Clans (in General)

BootyGod October 10 2007 9:33 PM EDT

BR= Over 12 million MPR
Legion = Over 2 million MPR

Neither can add any more MPR.

Tell me how this makes any sense to anyone. Thanks.


Have the max MPR of a clan adjusted to by in proportion to the current largest under a certain cap. Because this is sick and wrong.

BootyGod October 10 2007 9:34 PM EDT

Oh. And don't give me that blabber about "We all joined when we were small and this is our reward". This system isn't fair to new clans. It's not fair to new players, and it skews the NCBs and NUBs of players who can't get in one (and honestly, how can one?)

Adminedyit [Superheros] October 10 2007 9:39 PM EDT

you have 11 members BR has 5....
3 out of the 5 BR members started off as a NUB (LD) or NCB (Mikel, Mem)

BootyGod October 10 2007 10:08 PM EDT

I don't get it. I understand that 3/5 of your members started that high.

What I'm saying is the MPR balance is messed up. Just one of the people in BR has more MPR, NW, and (obviously) PR than my entire clan put together. And, yes, that's WITH 11 members. Also, you have to remember, no one in my clan has even broke 1 mil MPR.


It just seems wrong.

48Zach October 10 2007 10:10 PM EDT

GodWolf -- Even though the MPR is so much higher, if you look -- When you take in a member, it will take away MORE MPR than he has.. That is to prevent having 15-people clans..

Seems like that to me.

BootyGod October 10 2007 10:15 PM EDT

I think you're misunderstanding. The system is flawed. Not the clan. I realize now that trying to rip BR apart wasn't the best way to go.

The problem is, let's say that the following 11 players made NCB tomorrow:

Ranger, Freed, Mikel, LD, Edyit, DrA, Karn, hzarb, Rubber, AoD.

Then they all joined one clan. Their clan would never be beaten after a few months. They'd ALWAYS have the top spot. And there would be -zero- way of stopping it.

I really believe that the clan's max PR allowed should be in a proportion to that of the current highest PR. NOT the highest, no. I believe there should be some reward. But the difference from the top few and everyone else is horribly drastic....

BootyGod October 10 2007 10:15 PM EDT

Yes. I know there is 10. Yes, I know there are other players. Don't kill me ^.^

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 11 2007 12:05 AM EDT

They are currently taking a penalty of more than 1500 points for being over the cap. What's yours?

QBsutekh137 October 11 2007 12:11 AM EDT

Godwolf, the number of members is an important term in the equation. Mull it over. It's true. BA usage is the jey. More members = more BA.

You're also forgetting something about the whole clan thing that maybe I haven't yet made clear... They are, if anything, very, very, incredibly, indelibly stupid. Sorry about that, but it's true. And one thing I am sure of at this point is that no one can/will point out otherwise at this juncture. In fact, I'm betting no one tries. Clans just are. Surviving on ridiculous momentum for which I have no ideas on how to counteract. The game would be just as good without them.

QBRanger October 11 2007 12:27 AM EDT

Being in BR for as long as I have, I am starting to agree with Sut's point.

The current method of clans is rather tedious.

I have not had to worry about LD, Edyit or Mikel so I can make my strategy without caring about them.

I have no good idea how to implement clans well in the CB type of game. But as the clan system is now, I can only do what I can within the confine of the rules to make the best clan possible. And if changes are to be made, not to penalize those currently doing well in the current system.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 11 2007 2:45 AM EDT

Clans should be more like FPS games, I'b layed out whole scenarios previously for this, they would be much like tourneys, but short and similar to the stories I've heard of the old days where CB was about how fast you could click...

Three people from either clan agree to log in at a particular time create new chars, and battle each other for thirty minutes...the particulars could be any number of variations...but it'd certainly spice things up a bit, and would end the easy hold on the top 5 that currently exists.

The members of the clan that won the scrimmage would get a bonus to their normal char of a percent, win more scims that week...get a better bonus.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 11 2007 10:46 AM EDT

perhaps instead of having one clan bonus at 15% max, we could have 3 different types of bonuses at a max of 5% each. keep one the same as now. maybe another one could be lowest mpr/number of members ratio. a third could be a category like most farmed which would be the clans that had most points taken away by other clanners.

make it where it would be virtually impossible for any one clan to be able to get max bonus in all categories though. i am not sure of all the details, but just wanted to throw an idea out.

QBsutekh137 October 11 2007 10:54 AM EDT

I would like to point out that though my bluster about clans is generally very pointed, I am of two minds... I DO believe the game would be as fun without them, at least in my opinion, but Jonathan put a TON of time, programming, and tweaking into the system over the years.

So, when I become less petulant, I worry about throwing out the baby with the bathwater... What can we do to make clans more fun, more essential.

As an example, I would use tattoos. These were added to the game, and it was a struggle for a time. Balance and change were a challenge. But now I think tattoos are VERY fun, very integral.

How can we make clans more like tattoos. More like something integral instead of ho-hum tedious? I am sort of frustrated that I can't think of a single good idea about it, but we have a lot of creative folks here... Novice has a novel idea... Though his idea wouldn't even have to involve clans. It is more like arena fighting with extended rewards. That could be implemented on character-by-character basis.

What can groups of characters do that a single character cannot? I'll tell you right now, getting clan bonus under the current system really isn't something. I can keep a 10% bonus as a singleton WITHOUT even buying BA. If I bought BA, I would be more like 11-12%. Yes, it's less than 15%, but not much.

For clans to be viable and FUN, they need:

-- To really require more than one person to pull off.
-- To not be tedious.
-- To REWARD loyalty and longevity, instead of "flavor of the week" clan hopping.

My opinions, anyway.

Talion October 11 2007 11:47 AM EDT

I have a suggestion to make clans more interesting...

Each time one of your clan members gets challenged it gives retaliations to every other member.

A retaliation would...

(1) Add 5% rewards bonus to the challenger.
(2) Yield no negative challenge rewards.
(3) Apply even on Sundays.
(4) Apply only to characters with more than one week of clan membership.

In my opinion, this would start interesting clan wars.

The down side would be more work for the admins in order to control exploitation of this rule.

Talion October 11 2007 11:49 AM EDT

Oh... forgot...

The number of available retaliations on a given character would be reset to 0 every 24 hours at midnight server time.

QBsutekh137 October 11 2007 12:40 PM EDT

Retaliations are an interesting idea, but they would also serve to make indestructible clans just that much more powerful. If you cannot beat anyone in the attacking clan, the retaliations wouldn't be worth much.

It would give a clan like BR another advantage based on the fact that their negative clan points are so small, wouldn't it?

Talion October 11 2007 12:54 PM EDT

On the contrary... The most powerful clan do not get attacked often, so they would get less retaliations.

To work around this problem, retaliations could only be given after successful challenges against one of your clan members.

QBsutekh137 October 11 2007 1:41 PM EDT

I guess that is a good point!

So you are saying this retaliation idea would benefit the beat up and not really help the invulnerable. Interesting!

Talion October 11 2007 3:04 PM EDT

I think so. The top clans could still benefit from it if anyone tried to pick a fight with them, but that would not happen often.

The extra 5% and negative bonus nullification would also help against those who remove big weapons after hitting big targets to make themselves less desirable targets.

Finally, it would help bigger clan members help smaller ones by retaliating against characters that like to pick on them.

It creates a whole new clan universe without changing existing rules too much.

48Zach October 11 2007 3:22 PM EDT

Another word for it is

Clan Hit List =)

Darkwalker [Jago] October 11 2007 4:50 PM EDT

Hmmm..... sounds interesting......

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 11 2007 6:40 PM EDT

Talion, they wont get many retaliations but how many people can realistically retaliate against them?
So the invulnerable are still just as invulnerable.

Talion October 11 2007 8:29 PM EDT

"So the invulnerable are still just as invulnerable."

Yes they are, but every member of every other clan will be making 5% extra rewards if targets are well chosen.

Also, the point of this is not to make the top clan weaker. The point of this is to find something new to make clan membership more meaningful.

Starting clan rivalries is the best way to do this... in my opinion.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 11 2007 9:30 PM EDT

"Yes they are, but every member of every other clan will be making 5% extra rewards if targets are well chosen."

the top clan will also be able to do this, as long as they keep at least one lower level member, especially if they are in the 6/20 bracket with no penalties for fighting down. with that being said, you go from the the top clan getting 15 percent bonus and being untouchable to giving them 20 percent bonus if they choose carefully...and who wouldn't?

i had a solution up above that i must have posted using my invisible ink! rub lemon juice on my post and see what ya think.

Mem October 12 2007 1:08 AM EDT

If it weren't for clans I wouldn't be here any longer. To say they are useless wouldn't be entirely correct. That said, if a change were made to spice things up (i.e. Talion's idea) I'd be all for it.

GW, quit whining because you aren't man enough to kick one (or more) of your useless members, keeping your main out of your clan.

Flamey October 12 2007 1:34 AM EDT

+1 to Dudemus' idea, I read it and liked it, but couldn't think of anything to add to it, so I didn't post, but now I'm posting to show my support. :P

Talion October 12 2007 7:36 AM EDT

"as long as they keep at least one lower level member"

That would not be effective at all. Imagine a 2.5M MPR character retaliating against a 100K MPR character. Wow! That would be smart. The character would get %5 rewards bonus on 5XP and $5.

j'bob October 12 2007 7:41 AM EDT

Talion, I think that ment so that some one in the clan is "attackable" by other lower pr fighters. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just what my interpretation is.

Talion October 12 2007 8:00 AM EDT

Maybe, but why would you want to take retaliations against a character with low PR? The 5% bonus just cannot make up for the low rewards.

I think my idea would be most interesting for characters in the 750K to 1.5M MPR range because of the amount of available targets.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2007 8:15 AM EDT

"That would not be effective at all. Imagine a 2.5M MPR character retaliating against a 100K MPR character. Wow! That would be smart. The character would get %5 rewards bonus on 5XP and $5."

well that would be an extreme. there is a whole lot of middle ground in between those mpr's though. would people be stupid? probably not. would people probably fight lower than they are now, finding that spot where the bonus makes up for any lower xp reward or there is no xp loss at all only increasing their bonus? i feel they would. we already have regular complaints and dead zones in clan fighting and i think the idea, as stated would exacerbate those issues.

Talion October 12 2007 8:44 AM EDT

"would people probably fight lower than they are now, finding that spot where the bonus makes up for any lower xp reward or there is no xp loss at all only increasing their bonus? i feel they would."

I agree. But your original comment was about top clans finding small clan members to get %5 bonuses from retaliations. I think that the top clans cannot add members of 1M MPR right now. They are simply unable to do it due to clan MPR limitations. I also think that keeping a 1M MPR character in the clan for retaliation bonuses would not be possible for another reason: It would become very hard for the clan to keep the top spot and the 14% - 15% bonus. That ranking drop could not justify obtaining 100 to 150 retaliations per day for the entire clan.

"we already have regular complaints and dead zones in clan fighting and i think the idea, as stated would exacerbate those issues."

On the contrary, I think the idea would add life within the dead zone. Non-NCB characters in the 1M to 1.5M MPR range would now have a new purpose: Increase their clan rankings and their own MPR by taking advantage of 5% retaliation bonuses.

QBsutekh137 October 12 2007 10:09 AM EDT

I think Talion's idea is tight, and I like dudemus's too...

A nearly invulnerable team will get fewer retaliations all around, and they will generally be fighting smaller people to retaliate. However, if they are invulnerable, it is almost assured they are in 6/20, and therefore can fight anyone between 1.7 and 3 million score and get decent rewards. It is the fewer retaliations part that would (hopefully) control that.

A clan that is in the thick of it, getting farmed as well as farming out, will have a lot of retaliations and a lot of retaliations against them. In that case, it would sort of eventually become just more tedium, wouldn't it? Whereas now people say, "Ho hum, time to beat some clans, let's see how bad I got farmed..." they would say, "Ho hum, time to make some retaliations, we are all getting an extra 5%..."

dudemus's idea is more of a real re-vamp as opposed to an intriguing escalation. But does dudemus's idea really "light a fire" under clan warfare? If we water down and/or segment rewards to the point where everyone is just getting certain rewards based on a certain level of tedium, then I have to say that doing away with it all is still a very viable idea, no?

Mem, I am curious to hear what aspects of clans have "kept you in the game"? More pointedly, which aspects of clanning that you couldn't have gotten from simply befriending someone and working with them in a strategic sense? I know the BR folks are close, and rightfully so -- everyone is very helpful, has great gear to trade, etc. But the members of BR could keep doing that even if clans didn't exist. On CB1, long before clans, I had go-to guys for strategy who were immensely helpful, and hopefully I helped them too. Dark_gift, Myonax, Peter, even the Spid rivalry -- these folks were all every bit as important to me on CB1 as any clanner here has been because they were volunteering. They weren't working with me simply because we had a tag by our name.

Contrasting to that, my experience with clans here on CB2 has its most memorable times defined by NEGATIVE aspects: people jumping ship, tedium, etc.

Clans don't force people to be nice to each other. *smile* I would be very interested about your positive experiences so that I can open my mind a bit more about what people like in clans (that they can't get elsewhere).

QBsutekh137 October 12 2007 10:15 AM EDT

Another idea: Warbook has one interesting facet of retaliating that CB has no counterpart to: the ability to perform actions against another team at a global scale instead of a battle scale.

For example, instead of fighting another city in Warbook, I can shoot a fireball at it. It's not a battle (they cannot fight back, all they can do is spend money on barriers). It's a purely separate level of aggression, meant to reduce the opposing teams forces or be a "warning" about picking on alliance members.

I have only been on Warbook a couple of weeks, but I gather that things like Fireballs are also hard to balance (their posting board is high-volume, high-screaming). Big fireballs can cause too much damage, and certain teams use just that aspect to act as an alliance kingpin.

But that idea: a type of aggression that is different from the standard battling... I think that is a neat idea. I'm just not sure how it would look here. Could a "retaliation" just be a spell you could fire at someone? If so, what would it do to the other team? CB doesn't really have the concept of "loss". You can't really kill a team, or steal anything, or damage a minion permanently. Even if we made it a money-steal, people could just move money around.

Any ideas?

Talion October 12 2007 10:35 AM EDT

S137, you make my head hurt...

Great concept but extremely hard to implement in the CB universe.

Maybe instead of retaliations, BA could be spent casting friendly spells on fellow clan members.

Example: A fellow clan member is being farmed, a bigger clan member spends 5 BA casting a "Nullify" spell on the farmed character which prevents challengers from gaining any clan points for the next 25 challenges on that character, thus negatively affecting the rankings of the challenging clans.

QBJohnnywas October 12 2007 10:46 AM EDT

I want all clan members hardwired into their comps. When they lose points they get electric shocks. It's the only way to be sure.

Talion October 12 2007 10:51 AM EDT

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2007 12:37 PM EDT

i guess i am just not understanding your idea well then. mem is in br now and is the only one who can really be touched. with that being said, would all of the other br members get a chance to retaliate and get the 5 percent bonus on any attacks on mem, and therefore get a 20 percent total bonus on those retaliations?

Talion October 12 2007 1:49 PM EDT

"would all of the other br members get a chance to retaliate and get the 5 percent bonus on any attacks on mem, and therefore get a 20 percent total bonus on those retaliations?"

Ok, I see where the confusion between our understandings was.

1 challenge against mem would mean that ONE retaliation would be available for ONE of the BR clan members. So if Ranger were to take the retaliation, for example, it could not be taken by any other BR clan member.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2007 2:10 PM EDT

hmm, in the last 24 hours mem has had about 550 attacks against him. that would be over 500 attacks for the other members of br at 20% bonus then. i guess all of br's attacks against others though would be retaliated against mem as he is the only one who can be beat regularly. it's gonna suck to be him! hehe.

Mem October 12 2007 2:16 PM EDT

Sut, I never said that the reason I was here was necessarily a positive one... Basically what it boils down to is that there have been times that I have wanted to quit CB, but I was unwilling to let down the friends I had come to know so well in my time battling alongside them. Therefore clan fighting has kept me here, save for one 8 month stretch, and it even got me back here-- stuck (in a good way). Let's face it, Sut, the whole game is tedium. How do you expect that clan fighting should be any different? If you make a change now you're going to be asking for another one in two years when you're bored of that way.

Mem October 12 2007 2:17 PM EDT

Way to rub it in, dudemus. And 550 is an unexpectedly light day. It's usually around 1,000.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2007 2:23 PM EDT

wow, sorry mem!

at 1000 retaliations per day that would allow all of the others in br to get the extra 5 percent bonus on all of their purchaased ba and then some.

Talion October 12 2007 3:06 PM EDT

Mem, depends if the retaliations are for members of your clan or not.

If Mem attacked members of BR 1000 times per day, then yes, the members of that clan would get 1000 retaliations. In reality though, your fictitious statistics are a bit far fetched. lets keep things in perspective here...

Talion October 12 2007 3:07 PM EDT

Well, ok, it's happening... my bad.

Talion October 12 2007 3:12 PM EDT

Apologies for the triple post but...

If BR where to take the retaliations against mem 's challengers, then they would also get no negative bonus from attacking mem on top of the extra 5% reward bonus. So BR would actually be doing everyone a favor by taking the retaliations.

Remember, this works both ways and actually profits 7/10 characters a lot more than 6/10 characters.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2007 3:13 PM EDT

mem is in br. so i am not sure what you mean in the above post. to clarify my original statement:

"the top clan will also be able to do this, as long as they keep at least one lower level member(i meant mem here), especially if they are in the 6/20 bracket with no penalties for fighting down. with that being said, you go from the the top clan getting 15 percent bonus and being untouchable to giving them 20 percent bonus if they choose carefully...and who wouldn't? "

you took that as a much lower member which i did not mean. as br stands now i see issues with your plan.

QBsutekh137 October 12 2007 3:21 PM EDT

Mem, yes, the whole game is tedium... In actuality, life is tedium. I'm not sure I see your point. Some aspects of the game are PURE tedium, while others are tedii with payoffs (again, a lot like life).

I have been here for 4 and a half years, not ever consistently disliking one thing for more than a small stretch at a time. Clans are the exception to that rule. I have disliked their additional tedium from day one, across two incarnations of the game, and still do. Additionally, every time I ask folks to post positives about clans, remarks are much like yours (I don't consider your comments a rousing endorsement for clans). I was very surprised to see even Ranger agreeing with my sentiment (at least to a small degree).

If you think in two years I will be asking for something else, you are right -- I probably will be. But it won't be clans. I never asked for them in the first place, have consistently spoken out against them, and feel they add nothing to the game that regular community doesn't already cover. Will I be asking for something else, though? I sure hope so... Dissent is a sign of LIFE in the game! *smile* Not to mention I am a supporter in the community and to the creator of the game. I have every right to discuss change and encourage everyone to do so -- rationally and respectfully (like this discussion...this has been a great thread!)

Talion October 12 2007 3:44 PM EDT

"mem is in br. so i am not sure what you mean in the above post."

Retaliation rule #2: Yield no negative challenge rewards. (see my initial post)

In general, from what I have read, 7/10 characters have a hard time finding targets that yield something other than negative challenge rewards. With retaliations, said characters would get no negative challenge rewards, which would give them more targets to choose from and get an extra 5% clan bonus and 0% challenge rewards instead of -X%. So it would benefit 7/10 characters a lot more than 6/10 characters.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2007 3:50 PM EDT

so the other members of br would or would not get a 20 percent bonus when retaliating against those who attacked mem for however many batttles mem gets in each 24 hour period?

Talion October 12 2007 3:55 PM EDT

Yes, they would get a max clan bonus of 20% by attacking targets that attacked mem during that 24 hour period if retaliations are available.

Mem October 12 2007 11:08 PM EDT

So basically the remainder of BR would have to keep beating up on the same people they do anyways (which are the people that are beating up on me) for a 20% bonus? Doesn't sound like a balanced approach to me...

Hyrule Castle October 13 2007 3:26 AM EDT

um...if you want to make a good clan do what i did... start a bunch of n*b's cram as many active people in it as you can...and grow with them .... :)

no complaining everyone has the ability to do it

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] October 13 2007 4:14 AM EDT

The best and only way I can see to raise the rewards for 7/20 up to 10/20 members is to raise the amount of score you get by winning and lessen the amount you lose by losing.... I constantly attack Dixie Cousins, Bast's character, and I win every time... but my rewards bonus for her is -5% due to my pr being higher than her score.

Dixie Cousins, Bast's character
Score / PR / MPR: 2,095,610 / 3,860,440 / 2,650,648

Vlad Tepes, My character
Score / PR / MPR: 2,168,382 / 2,662,339 / 1,784,536

Now tell me if you see the discrepancy... Now it would be different if her score was higher or even at her Mpr level... then I could actually get positive rewards from her... but as it stands due to the huge gap between her score and my pr I get nothing. Then again it might be because the 6/20 people don't have to fight up to get rewards... they don't even have to worry about negative rewards due to fighting down.

Maybe change it so that if you are in a clan you gain more score than normal and lose less when attacked... That would help some of these 6/20 characters build up their score a bit and let some of the 7/20 characters build up a bit with rewards that are positive.

This would be the best way to change clans in my honest opinion. Now what have you all to say about that?

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] October 13 2007 4:19 AM EDT

Another interesting tidbit....

Bleach, # of members 8
Score / raw score: 13,020 / 14,672
Rank / Bonus: 3 / 14.6%
PR / MPR total: 4,889,180 / 3,611,242
Total net worth: $327,646,671
Owner: Hyrule Castle

Wrath, # of members 4
Score / raw score: 9,959 / 9,054
Rank / Bonus: 4 / 14.4%
PR / MPR total: 8,730,715 / 6,461,086
Total net worth: $553,762,956
Owner: Nerevas

Bleach gets reduced clan points due to having so many members... Wrath gets more points due to having less... even though Wrath has almost twice as much PR, MPR, and NW

Mem October 13 2007 9:20 AM EDT

And Bleach has at least twice as many BA to spend, likely more because they're all smaller characters.

Unappreciated Misnomer October 13 2007 9:44 AM EDT

well why done we just dissolve all clans and start new huh? hmm that would start another poo flingering war eh? the game is doing the best it can, i mean everyone says it favors either the largest characters or the newest players. i say if you want something changed then open your wallet.

QBRanger October 13 2007 9:46 AM EDT

I personally would not be totally adverse to disbanding all clans and making the top 15 or so have to be in different clans.

Then having to pick and choose their partners.

I am not advocating this, but would not be totally against it.

Talion October 13 2007 9:56 AM EDT

"So basically the remainder of BR would have to keep beating up on the same people they do anyways"

You know, I keep trying to argument my rule using BR as an example. Well, the goal my idea is not to make clans better against BR. My idea is to make clans more interesting. BR is just one clan. What about the other top 50 clans. Can they have fun too? Who cares if a rule doesn't change BR's rank. Seriously! I don't care about BR, I care about my clan. And my idea would definitely make 99% of the existing clans more fun to be a part of.


P.S. No offense to BR members. I have nothing against you, but these arguments are getting out of hand.

Mem October 13 2007 10:21 AM EDT

I think the reason that BR is the focal point of your idea, Talion, is that your idea gives them all an extra 5% of growth, thereby making them even harder to catch. I know, anyone in a clan could get that extra 5% as well, but that really just puts us back to the drawing board. If we're all getting the bonus, why even have it at all?

Here's an interesting twist on Talion's idea: Keep the bonuses the same. Now, you can only gain your current clan bonus by using the retaliations. So, basically, when you're not using retaliations clans don't give you any bonus at all. That would really make a difference for many people (and make people not want to fight me!).

Talion October 13 2007 1:56 PM EDT

Mem, I think your idea is great!

You need to fight other clans to get the 15% bonus that comes with rank #1... but you don't get the 15% bonus unless you fight characters that fought you first.


I think you should start a new thread with this specific idea.

I can just imagine the clan wars that this would create.

Mem October 13 2007 6:08 PM EDT

Yeah, it's a cool idea, but it wouldn't really benefit me (in fact, it'd probably hurt me) so I think I'll take the lazy route and forget I ever had it...
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002FDj">Clans</a>