 63 द्वारा देखा गया है .: 99 users

मूल प्रति

द्वारा Croat, 10.04.2015 - 10:16

Elo system, by thoughts of high percentage of you, works great. Much better than last CW system.
But, one thing is contradictory:

A clans with red dot in front of their name are clans who played 3 or less CW's and are taking higher spot on CW rankings than clans with yellow dot in front of their name, who played 30 and more CW's.

Because nobody cares about Bonkers, mines, Sun Tzu's and Desu's words at poll forum, lets implement a minimal number of played CW's needed to take a spot on CW rankings.
I suggest number of 30 played CW games and I think it is best solution.
10 is too low, 20 is still low (in my opinion) and everything above 30 is too high.

It is ridiculous that some Paladins of Gods, Praetorian Guards or BUYUK TURKIYE take higher spots than SM, evoL, Syndi,ENIGMA, Singularity and others above 30 played CWs.
Also, this fake Illyria with 5 played CWs is taking 3rd place lolololo

Please, update this to current CW system and it will stay great like it is now, but more fair to clans who are active in Clan Warring.

Ty, Cro

Ferlucci1389 लेखो: 696 (Message) से (User): सर्बिया	+1 28.04.2015 - 09:29 Ferlucci1389 I blame Tito! ---- Cuva BOG Srbina svog! लदान... लदान...
Netre The Immortals लेखो: 574 (Message) से (User): आयरलैंड	+1 28.04.2015 - 09:34 Netre लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 28.04.2015 at 09:26 लिखा द्वारा Netre, 28.04.2015 at 09:22 The whole idea behind this thread is to stop the coalitions that cant be active often from taking a position above a coalition with lots of games and are active. First of all, thanks for the insult. They add so much to your arguments. Second, the solution are made for problems, and as I've say some posts up, this is not a problem. Third, the "solution" you are trying to propose have flaws - this is just one of them. There was no insult just observations on my part, (which i edited my last post becasue i figured out you probably speak spanish and not english but you could have fooled me you type english better than some english speakers)... i could insult you but i dont see the piont in insulting a person i don't actually know or see face to face. I'm just putting up an alternative to taking down all the coalition who cant reach a certain number of cw's if this is followed through with. There are alot of coalitions who like having a few cw's up on a table to see where they stand and stopping them from viewing their progress would just dissuade them from bothering with any cw's at all. If the idea to take down the names of coalitions with fewer number of cw's then of course this idea becomes useless and shouldnt be bothered with either. ---- लदान... लदान...
Sun Tsu Suicidal Cookies लेखो: 1939 (Message) से (User): UK	28.04.2015 - 20:28 Sun Tsu लिखा द्वारा Netre, 28.04.2015 at 05:21 लिखा द्वारा 12gsh, 28.04.2015 at 01:00 Putting a minimal CW games needed to get on the CW scoreboard will also discourage newer/less active clans from playing CW wars, as they have no hope to get on the scoreboard without playing x number of games, when their members aren't as active as other clans. There are 6 comments just above this with me and sun tzu that pretty much end in, lets make a second leader board for the clans that don't get to 30 cw's. So they will still be shown like normal but the guys who get above 30 cw's will elavate up and make a new leader board at the top of the coalitions page like the one there already. that way the coalitions are split into the most active and least active coalitions with the divide at number 30 its the fairest way yes ---- intelligence + imagination = extraordinary result लदान... लदान...

के लिए खोज:
उपयोगकर्ता द्वारा:
फोरम में:
	विषय शीर्षक में संदेशों में