As I keep reminding myself, I don't think size matters...
Three of the top ten clans are in single digit membership, while there are full clans at the other end of the table. Clans don't get smaller than mine and I'm on page 2 just by breaking even.
What I think you're alluding to is the same clans being at the top of the table every year, leading by a margin that is impossible for other clans to even consider challenging. I don't know how they do that. They have clearly discovered the secret sauce to a winning recipe that most of us have neither the time nor inclination to work out, even if we had the players. Penalising them for their success (or rewarding the rest of us for mediocrity) doesn't sound like a good way forward.
I'd prefer to see a divisional system (as in sports) where clans can only compete with others in their own division. Each year the top clan in each division gets promoted while the bottom clan gets relegated. But I look forward to the thumbs downs piling up for that idea. 🙂
@xanathar saidThere has been the clan leagues, which worked like that...they were abandoned and that probably had a reason.
As I keep reminding myself, I don't think size matters...
Three of the top ten clans are in single digit membership, while there are full clans at the other end of the table. Clans don't get smaller than mine and I'm on page 2 just by breaking even.
What I think you're alluding to is the same clans being at the top of the table every year, leading by a margin that is ...[text shortened]... e the bottom clan gets relegated. But I look forward to the thumbs downs piling up for that idea. 🙂
That's true, I'd forgotten about the clan leagues, but then my clan at the time never competed. It always seemed overly complicated to me and a distraction from the clan pages. Maybe that was their problem...
Would a ladder system refresh the clans? New clans start at the bottom, but everyone gets a chance to shoot for the top slot. Ignoring the size of the challenge and just going on overall result would level the playing field.
@xanathar saidOne reason the clans at the top of the net points list accrue lots of points is because they play a lot of challenges.They put in a lot of work to achieve their success.Their percentage wins are probably not a lot different to your clan(I haven't checked).
As I keep reminding myself, I don't think size matters...
Three of the top ten clans are in single digit membership, while there are full clans at the other end of the table. Clans don't get smaller than mine and I'm on page 2 just by breaking even.
What I think you're alluding to is the same clans being at the top of the table every year, leading by a margin that is ...[text shortened]... e the bottom clan gets relegated. But I look forward to the thumbs downs piling up for that idea. 🙂
I asked a long time ago for a list compiled by percentage but it never happened.
In any case,all anyone seems to look at is the net points list.
I don't know if the number of subscribers on here is decreasing but that could have an effect on the number of active clans which we all know is less than it's ever been.
@venda saidOne reason the clans at the top of the net points list accrue lots of points is because they play a lot of challenges.They put in a lot of work to achieve their success.Their percentage wins are probably not a lot different to your clan(I haven't checked).A quick look at the WLD columns suggests you're right. Games won/lost are more or less even, but the winner-takes-all nature of clan challenges puts the top clans way ahead because of the sheer number of challenges they play. As you say, they put in the work and they reap the rewards.
I don't know about subscriber numbers, but the ladder pages don't seem to be shrinking like the clan ones are, which suggests a loss of interest in the clan feature rather than a loss of active subscribers.