Rated team games: New attempt

Support, this would be a great addition to the competitive part of AW.

However, teams should be maybe 5000sp to buy.

What's the difference between a team and a coalition?

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 07:48

Scris de Roncho, 30.01.2013 at 07:46

What's the difference between a team and a coalition?

Read the whole text please.

If they want to play together they can go in same coalition. I wouldn't pay sp for making a team. Classic 3v3 matches are enough.

Support!
An idea re disbanding a team if too many founding players leave. What about players being a "core" member after being in that team for x games and over y time. All founding members would be "core" immediately. Teams could then have to have a certain amount of "core" members or they would be disbanded. That way a team could slowly evolve over time.

Scris de Roncho, 30.01.2013 at 07:49

I wouldn't pay sp for making a team.

Hardly anyone would. Your suggestion is too restrictive for its SP cost alone.

Scris de VRIL, 30.01.2013 at 07:57

Scris de Roncho, 30.01.2013 at 07:49

I wouldn't pay sp for making a team.

Hardly anyone would. Your suggestion is too restrictive for its SP cost alone.

I meant I wouldn't pay 10k for it. Ofc I'd make my team or join one if it's like 1-5k but 10k is too much. Even coalitions cost 10k.

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 08:03

Scris de themartinmcfly, 30.01.2013 at 07:56

Support!
An idea re disbanding a team if too many founding players leave. What about players being a "core" member after being in that team for x games and over y time. All founding members would be "core" immediately. Teams could then have to have a certain amount of "core" members or they would be disbanded. That way a team could slowly evolve over time.

Smart idea. Becoming a core member would take one month I guess.

Scris de VRIL, 30.01.2013 at 07:57

Scris de Roncho, 30.01.2013 at 07:49

I wouldn't pay sp for making a team.

Hardly anyone would. Your suggestion is too restrictive for its SP cost alone.

This is a point that can be varied. The fee is only to prevent people from creating teams for the fun of it, so 3000-5000 SP per founding member would be ok as well.
Also Roncho: Joining a team wouldn't cost anything, just the creation.
Since this is obviously the main problem for you guys at the moment, I will edit the original post and set the fee to 4000 SP, which seems fair to me.

Yes I understand it now, sorry . Let's say someone made a 4v4 team, can they play 3v3 or 2v2?

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 08:15

No. Each team would only be able to play in the bracket for which it was created. So for example a 4v4 division could be added, but it's independent from the other brackets. Meaning you can play with different people in each bracket if you like.

Can you make/join 2 teams at the same time? Like you're in x 2v2 team and y 3v3 team at the same time.

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 08:17

That's right. Of course it would be possible to set a fee for each time you change a team (additionally to the three days you'd have to wait before doing so), which would also motivate people to stick with one team. I would like to hear more opinions on this.

Maybe it can work like this, If you leave your first team you'll have to pay 1k to join another, If you leave it again you'll have to pay 2k for join another. After 2-3 months fee you have to paid can decrease 1k again? So players, at least who wants upgrades , won't change their teams much.

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 08:25

Scris de Roncho, 30.01.2013 at 08:22

Maybe it can work like this, If you leave your first team you'll have to pay 1k to join another, If you leave it again you'll have to pay 2k for join another. After 2-3 months fee you have to paid can decrease 1k again? So players, at least who wants upgrades , won't change their teams much.

Yeah this is a good idea, shoudl have thought of this myself. But we would have to keep the team switching fee rather low, because if someone goes inactive and leaves/ gets kicked out of the team it must not be too hard to find a replacement.

Hmm, it can work like this... If someone is inactive for 10-15-20 days, after kicking him he won't have to pay fee for joining another team.

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 08:30

No I liked your original idea. Let's say someone leaves his old team to join a new one, then he will have to pay 1000SP to do so. If he switches another time within the next four weeks it will be 2000SP for the second time, 3000 for the third up to a maximum of 4000SP for four switches in four weeks. Each week he stays in his new team will decrease the fee for the next switch by 1000SP. This seems fair to me.

Scris de Guest, 30.01.2013 at 08:25

But we would have to keep the team switching fee rather low, because if someone goes inactive and leaves/ gets kicked out of the team it must not be too hard to find a replacement.

I said it because of this message and I think fee should decrease in 2-3 weeks.

Way to spent my free sps so i support

I'm up for this idea support!

I love the rated 3v3 idea.

Sounds exciting. Support.

Why not

Support!

Support

I support this game play and think it will bring atWar to a new level, it sounds more intriuging and professionally orgainzed, great idea cow.

Anything that brings more competitiveness to the game has my support!

All great ideas actually.

Sounds interesting, so I support this

You can count with my support...
Great ideas!
Cheers,
CD

Yes please, after I have done a dry run (sort of) with Sunday League and as you can see there are plenty of people interested in this type of game to make it viable!

Please make this happen. Great thread

This a great idea

Coalition Wars. -.-
Your "team" is your coalition. So if you want a good team for team battles (or in the real-world, coalition wars), then have a good coalition, not a mass recruiting coalition (example: DOOM, ULP, ULAP, Victorious Secret, Brothers of War, and others).

Great idea, how bout another OPTION for cws to be duels as well!

Bump for support.

As a relatively new player, I'm pretty surprised that there isn't a more organized system for tournaments or CWs. I'm not sure about this, but it looks like CW is totally voluntary between coalitions? CWs between top clans seem pretty rare. And racking up CW points is more about which coalition leaders can rustle up the more games versus weaker clans than their matches against one another; making CW standings less significant. How can Syndicate (last months winner) brag in chat when a significant part of their 1st place came from matches against teamBacon (respect, but not built for CW)?

I saw that players have attempted to establish tournaments in the past, but it really looks like this is a job for the administrators. One a month. A big one once a year would be a lot of fun. How it should be organized seems like a nightmare, lol. But I'm sure some experience has been built up over the years and a people have some good ideas on how to run one.

Maybe teams of 5 (as suggested for 3 v 3) and a set time?

Please implement this idea