wrote:

voted for 3vs3 becouse some clans dont have more members so they wont be able to play cws if u put 4vs4 minimum.
And if someone wants to play 4vs4 he can make a deal so i dont got the sense of this rule.

I agre on 100%% it's don't have snes. If all deal form me is no problemos

Solid arguments rena. I am convinced.

In the current 3vs3, which is like that years now, how many clan wars ended on 2vs2? 2% or them? Less? Whoa, that's a serious problem.

All i see is a guy say "I am right". Bring logical arguments on the table and not an uncertain prediction that there will be "more quality in community"

Yes, this is the "main" reason but there are many more maybe "less" important. I posted a few of them on my previous posts.

There is no reason to restrict 3vs3. If XXX clan wants to play 4vs4 minimum they can set a rule in their challenge thread "4vs4 minimum. Period.". Then they will be free to play against the "50%" of the community that wants 4vs4 as minimum. No reason to force the other half to merge, recruit or die.

The idea to split clans and set different minimum isn't bad. However, clans have ups and downs as we all know. If XXX clan goes through a dry period, 4vs4 could actually kill it. Why make it so complicated? It works fine as it is.

Make a clan?! I am active enough but I suppose that the right path should be to join a clan "first".

wrote:

Main reason against 4 vs 4 is because most of clans have 3 best players, and #4 is questionable. Despite of 10 members. So, clans are against 4 vs 4 minimum, because they will be weaker. I know that some top clans have trouble with #5 member, they have top 4 with no problem, but #5 is weak part.... So, mainly why some clans are against it is selfishness. Anyway Taratos interesting is that you are clan less on long term and you are so active on this tread, are you have in mind making clan ?

its how i see it.

clan who have only 3 members dint passed the start line yet, they still can play frendly wars and increse they tactic and gameplay skills.

ranking should be bit more serious than a founding clan in one day, second day play 3 cw, and third day clan breakapart.

Someone who dont want to respond on others posts, shouldn't discuss. (rena)

Rena, you exaggerate immoderately with your Posts and u put the responses of others in to something rediculous. (lets play 1v1).

My questions are:

• why it is better to have less CWs
• where would be the higher quality "exactly"
• is it also because it becomes too much work for you to make the ranking "alone"?
• what happens if the 4th person is loosing connection while war or even other reasons, for example mum says "clean ur room", kid "no", mum "NOW!", and wush, away ...

I have few more questions, but they are secondary.

My arguments are:
• it will become harder to arrange wars for 4v4
• i will need more time to arrange wars for 4v4
• if the 4th lose his connection, the war was wasted time!?
• the chance to have 3 players for a war for new/small clans is higher than to have 4
• It is much easier to arrange a war with minimum 3v3, everybody has less worries
• Not wasting time = more gaming instead of discussin

Personally i like other ideas in this thread more. My personall favourite is
- After a fix ammount of wars a new clan will be "appear" in ranking, while the opponent will be ranked at once.

For u as it-pro (rena), that should be no problem.

@HQ u can remove ur avatar