Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

Clan Size Issue

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles

Assertion - the clan size maximum is an absolute joke and will backfire really quickly when clan battles come along...

 

Why?
In WoT I was part of a fairly active clan, we'd have enough people willing and able to consistently run 1 stronghold battle team on any night. That was with 85+ members...

My Warships clan has the same cross-section of player types, except 30 people max and 50 people at most.

Most people in my current clan (Warships) have real life (RL) commitments, as such on any night we are lucky to have 5-7 willing and able to do clan stuff. We have an overflow clan which has another 1-5 at any one time.

We will not be alone in this, many Warships players aren't in the school/high school cross section, many are working age folks with partners and/or kids. Anyone who has any experience with this will know that the time of day and day of the week you can play games varies significantly.


Hypothesis

Current clan maximum - 30

Current clan active during CB time - 5-7

Anticipated clan maximum at CB release - 40

Anticipated clan active during CB time - 7-9

Estimated clan battle numbers (per team) - 7/10/12

So if we are lucky, my clan will be sometimes able to run 7v7 on some nights of the week.

Number of clans on Asia with 25+ members - 85

 

So assuming I'm in an 'average' clan, on any one night we can expect maybe 100 clans than can field 7v7 teams.

If we take into account timezone differences and other issues, the clan pool for battles at a generous estimate would be 10-15

And that's an issue, I can tell you for a fact that most of those will be 'pro' or at least very good clans. We really need a baseline increase of clan numbers to 60 (allows any clans with overflow to merge and there are quite a few!) and the ability to get clan numbers to 100...

The reason is that clans like mine, that are in the middle-lower end of the pack simply won't be able to generate the numbers to do Clan Battles regularly, which will compound the problem of team skill and skew the CB aspect even more in favour of the pro clans.

Pro clans aside, it's very likely that to consistently run CB, clans will need 50+ members...

The above is all assuming a 7v7 format... What if it's 9 or 10?

/Hypothisis

 

Conclusion

Pro clans will easily be able to generate active members at key times to play Clan Battles. Due to clan sizes, middle-of-the-pack clans will struggle to frequently conduct Clan Battles. This disparity will generate a massive skill disparity in Clan Battles and will lead to lower and lower numbers of clans engaging in Clan Battles.
The solution to this is to increase the Clan number maximum to 60 by default allowing even average skill clans enough members to build decent teams and to extent the possible maximum (through the Clan Port) to 100.

With server numbers it is feasible to extend clan maximum to at least 150 as clan content and participation expands.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit: corrected spelling

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
69 posts
3,877 battles

I agree that there will be problems. I played WoT Blitz with 50 max members in a clan. Although we were a clan with "very" dedicated members, we struggled to get 7 members(Blitz had max 7 members per battle) for a clan tournament. I don't think 30 is nearly enough to get substantial players nor do I think 60 is enough either. Remeber, we 'paid' WG the same amount we used to in WoT(which has 100 members) to get 'only' 30 members and now they are telling us to go through a grind(and a tough one at that) to get a max 50 players which wouldn't really be enough for a clan of casual players to come up with substantial members to participate in clan battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,569 battles
2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Assertion - the clan size maximum is an absolute joke and will backfire really quickly when clan battles come along...

 

Why?
In WoT I was part of a fairly active clan, we'd have enough people willing and able to consistently run 1 stronghold battle team on any night. That was with 85+ members...

My Warships clan has the same cross-section of player types, except 30 people max and 50 people at most.

Most people in my current clan (Warships) have real life (RL) commitments, as such on any night we are lucky to have 5-7 willing and able to do clan stuff. We have an overflow clan which has another 1-5 at any one time.

We will not be alone in this, many Warships players aren't in the school/high school cross section, many are working age folks with partners and/or kids. Anyone who has any experience with this will know that the time of day and day of the week you can play games varies significantly.


Hypothisis

Current clan maximum - 30

Current clan active during CB time - 5-7

Anticipated clan maximum at CB release - 40

Anticipated clan active during CB time - 7-9

Estimated clan battle numbers (per team) - 7/10/12

So if we are lucky, my clan will be sometimes able to run 7v7 on some nights of the week.

Number of clans on Asia with 25+ members - 85

 

So assuming I'm in an 'average' clan, on any one night we can expect maybe 100 clans than can field 7v7 teams.

If we take into account timezone differences and other issues, the clan pool for battles at a generous estimate would be 10-15

And that's an issue, I can tell you for a fact that most of those will be 'pro' or at least very good clans. We really need a baseline increase of clan numbers to 60 (allows any clans with overflow to merge and there are quite a few!) and the ability to get clan numbers to 100...

The reason is that clans like mine, that are in the middle-lower end of the pack simply won't be able to generate the numbers to do Clan Battles regularly, which will compound the problem of team skill and skew the CB aspect even more in favour of the pro clans.

Pro clans aside, it's very likely that to consistently run CB, clans will need 50+ members...

The above is all assuming a 7v7 format... What if it's 9 or 10?

/Hypothisis

 

Conclusion

Pro clans will easily be able to generate active members at key times to play Clan Battles. Due to clan sizes, middle-of-the-pack clans will struggle to frequently conduct Clan Battles. This disparity will generate a massive skill disparity in Clan Battles and will lead to lower and lower numbers of clans engaging in Clan Battles.
The solution to this is to increase the Clan number maximum to 60 by default allowing even average skill clans enough members to build decent teams and to extent the possible maximum (through the Clan Port) to 100.

With server numbers it is feasible to extend clan maximum to at least 150 as clan content and participation expands.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit: corrected spelling

9

agreed, my clan is one of these "pro clans" that you speak of (top 10 on the server) and even now we are having problems with getting enough people together at the same time to even train for tournys. and keep in mind in terms of activeness in playing we easily rank 5 in the server, frankly for CWs i expect nothing but unicum clans beating the shite out of each other while smaller clans dont even dare to join in

 

(BTW thanks for actually writeing a logical and factual thread, too many people come ranting into the forum screaming their heads off these days that it's getting toxic, this is a nice breath of fresh air)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
45 minutes ago, drakon233 said:

agreed, my clan is one of these "pro clans" that you speak of (top 10 on the server) and even now we are having problems with getting enough people together at the same time to even train for tournys. and keep in mind in terms of activeness in playing we easily rank 5 in the server, frankly for CWs i expect nothing but unicum clans beating the shite out of each other while smaller clans dont even dare to join in

 

(BTW thanks for actually writeing a logical and factual thread, too many people come ranting into the forum screaming their heads off these days that it's getting toxic, this is a nice breath of fresh air)

 

Thanks
Clans make everything better and if they increase the clan limit = more people in clans = better CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
30 minutes ago, dead_man_walking said:

personal opinion change it to:

Default - 50

First increase - 75

2nd increase - 100

 

and double the amount of oil required for each stage

 

Valid

Only reason I say 60 is that it includes clans that have a full overflow clan, which I know of a few...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
1,924 battles
23 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

 

Valid

Only reason I say 60 is that it includes clans that have a full overflow clan, which I know of a few...

overflow will always occur for successful/popular (go look at some of the anime fanbase groups lol) groups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
On 22/09/2017 at 2:03 PM, dead_man_walking said:

overflow will always occur for successful/popular (go look at some of the anime fanbase groups lol) groups

Oh I realise that but at least 60 standard would allow most clans to field a team on a daily basis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
18 posts
1,821 battles

Whats wrong with straight out 100?  My tank Clan has 97 and with 20 on most evenings you still need 7/10/15 to go skirming or Clan battle, OP is 100% correct ,you need big numbers to regularly field small teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
13 hours ago, cplripley said:

Whats wrong with straight out 100?  My tank Clan has 97 and with 20 on most evenings you still need 7/10/15 to go skirming or Clan battle, OP is 100% correct ,you need big numbers to regularly field small teams

 

I just heard it's probs going to be tier 10 because they want it to be 'best of the best'...

 

Horrible idea, makes the issue I've described above even worse as it'll reduce the pool of active CB clans even more. 

 

(Due to excluding those FTP members who can't foot the Tier 10 repair bills or even those without Tier 10s)

 

I really hope the Tier 10 isn't legit...

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,859 posts
5,797 battles
On 9/22/2017 at 11:07 AM, dead_man_walking said:

personal opinion change it to:

Default - 50

First increase - 75

2nd increase - 100

 

and double the amount of oil required for each stage

 

200,000 to increase to 100

bruh :cap_fainting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
On 25/09/2017 at 1:09 PM, FenrirApalis said:

200,000 to increase to 100

bruh :cap_fainting:

Yeah screw that!!!

 

How about we just go with 100 straight out...

 

The more I think about the clan limit and the CB setup the more I'm sure the WG doesn't care at all about average player-base or even the decent player-base...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,177 posts
4,099 battles

Why are people concerned about large conglomerate groups which span multiple clans beating down smaller clans?

For starters, based on the preview information released by WG, clan battles will be ladder-based and not CW map based like in WoT, so you won't have the issue of big conglomerates like [BLAH1], [BLAH2], [BLAH3], [BLAH4] and [BLAH5] ganging up on [SMOL], [TINY] and [MINI] on the world map with strategic territorial positioning. Hence, the argument that "large clans will just form sub-clans anyway" is largely invalid.

Second of all, the ladder will be tiered, so you won't be seeing "pro" clans trashing up beginner clans, which then makes this argument invalid as well.


The current player limits in clans is a conscious decision made by WG to allow smaller clans with fewer players to remain capable of participating in 7v7s. Those asking for larger clans are, quite unsurprisingly, coming from larger groups and are doing so out of self-interest only. Having larger clans would unfairly choke out smaller beginner clans from participating, since larger clans can field more players at any given time during the day, earn points more quickly, and climb the ladder more quickly (a clan of 82 players can earn points at a much faster rate than a clan of 27 players).

Limiting the size of clans allows for a more even playing field. Most normal players have normal lives, and can't always make it to play. In a clan of 82 players, you're rarely going to find any shortage of clan members to play with, so you have more chances to climb the ladder, compared with a clan of 27. Keep in mind that while large conglomerates exist, the majority of WoWS clans are smaller in size compared to WoT clans.

 

TL;DR: Those asking for larger clans are more likely to be able to field larger clans, and are making these requests out of selfish desires. A clan of 82 players can easily dominate over a clan of 27 players on the ladderboard when it comes to point gain, but a clan of 29 players is less likely to dominate over a clan of 19 players.

Edited by benlisquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,248 battles
6 minutes ago, benlisquare said:

Why are people concerned about large conglomerate groups which span multiple clans beating down smaller clans?

For starters, based on the preview information released by WG, clan battles will be ladder-based and not CW map based like in WoT, so you won't have the issue of big conglomerates like [BLAH1], [BLAH2], [BLAH3], [BLAH4] and [BLAH5] ganging up on [SMOL], [TINY] and [MINI] on the world map with strategic territorial positioning. Hence, the argument that "large clans will just form sub-clans anyway" is largely invalid.

Second of all, the ladder will be tiered, so you won't be seeing "pro" clans trashing up beginner clans, which then makes this argument invalid as well.


The current player limits in clans is a conscious decision made by WG to allow smaller clans with fewer players to remain capable of participating in 7v7s. Those asking for larger clans are, quite unsurprisingly, coming from larger groups and are doing so out of self-interest only. Having larger clans would unfairly choke out smaller beginner clans from participating, since larger clans can field more players at any given time during the day, earn points more quickly, and climb the ladder more quickly (a clan of 82 players can earn points at a much faster rate than a clan of 27 players).

Limiting the size of clans allows for a more even playing field. Most normal players have normal lives, and can't always make it to play. In a clan of 82 players, you're rarely going to find any shortage of clan members to play with, so you have more chances to climb the ladder, compared with a clan of 27. Keep in mind that while large conglomerates exist, the majority of WoWS clans are smaller in size compared to WoT clans.

 

TL;DR: Those asking for larger clans are more likely to be able to field larger clans, and are making these requests out of selfish desires. A clan of 82 players can easily dominate over a clan of 27 players on the ladderboard when it comes to point gain, but a clan of 29 players is less likely to dominate over a clan of 19 players.

Big clans are already forming sub clans even before clan functionality addition in 0611. For example, ZA&ZAII GS&GS_ DS&DS2. While I do not want to speculate, it is entirely possibly to switch people between the main and sub to help both clans gain rank.

 

while most clans are region based, the people may not know each other IRL, they are often based on common interest, not fellow students/colleagues. Which means everyone has a different life, and all the people playing at the same time isn’t a common thing. I play in the morning, and usually there’s just me in the clan chat screen, and most of my friends in other clans are offline too. One guy I know often works night shifts so he basically has no one to div with. A few members of NOOBS are in NA which has a really different time zone to Asia region. So with all these different schedules, do you really think a small clan can have all of its population online and ready to play at the same time? I don’t think so, only with a member size large enough can a clan be able to organize a team for CB. Limiting the clan size to an unreasonable level is not the answer to small clans’ survivability issue. If to allow small clans to participate, the 7-7 rule should be changed to for example 4-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
1 hour ago, benlisquare said:

TL;DR: Those asking for larger clans are more likely to be able to field larger clans, and are making these requests out of selfish desires. A clan of 82 players can easily dominate over a clan of 27 players on the ladderboard when it comes to point gain, but a clan of 29 players is less likely to dominate over a clan of 19 players.

 

Completely disagree...

It adversely affects clans of more average skill levels as they will more than likely not even have the numbers online to meet 7 tier 10 ships.

Your assertion about the ranking system probably won't pan out in Asia, we don't have the clan population to sustain a fair matchmaking as it is.

 

Our focus should be to get more clans in queue more often, to do that 60 members would be reasonable.

 

It would then lead to more even matchmaking as more clans would be in queue.

To give you an example:

My can has a 1/2 full Overflow. If CB was tier 8 or 6 we might field a clan team 2-3 times a night.

Merged we'd field 2 teams for that and 1 team for a further 2-3 matches. That's a drastic increase with only 50% more players...

 

I'm using that tier as an example because tier 10 is such a silly idea WG had to put extreme conditions and rent-a-ship on it.

 

By dividing people into such small chunks it actually excludes more than it includes.

 

And it'll probs take us 2 months to get to 40 slots, maybe 6 months or more to get to 50...

 

As for association, we all know each other either through employment or friendship...

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,569 battles
2 hours ago, benlisquare said:

Why are people concerned about large conglomerate groups which span multiple clans beating down smaller clans?

For starters, based on the preview information released by WG, clan battles will be ladder-based and not CW map based like in WoT, so you won't have the issue of big conglomerates like [BLAH1], [BLAH2], [BLAH3], [BLAH4] and [BLAH5] ganging up on [SMOL], [TINY] and [MINI] on the world map with strategic territorial positioning. Hence, the argument that "large clans will just form sub-clans anyway" is largely invalid.

Second of all, the ladder will be tiered, so you won't be seeing "pro" clans trashing up beginner clans, which then makes this argument invalid as well.


The current player limits in clans is a conscious decision made by WG to allow smaller clans with fewer players to remain capable of participating in 7v7s. Those asking for larger clans are, quite unsurprisingly, coming from larger groups and are doing so out of self-interest only. Having larger clans would unfairly choke out smaller beginner clans from participating, since larger clans can field more players at any given time during the day, earn points more quickly, and climb the ladder more quickly (a clan of 82 players can earn points at a much faster rate than a clan of 27 players).

Limiting the size of clans allows for a more even playing field. Most normal players have normal lives, and can't always make it to play. In a clan of 82 players, you're rarely going to find any shortage of clan members to play with, so you have more chances to climb the ladder, compared with a clan of 27. Keep in mind that while large conglomerates exist, the majority of WoWS clans are smaller in size compared to WoT clans.

 

TL;DR: Those asking for larger clans are more likely to be able to field larger clans, and are making these requests out of selfish desires. A clan of 82 players can easily dominate over a clan of 27 players on the ladderboard when it comes to point gain, but a clan of 29 players is less likely to dominate over a clan of 19 players.

4

quit trying to whitewash WG's actions, the entirety of "clans" as a whole was horribly thought out

 

1. WG is doing this to try to allow smaller clans to remain capable of doing 7v7s

yeah, no. even large clans, those with subclans are rarely able to field enough for even tourney training. and that's just 1 7 man team, the number of clans that can field multiple teams per day on this server can be counted on 2 hands, smaller clans won't even have a chance of  organizing a CB unless they REALLY plan it out, you said it yourself, most players have normal lives and can't always make it to play, and that problem will only be magnified in clans

 

2.coming from larger groups out of self-interest only

again, no. Self-interest, yes there is definitely self-interest involved since it is a fact larger clans will be able to organize event much easier than smaller clans, but it is also in the interest of large clans to see smaller clans expand, last rank season my clan [MEGA] was accused of sync dropping in high-rank battles(5+) because people saw there were often 4+ [MEGA] members per side, but the situation was that our clan ranked up too quickly and now we are all stuck in the same rank tier fighting each other over stars and getting shamed on various media at that. the point is, this is what happens when you reach a play where the player base is tiny, you keep facing the same team over and over again, we WANT more fresh blood (to leech)

3.climbing the ladder easier

yes, what's the problem with that? my clan is more powerful than your's, thus we can beat you. that happens anyways and lowering clan threshold won't change a thing

TL;DR

larger clans will beifit from the proposed changes, but they are also good for the community as a whole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,177 posts
4,099 battles
9 hours ago, drakon233 said:

quit trying to whitewash WG's actions, the entirety of "clans" as a whole was horribly thought out

That's not how you use the word whitewash.

Quote

yeah, no. even large clans, those with subclans are rarely able to field enough for even tourney training. and that's just 1 7 man team, the number of clans that can field multiple teams per day on this server can be counted on 2 hands, smaller clans won't even have a chance of  organizing a CB unless they REALLY plan it out, you said it yourself, most players have normal lives and can't always make it to play, and that problem will only be magnified in clans

So, how does this relate to larger clans equating to more activity, then? Conglomerates divided up into smaller clans can still likewise form 7-man teams, they'll just be contributing to different point pools, which is fair.

Quote

Self-interest, yes there is definitely self-interest involved since it is a fact larger clans will be able to organize event much easier than smaller clans, but it is also in the interest of large clans to see smaller clans expand

You're not getting the point here. Restricting the player numbers and forcing larger conglomerates to form smaller sub-clans would mean that these sub-clans would have to compete against one another if MM decided to put them against one another, and it means that these sub-clans don't contribute to the same pool of ladder progress, and they don't contribute to the same oil pool. This gives larger conglomerates of 90 players a level playing field against smaller clans of 30 players. Hence, my statement that those asking for larger clans are doing it out of selfishness, as they do not want their large clans to have an equal playing field with smaller clans, and want dominance by sheer numbers.

Quote

last rank season my clan [MEGA] was accused of sync dropping in high-rank battles(5+) because people saw there were often 4+ [MEGA] members per side

This won't be a problem then, since sub-clans won't be able to collaborate with one another on the leaderboard progression.

Quote

yes, what's the problem with that? my clan is more powerful than your's, thus we can beat you.

That's not how things work. The winner outplays the loser by skill and tactics, and not by sheer numbers. Otherwise, China would have won the Korean War in 1953. This isn't a competition of population, and shouldn't be a competition of population.

Quote

 that happens anyways and lowering clan threshold won't change a thing

This sentence is a pure non sequitur. Lowering clan threshold clearly changes a lot of things, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about it. Lowering the clan threshold forces your players to be good at playing, and to be active, rather than letting the larger population do the dirty work.

9 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Your assertion about the ranking system probably won't pan out in Asia, we don't have the clan population to sustain a fair matchmaking as it is.

Firstly, it would be counter-productive for WG to tailor this new game mode for the Asia server, at the expense of other servers. Any server-specific arguments aren't going to convince WG to change anything, since they're not going to change a game mechanic specifically for one server.

Furthermore, you've essentially debunked your own argument. You claim that on Asia server, we won't have enough participants to fill up the matchmaker.

  • With smaller clans, and more clans, doesn't that mean that there are more teams competing against one another at any given moment?
  • With larger clans, fewer in number, doesn't that mean that there are fewer teams competing against one another?

Or did you really think that WG would let you fight against your own clan? That instead of having a [FOO] versus [BAR] battle, that you could have a [FOO] versus [FOO] battle?

Quote

By dividing people into such small chunks it actually excludes more than it includes.

If you are having problems finding seven players with tier 10 ships who are online during the play hours agreed upon amongst members of your clan, from a pool of thirty players, then the problem is your clan's ability to vet applicants, and not the game restrictions being the issue. Maybe you should be looking at the freeloaders instead? Those who do not work, do not eat.

Edited by benlisquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
4 hours ago, benlisquare said:

Firstly, it would be counter-productive for WG to tailor this new game mode for the Asia server, at the expense of other servers. Any server-specific arguments aren't going to convince WG to change anything, since they're not going to change a game mechanic specifically for one server.

Furthermore, you've essentially debunked your own argument. You claim that on Asia server, we won't have enough participants to fill up the matchmaker.

  • With smaller clans, and more clans, doesn't that mean that there are more teams competing against one another at any given moment?
  • With larger clans, fewer in number, doesn't that mean that there are fewer teams competing against one another?

Or did you really think that WG would let you fight against your own clan? That instead of having a [FOO] versus [BAR] battle, that you could have a [FOO] versus [FOO] battle?

 

I don't think you understood my post, or perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.

I'll switch this back to tier 10, under the current CB arrangements.

 

And no I don't expect WG to tailor the game to our server, I expect them to at least consider the masses. I also do expect them to consider our server from the perspective of getting a game mode to function.


I'm in what the server would consider an average clan with an overflow clan with 15-ish members and I know there are many clans like ours on other servers, not just Asia.
We will struggle to field a team at tier 10 regularly simply due to the fact that we aren't made up of 'die-hard' players. Most of us will be on 2-5 days a week for a few hours a day. We have around 5 players with tier 10s that will fit the current restrictions. (A few players sole tier 10 is a BB, so only one of them will be in). I am discounting rent-a-ship simply for balance consideration (camo) although we will be using this feature a lot to make up numbers. Even with that, the frequency of us being able to field a team won't change much as it's dictated by numbers online.

 

If our overflow was able to merge with us today, we would be able to field a team more frequently, which would be utilising the manpower in our overflow. As is now, they will not be able to field a team at all.
So if we take that into consideration, many if not most clans with less than 20 members won't be able to field teams.

 

I'm not talking about getting our clan to be able to vs our clan, I'm talking about a more effective use of manpower. The issue with the argument 'more smaller clans, more teams competing' is based on the assumption that they can field a team by having enough members online frequently enough. It also makes an assumption that all the players in a clan now are the only ones who would be in a clan.

 

An increase in the clan size won't actually negatively influence the number of teams participating, it will increase it. Clans who struggle to make numbers but have overflows can merge - maximising the number of their players online.

In the tanks version of CB we used to run multiple at the same time, we didn't vs each other once. It's easy enough to devise a piece of code to avoid the [FOO] v [FOO] situation.

 

Conclusion

Increasing clan sizes will allow more of the 'average' clan to field teams more frequently and which will increase team number in queue, the 'good' clans more likely than not will be able to field the same number of teams. By making this Clan system open to more players Matchmaking will be fairer and the games more enjoyable.
Simple maths of 'more smaller' clans as opposed to 'fewer larger' is extremely fallible maths when taking into account the all the variables; who can field teams, how frequently, player-base not in clans and the like.

An average clan will struggle to get the 40 member unlock before CB, and 30 makes it very hard to run CB with any frequency.

Edited by S4pp3R
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
949 posts
5,652 battles

Can see another problem with the small clans. Say you have the "very good" clan maxed out at 50/50 they have a new player wanting to join WR of 66%, so now the guy who only has WR 59% is booted to make way for new and better player.

That poor player that got booted just lost not only his clan but also all the oil he has made for the clan. When he joins a new clan he will start back at zero oil.

I see much salt coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,177 posts
4,099 battles
2 hours ago, BigWaveSurfer said:

Can see another problem with the small clans. Say you have the "very good" clan maxed out at 50/50 they have a new player wanting to join WR of 66%, so now the guy who only has WR 59% is booted to make way for new and better player.

That poor player that got booted just lost not only his clan but also all the oil he has made for the clan. When he joins a new clan he will start back at zero oil.

I see much salt coming

 

Not all clans have to be competitive clans, and not all clans have to be social clans.

If people want a social clan among good friends, they can tailor their clan that way. They can play the clan modes casually together, have fun, and don't have to worry about minmaxing.

If people want a competitive clan that does things like you've described (kicking bottom players to make way for new players), they have the freedom to do so, however this wouldn't affect the non-competitive, non-tryhard clans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles

That's the thing though, with sizes as they are there isn't going to as many non-good clans in queue...

I'm fully expecting to run into meta comps and get stomped, regularly... We'll do our best, after all we need a silly amount of oil to get our merge to happen :cap_fainting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,569 battles
On 9/28/2017 at 7:57 AM, S4pp3R said:

That's the thing though, with sizes as they are there isn't going to as many non-good clans in queue...

I'm fully expecting to run into meta comps and get stomped, regularly... We'll do our best, after all we need a silly amount of oil to get our merge to happen :cap_fainting:

more like there more or less wont be clans in the queue period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[151ST]
Member
1,014 posts
4,526 battles
1 hour ago, drakon233 said:

more like there more or less wont be clans in the queue period

Maybe sometimes on weekends... During every 2nd full moon...

 

I dunno, oil is a tempting thing, I mean look what's happened to the middle-east over the last 100 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×