Clan Elo Rating Suggestion

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Here is a challenge chosen at random. Metallica vs Tolkien Clan Clan challenge 287174

Here is the position as it stands,

Metallica won 4 games Tolkien clan won 3
Metallica get 8 Gross Points and Tolkien clan get 0
Difference is 8 Net Points for Metallica and -8 for Tolkien

I think we can agree that this does not accurately reflect the play ...[text shortened]... y clans that are as strong as they are instead of beating up on weaker rated clans all the time.

Yes but would Metallica have taken the challenge knowing what defeat would have meant
I do not think so

Originally posted by padger
Yes but would Metallica have taken the challenge knowing what defeat would have meant
I do not think so

Robbie is just enforcing your point of stagnation no clan will bother playing a clan lower than them only the easy riders will once they are on top just play the feeder clans to keep rating the same
Time for new ideas this Elo is dead

Originally posted by padger
Yes but would Metallica have taken the challenge knowing what defeat would have meant
I do not think so

So you are saying that Metallica knew that the challenge was a foregone conclusion? No ? then your statement makes NO SENSE. ALL clan leaders are aware of what defeat could mean if they lose a challenge. The fact of the matter is, you cannot simply play on the premise that if you win one more game than your opponents you get all the points and thus the ELO system better reflects the efforts that both clans make.

I am not entirely convicted that Russ has engineered in an equation which reflects the disparity between highly rated clans from lower rated clans or if he has there has not been enough time lapsed for it to be effective as such.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you are saying that Metallica knew that the challenge was a foregone conclusion? No ? then your statement makes NO SENSE. The fact of the matter is, you cannot simply play on the premise that if you win one more game than your opponents you get all the points and thus the ELO system better reflects the efforts that both clans make.

I am not ...[text shortened]... r rated clans or if he has there has not been enough time lapsed for it to be effective as such.

In football score one more goal and you get all the points
Every sport and game in the world works that way
The Elo is daft will not stop collusion and make clans stop playing

No amnesty

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Here is a challenge chosen at random. Metallica vs Tolkien Clan Clan challenge 287174

Here is the position as it stands,

Metallica won 4 games Tolkien clan won 3
Metallica get 8 Gross Points and Tolkien clan get 0
Difference is 8 Net Points for Metallica and -8 for Tolkien

I think we can agree that this does not accurately reflect the play ...[text shortened]... y clans that are as strong as they are instead of beating up on weaker rated clans all the time.

The ELO system over time may be viable.
But the valid questions are out there.

I sent Russ some questions and am waiting to hear back from him.

In your example, how many rating points would Metallica have dropped if they had lost the challenge ?

Point being is that the players in the challenge were fairly evenly matched.

But one clan stands to gain much more than the other by winning the challenge.

That was one of my questions to Russ.
And I will let him respond.
You will just start flapping your wings.😀

Originally posted by mghrn55
The ELO system over time may be viable.
But the valid questions are out there.

I sent Russ some questions and am waiting to hear back from him.

In your example, how many rating points would Metallica have dropped if they had lost the challenge ?

Point being is that the players in the challenge were fairly evenly matched.

But one clan stands to ...[text shortened]... my questions to Russ.
And I will let him respond.
You will just start flapping your wings.😀

In your example, how many rating points would Metallica have dropped if they had lost the challenge ?

I would hope that it would be a combination of the rating disparity and the win to loss ratio.

Individual ratings have little to do with how the ELO is calculated from what I can tell so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. You beat up on a lowly rated clan, that much is clear.

Please try to refrain from flapping your gums.

Originally posted by roma45
In football score one more goal and you get all the points
Every sport and game in the world works that way
The Elo is daft will not stop collusion and make clans stop playing

No amnesty

you know what? until you have something constructive to say that has some valid basis I am simply going to ignore your ill-informed and ignorant texts. Its a waste if time responding to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you are saying that Metallica knew that the challenge was a foregone conclusion? No ? then your statement makes NO SENSE. ALL clan leaders are aware of what defeat could mean if they lose a challenge. The fact of the matter is, you cannot simply play on the premise that if you win one more game than your opponents you get all the points and thus ...[text shortened]... r rated clans or if he has there has not been enough time lapsed for it to be effective as such.

I am not saying the current way of awarding points is correct and I have said this many times in the past that to have minus points is stupid in fact I put this on a forum about five years ago
The reason Metallica would not take the challenge is if they lost they would drop down so far that other clans above them would not take a challenge from them
Can you not see that this would happen
Are you telling me that if you took on um say Breaking Bad and you lost the challenge that other clans above you would still take you on
I don't think so
There has to be another way

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In your example, how many rating points would Metallica have dropped if they had lost the challenge ?

I would hope that it would be a combination of the rating disparity and the win to loss ratio.

Individual ratings have little to do with how the ELO is calculated from what I can tell so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. You b ...[text shortened]... up on a lowly rated clan, that much is clear.

Please try to refrain from flapping your gums.

Let me try this again.
And I'll dumb it down for you.

Clan A has a clan rating 400 points higher than Clan B.
The clans agree to a 1 player challenge where both players are equally rated at 1400.

Each clan has a equal chance of winning the challenge.
As the players are of equal strength.
Yet clan A stands to gain 1 rating point for winning while clan B stands to gain 30 points (depending on the formula).
Conversely, clan A stands to lose a pile of points for losing while clan B stands to lose next to nothing.

Please give us your definition of a fair challenge !!

I will add further commentary to this post as a separate post.

Originally posted by mghrn55
Let me try this again.
And I'll dumb it down for you.

Clan A has a clan rating 400 points higher than Clan B.
The clans agree to a 1 player challenge where both players are equally rated at 1400.

Each clan has a equal chance of winning the challenge.
As the players are of equal strength.
Yet clan A stands to gain 1 rating point for winning whil ...[text shortened]... nition of a fair challenge !!

I will add further commentary to this post as a separate post.

The above post is in line with Russ' assertion that this rating system prevents collusion because of the risk/reward scenario I just stated.

I will state that this is a false assumption.
This is because the 2 clans A and B involved are most likely NOT colluding !!
They are just 2 clans finding a way to put together a fair and balanced challenge even though one clan is much stronger than the other.

Under this new scoring regime, challenges like this will never occur because of the distorted risk/reward factors I just pointed out.

This takes us right to Padger's assessment that stagnation can set in because this will discourage a lot of fair challenges !!

On the flip side of this scenario using the above scenario, clan A and B can enter into a challenge like this over and over again if clan A knows that they will be guaranteed the win.
They can bump up their rating 1 or 2 points at a time.
And ratings don't move that much in this regime.
So 50 - 100 rating point bumps from many fixed challenges can make a difference.

There is no disincentive here !!
Except for those clans playing with integrity !!

Originally posted by padger
I am not saying the current way of awarding points is correct and I have said this many times in the past that to have minus points is stupid in fact I put this on a forum about five years ago
The reason Metallica would not take the challenge is if they lost they would drop down so far that other clans above them would not take a challenge from them
Can you ...[text shortened]... at other clans above you would still take you on
I don't think so
There has to be another way

You keep inventing hypothetical scenarios that have never happened and may never happen.

Originally posted by mghrn55
The above post is in line with Russ' assertion that this rating system prevents collusion because of the risk/reward scenario I just stated.

I will state that this is a false assumption.
This is because the 2 clans A and B involved are most likely NOT colluding !!
They are just 2 clans finding a way to put together a fair and balanced challenge even t ...[text shortened]... fference.

There is no disincentive here !!
Except for those clans playing with integrity !!

another useless piece of rhetoric that attempts to focus on what does not happen rather than what actually does.

there should be a point where if you play a clan that is so far removed from your own clans rating that you get nothing for doing so no matter how many of the games you win, or so very little that its not worth your effort. I suspect that as the system progresses this will happen or if it does not then Russ (peace be upon him) can tweek the algorithm and make it so. I want to see a more competitive clan system.

Woodpushers have a higher rating than you because they have a higher win to loss ratio than you or play higher rated clans than you. Your clan leader based his entire strategy by issuing challenges that appeared to be equal but had a booby trap of a player that was underrated knowing that all things being equal only a single game decides the challenge. Such an approach is NO LONGER feasible because the more games you win in comparison to your opponent in the challenge is what counts.

Originally posted by mghrn55
The above post is in line with Russ' assertion that this rating system prevents collusion because of the risk/reward scenario I just stated.

I will state that this is a false assumption.
This is because the 2 clans A and B involved are most likely NOT colluding !!
They are just 2 clans finding a way to put together a fair and balanced challenge even t ...[text shortened]... fference.

There is no disincentive here !!
Except for those clans playing with integrity !!

One or two points will be wiped out easily by playing a clan of ones own strength and losing. Your scenario is once again not based on any known reality but some hypothetical fantasy event that is never likely to occur.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One or two points will be wiped out easily by playing a clan of ones own strength and losing. Your scenario is once again not based on any known reality but some hypothetical fantasy event that is never likely to occur.

Robbie rattled by logic
What next
Will be be treated to the old zombie routine

No amnesty

Originally posted by roma45
Robbie rattled by logic
What next
Will be be treated to the old zombie routine

No amnesty

He refuses to get it.