Like it or not, pipkin, if the technique you describe works your opponents are playing well.  They have seen the possibilities of the new(ish) alliance feature; they have recognised the dominant importance of SH sieges in CvC; and they have organised themselves well so that the game's matching criteria work in their favour not against them.

Rather than indulging a sense of grievance you might profit from their example.

One thing you might do is organise yourselves in a similar manner.  If your highest influence players: leave the clan; form a clan of their own; and ally, you will be in much the same position.  Your draws in the future will be against lower influence clans and your ability effectively to conduct level 4 SH sieges will put you in a very strong position.

Another possibility is to look about and see whether diplomacy might secure you an alliance with a clan strong enough to:  aid your siege defences; and to assist you in developing your SH/Tower of Odin so as to have a chance to match opponents such as the clan you currently face.  Powerful clans welcome the chance to participate in as many SH sieges as possible.  My own clan secured help in developing our SH to level 4 and getting the Tower of Odin built in exchange for ceding the right to conduct one SH siege each week outside the CvC period.  If you are in a position to provide the precious dust needed for expansion and to run sieges my guess is that would be a good bargaining chip.

If studying your present contest appeals to you, it strikes me that you will need to watch exactly how your opponents and their ally manage their SH siege defences.  They need to balance the troops contributed by the ally and those contributed by your opponent clan with a lot of care.  It would be no good for the ally to put in the vast majority of the troops because your opponents only score points for the Jottun troops they kill themselves.  Judging the kills required to beat your score (assuming you to be deft enough to avoid the attentions of the ally during your own siege) and knowing how many troops will achieve that target strikes me as difficult although I suppose experience would help.

I would be interested to learn whether the technique works in practice, particularly should you manage any effective scouting.

Rather strange how looking for a new kingdom has been transformed into something else altogether.

I would suggest that the programmers take the opportunity to further rectify  the difficulties they created with sieges and alliances.

First by  stopping the siege problem as has been suggested.

Second by not allowing this kind of arrangement or actual drawing of such opposition.

If the clan doing this thinks it is so smart, why not draw them against similar,or stronger, and see how they like that?

Pipkin, John seems to be setting you up to be the guinea pig fall guy test pilot,for such  a scheme to see if it works and if you succeed copy it.

Played a single player clan last week. We were winning 3-0 as they'd done nothing (on the bottom 3) checked 2 hours later and in those 2 hours they'd scored between 8 and 10 times more than us on all categories despite the fact we'd been going for 24 hours on and off.

I don't understand how and it just makes the whole game feel pointless as cvc is the only decent event for smaller players.

Greetings, Blackadder!
The information in a rating of a Competition is updated within the certain time period. Points are calculated correctly. There may be a delay in displaying points scored in the Competition on your device. The information on your device will be updated after a while. Please note that the delay in displaying points may occur in the Clan points section. Your personal points are updated instantly after each action you perform resulting in scoring points.

For more info about how the points update in the Competitions please follow the link:

https://vikingsweb-support.plarium.com/web/en/faq/how-are-points-in-competitions-updated 

If you have any other questions, I will be happy to answer them 😇

As long as the player has enough rss and boosts, points can be amassed very quickly in the training category and in the increasing influence category.  It takes quite a lot more time in the Invaders, Ghosts and yielding category so your opponent managing to amass a huge score in that category in just a few hours is surprising.

Your opponent sounds like something of a beginner, unless they had a shot at a top three finish outscoring you tenfold is overkill and wastes assets that could otherwise be employed to win several subsequent events.

The opposition wants to win, and may or not know ,how you are going to perform until the competition actually starts.

The more knowledgeable the better.

Once the battle is underway you may have more idea of how things are likely to turn out and act accordingly.

Several areas of the game can be started such that they finish late,which leaves little time to try to recover the position.

If you have lots of marches,as many do,it's easy enough to send them to places such that emptying the tiles takes hours, with nothing credited till the troop returns home,and in combination with the delayed reporting, it is not that difficult to see(?)how they can suddenly go from no points to very many in a short space of time.

On top of this, if you are killing invaders/banishing ghosts,especially if they are one hit, it's possible to rack up points very quickly.

Blackadder - previously we had a similar situation - we had a good lead on invaders/farming  and our single oponent in the last few hours put on a big lead on us in troops and knowledge. As a high level player he can make high level troops + knowledge - his only limit is how much he wants to spend buying time bonuses and rss, assuming he hasn't already got enough  reserves in hand.

John: we wont be able to do any experimenting - our bigger players (chief and elders) have gone dormant over the last few weeks and we cant even wake them up to appoint a new chief, so I don't begrudge our previous oponent actively moving their bigs back and forth to max advantage. The two lv 37s did get a very impressive tally from their siege (despite the lv 40 alliance members not earning points for them). I am assuming the presence of troops from the lv 40 troops players massively  increases the power of the troops from the two lv  37 players. (I.e. the more that the jotun troops are outnumbered the greater the point earning capacity  of the level 37 players?) And naturally our oponents moved in closer to our sh during the final hours just in case we tried a siege, which I am guessing is why a lv 40 rejoined our oponent clan.

Plarium will replace an inactive Chief for you - although for how long the Chief must be inactive before Plarium is willing to do this I do not know.  You might send in a ticket and ask.

In the meantime you can't expect to do well in CvCs while carrying a whole bunch of inactive influence - whoever your opponents are and however they organise themselves.

I have speculated about how a powerful ally might influence sieges without diverting too many points from their principal.  One technique might be to send reinforcements as a meat shield - that is at a lower tier than the principal's troops.  The ally's meat shield troops would kill some of the lower tier Jotunn troops (gaining relatively few points/soul shards) leaving the higher tier principal's troops to engage the higher tier Jotunn troops on favourable terms.

No doubt there are other techniques.

before there were jotun scouts it was relatively safe for me to scout other sieges and see what big players were doing as few people bothered to put in scouts and learn what worked. Now it is rather more problematic - esp since I dont know which jotun marches have scouts.

Assuming there is someone available and willing to eject inactive players from the clan. it may still not be enough to get an easier opponent, and my guess that might only happen if enough influence  change occurs to drop  a league, and that might not be beneficial either, it would have to depend on the rewards given in each of the leagues, and how many levels can be completed.

Final consideration, without a chief scoring there are no main rewards for a C.v.C  win anyway.

Pipkin, have you removed a post from this page? Pretty  sure there was something about you liking to win CvC for the runic coins, which was the purpose of my third attempt at my previous post, much changed and condensed from the original version  which failed on sending.

This game is and can be played on so many levels based on a clans activeness and influence. While we all agree that the draw to this game is not only the social aspect of it but the fighting. We all want to defeat our opponents in battle but as with any successful battle there is a ton of planning and preparation. That being said, most clans that arent successful do not plan or put for the effort required to succeed at a level that they compete at. Most are too busy chasing influence to appear bigger but not necessarily stronger.

Is it fair that a 3T player can face and defeat a whole 3T singlehandedly? We have several clans that hover around the 3T influence mark to be able to participate in Holmgang that are successful in cvc. They have all done what we call the grid. Upgraded gear, gems, Helhiem, and town skins (all of these items can not be purchased regardless of the amount of money). These all make you stronger without adding an influence. If you are a casual player then you most likely are not going to beat someone that lives and breathes the viking way.

As a 3T clan we know we can not fight for the throne in JOT and hope to succeed, however we can set up so nasty trap towns to earn our soul shards to make us stronger. The whole key to this game is to have fun and use the strategy and lessons learned in defeats to make you better.

I hope for the best for everyone and am here to help in any way I can. 

CVC anouncement a day later, the only thing that changed is it took an extra day to find out we once again found ourselves facing a 1 man Russian outfit who is individually stronger than our entire clan is collectively.

as others have pointed out Plaruim doesn't give a toss about the small clans/players it's all about those who pay to play

I am sorry that you feel this way, Susan. In the Clans Battle, before the Competition is announced, all Clans within their Leagues are divided into pairs according to their Influence.

Pairing also depends on the level of activity of the previous Competition participants. This level is defined by the number of checkpoints reached. In the end, there are 4 groups for selecting a pair:

1. Clans that didn't earn points or earned few points and didn't even reach checkpoint 1.

2. Clans that passed checkpoint 1 but didn't reach 2.

3. Clans that stopped between checkpoints 2 and 5.

4. Clans that passed checkpoint 5.

If you have any suggestions on how to improve this functionality, I will be happy to forward them to the developers😇

XVZ: sorry for the late response. Yes I did remove that post which was just to say there are rewards in cvc worth competing for. It is about the only competition that the clans in our kingdom take seriously. We certainly dont bother with kvks, Fury, Holmgang etc.

I should add for Susan that what Ivar says seems to work for us - we have a reasonable chance of winning every 2nd cvc - which seems emminently fair to all. We won our last cvc - it was a battle. This coming one we face a lv 40 player and if they raise their sh to level 4 (currently level 3) we will have no chance of winning.

and we won - despite our oponent guarding our sh at the end with his level 40 player. We let our oponent think all along that we didnt expect to win and he didn't raise his sh to level 4. 🙂 (That tactic didn't work in a previous cvc ... so win some lose some).

John: I am impressed - I did as you suggested and sent a ticket to Plarium asking if they could transfer the clan leadership to another member that I had already discussed it with, and within a few hours it was done. Thank you Plarium. Thank you John.

Thank you for your positive feedback. Forwarded it to my colleagues 😍

I dont think that the issue I am having a problem with is being understood! The problem is that the siege is generating a set of point that are tripled unfairly. This is my main issue! All the other category points are only counted ONE TIME. However the siege points are counted THREE TIMES! This is so grossly unfair! The other problems are also considerations that should be reviewed & addressed but the unfair TRIPLING needs to be done away with completely! Only one warrior is killed, yet it is counted in 3 areas! This is WRONG! Amd unfair.

Initially, winning CvC was a matter of amassing a higher total number of points than your opponents.  That diminished the significance of fighting.  Victory depended on who could amass most points from troop training and SH builds.  Then categories were introduced.  The first set of categories just introduced even worse imbalances and a change to new categories was made almost immediately.  The new categories were not a whole lot better but, sensibly I would say, they stayed in place for an extended period while experience built up and then, finally, Plarium International Ltd introduced the current categories.  Unfortunately even that extended period gaining experience did not lead to any clear answer as to what would make satisfying victory criteria.

So we reach the present position. 

It is easy to criticise what we have.  The hard thing is to suggest anything that would be better.  virg thinks that compressing three kill categories into one is an obvious and good idea.  As far as I can see that would simply take us back to the problem that categories were introduced in an attemt to resolve - CvC would be decided by the side which could train the most troops and increase influence the most.

It is possible to see from posts on these boards that the introduction of SH sieges and alliances has greatly complicated play.  Some see the sort of organisation which clans are trying out  in response as artificial and unsatisfying, others have embraced the changes and are trying new strategies.  For myself I think the game is improved when opportunities to exercise skill or strategic ideas are introduced.  So my preference is for CvCs dominated by SH sieges over CvCs dominated by troop training and influence increasing.  

Meanwhile if virg or anybody else can suggest a set of victory criteria which balance kills and other aspects of play in a way more people find satisfying that will be great.  But as so long has already gone by without that happening I guess I won't be holding my breathe.