If those you approach to join you do not wish to leave behind what they have you could join them.

My clan & I agree that it is unfair to count siege generated points 3 times during the CvC or even 2 times as no other points are counted as such, nor should they be. It is unfair & stupid. How can we opt out since none of us really have an interest in participating in the CvC events as long as this is the case?

I am sorry to hear that the current Clans Battle functionality does not satisfy you, virg. This feedback has been forwarded further🙏

Stay tuned!

Virg: It is not just CVC ...  KVK, Fury, and all troop killing competitions are all won and lost by those that conduct the most successful sieges.

pipkin, im sure plarium is very happy with 'your' comment, but seeing as how you joined 3 yrs b4 i did, im sure you are much farther ahead of me & mine, since things have changed ALOT. also this was not meant to solicit another reply from you, thank you.

I agree with Virg - I lead a clan of about a dozen players but we can't win CVC these days because of the CVC scoring set up. We keep getting paired up with single player clans - one 3 trillion influence player against a group where noone is above 1 trillion.  We basically give up before we start because there is no way we can match our enemy's siege points.   They just have to show up for 2 hours during the competition and there's nothing we can do about it.

Please change the CVC scoring so we at least have a fighting chance.  It's very boring otherwise.

I agree, these 1 man clans are killing the game for the smaller clans, there is noway our 3 or 4 players can beat someone bigger than all of us combined in cvc ..... usually they do nothing for 2 & 3/4 days then wander in & wave the CC a couple of times to beat us

The new postings here helped me find the post I wanted to respond to.

You are right, all newer players are disadvantaged by the system, because any change they make,generally makes things more difficult to accomplish than previously, and because  established players are more than likely  to have finished goals,when things were simpler, cheaper and easier.

The present game is flooded with examples including the CvC set up, Helheim,Achievements, and more ,but this is not a new phenomena, shortly after I started playing I discovered they had banished two invaders Barbarian and Centurion  from the global map, and the only way to get their material was to buy it from the clan store.

All of this makes the competitions  more ridiculous than they already were, because new players are forced to compete against generally speaking, more established opponents, and with little  to no chance  of either winning, nor picking up any of  the now more meagre rewards where the levels are set even higher.  

Thank you for your feedback, Jarls! I have forwarded it to our specialists. 

By the way, xyz, we didn't banish any Invader from the Global Map. If you face such an issue again, please forward your request to the Support Team. They will check your Kingdom and will bring the Invaders back 😎 

I believe that you are incorrect here. There was a whole slew of posts about it at the time.

The only way you could get their gear was from the clan store.

There was also an option for players to bid for the invader of the week I think, and these two invaders were never part of the options.

Edit, addition appears below.

Here is one of your posts about a new competition where it was necessary to kill all 13 invaders where I queried the mentioned description and never got it answered.

 https://plarium.com/forum/en/vikings-war-of-clans/588_archive/88090_a-new-personal-competition---the-invader-hunt-/

Losing consistently to a single player clan able heavily to outscore its opponent begs the question why the single player clan is able to do that.

Perhaps the single player clan is able to defend against more marches, perhaps it has developed the SH and Tower of Odin to a higher level and is able effectively to challenge stronger Jotunn marches.

A conclusion to be drawn is that the multiple player clan is overmatched.  Is this because of inherent unfairness in pairing? No, rather it means that the multiple player clan has made a strategic mistake by puffing up their influence so as to find themselves overmatched.  At lower levels this mistake tends to rest on giving an inept priority to palace advances, at a higher level it tends to rest on carrying far too many troops.

The rules of the game are published, gamesplayers will seek to understand the operation of the rules and to organise play so as to exploit the rules rather than find themselves disadvantaged by them.

Always like to read your posts, first you give a lot of different insight  into the game,and second so few people here do.

From just two posts here, only one of which mentions their size and the relative size of their oppostion, there's not suffiicent information to derive any meanful conclusions.

So  though you might be correct with the 'over matching' suggested ,I don't see how you can come to that specific decision here.

Most of the complaints on this topic seem to be about the rules, the draw,and the manipulation of the draw.

Players should know the rules, and understand the game, which can take some time, and rather than using them fairly ,condoning the exploiting of them, is such a poor turn of phrase,and bad idea,even for a so  called 'war game'.

Though a multiplayer clan may have grown in influence too quickly, or be over stuffed with troops is a possibility, and so it may be their own fault they keep loosing,it doesn't  help if there's skullduggery afoot. 

Deliberately fiddling about with the influence level to get a more favourable draw should be disallowed.

I am sure there is a way this could be achieved.,

Players without siege should not be drawn against those with siege capability,even if it means no opponent.

You don't really appear to say why the single player clan, generalIy wins. I would suggest it's more likely to be through  some form of 'cheatiing' than anything else. 

It could also be because previously they have been in a clan, or still really belong to one, have an allegiance with one, either formally or informally,and have been playing  longer than the multiplayer clan, such that they have progressed so far in the game that it's easier and better for them to play 'alone' .

A single player has only themselves to blame for making an error that causes the loss of a match,an inexperienced clan withh many players, provides more opportunity for mistakes.

No invaders are banned in the game, however, due to the choice of the King of Jotunheim, invaders are sometimes repeated, here you are right. And all Invaders allowed to be chosen, there is no any restrictions :)

I didn't say banned, I said banished, and I didn't say are, I said were.

They were subsqeuently restored to the rotation, and as you say sometimes they stay longer because they are chosen by the King of Jotunheim.

Before that they only got 1 day when the others appeared for longer periods.

Yes, that's true. I have forwarded your comment as a suggestion to our specialists 😇

Single player clans pitted against multiplayer clans of the same total influence will usually win the 3 seige brackets as well as troop training, due to higher level troops (t7&8). That's the four required for victory every time, regardless of how hard the multiplayer clan works on killing inv/ghosts and yielding rss. And it only takes a couple lvl35-40 building upgrades to outpace a clan with smaller building upgrades available. That leaves it at 1:5.

In these cases, the only way for the smaller clan to win is to pour TONS of real $$$ into the game..... oh wait, perhaps that is the whole idea, lol....and  it still guarantees nothing.

The game is not so exciting as to spend my rent money on it, so I am attempting an end around move and will share the results at a later date. 

In the mean time, on topic, if any new players in or able to Drakkar to Kingdom #757, please look me up. I have started a brand new open clan looking to train new players on early level game dynamics and how to get a running start. 

Thank you for your openness, abcduh. I have forwarded your feedback to the developers regarding the game functionality 😇

Unless a player is a big time spending money bag the developers care not in the least what lower tier players say or think. This is a pay to win game that takes no skill nor strategy to play. How deep is your wallet << that what matters and the only thing that matters.

I think our latest oponent has taken the mismatch to a whole new level. We face a two person clan of similar influence to our combined clan - so they have t8s and lv5 sh and we dont have any t8s and a lv 4 sh. But they have an alliance with another (new) clan (which has played only 2 cvcs),  This new clan has two of their 3 players at  lv 40  and nearly 3 times our combined influence. I suspect not long ago they were all one clan to get our oponent sh to level 5. Anyway -surprise surprise - our oponents have won every cvc to date.

 Seems a good strategy: get your sh to level 5 and then split the bigs off into a support clan and your oponents will be relatively weak from then on.

 Also of interest - the alliance clan is listed as having  lv1 sh but soon after cvc started had a lv4 sh.

24 hours later, having sealed a win with a fantastic lead, one of the level 40s has returned to our oponent clan.

The mismatch is probably our own fault for winning too many checkpoints last time. The art for us now is to win the next cvc with minimum checkpoints.