18 May 17
Originally posted by padgerWhy would you make a team who lost a challenge higher than a team who did not??
Yes but they are only -1 because you made them that way
In my scoring it would be
A = 12
B = 4
C = 0
Which is much fairer and rewards actually playing a match not sitting on the sidelines
Are you awarding effort points??
18 May 17
a clan winning because they played more just doesn't make sense, clan leaders would just load their team with 20 players regardless of ability who are willing to play as many clan games as you can throw at them, they could then lose 50%, 75%, maybe more but would win just because they played more games. the idea of the scores being down to number of challenges played would also kill off most clans, if they didn't have 15 or more members what is the point in them competing, this would wipe out most of the clans
Originally posted by padgerWycombe also lost 120 challenges than Metallica.
You have just qualified my argument
The clan that tried the hardest to get 800 challenges against the clan that only tried to get 200 must be the harder working clan
If they had won a better percentage of the games they would be streets ahead of the other clan
According to 2016 stats Metalica played a total of 326 games and won the title
And Wycombe playe ...[text shortened]... 100 games more than Metalica is that fair ?
I cannot believe that this is the way to go forward
That's why they finished behind Metallica in 2016.
In 2nd place as far as I am concerned .... btw ...
Originally posted by padgerActually if you look at the clan standings, clans that don't play at all do NOT appear in the standings.
What I am saying is the clan that plays the most and participates in the general clan set up
In other words involves lots of other clans should be given a fair crack of the whip not be knocked back for trying
Your way if you took three clans
A plays B and wins 6 - 4
C never plays at all
The order at the moment would be
A 10
C 0
B -10
Explain to me how this is fair
A clan is not added to the clan table until they have a result, win, loss or draw.
So Clan C would not appear in the standings.
18 May 17
Originally posted by Wycombe AlIs this what you did in 2013 ?
a clan winning because they played more just doesn't make sense, clan leaders would just load their team with 20 players regardless of ability who are willing to play as many clan games as you can throw at them, they could then lose 50%, 75%, maybe more but would win just because they played more games. the idea of the scores being down to number of chall ...[text shortened]... ve 15 or more members what is the point in them competing, this would wipe out most of the clans
18 May 17
Originally posted by mghrn55They would only have to play 2 games in one challenge to move right up the table
Actually if you look at the clan standings, clans that don't play at all do NOT appear in the standings.
A clan is not added to the clan table until they have a result, win, loss or draw.
So Clan C would not appear in the standings.
In that case why bother to play more than one challenge ?
You will never convince me that taking away points already earned is fair play
18 May 17
Originally posted by padgerCorrect.
They would only have to play 2 games in one challenge to move right up the table
In that case why bother to play more than one challenge ?
You will never convince me that taking away points already earned is fair play
But if they want to be at the top of the table, they have to play more challenges.
If the aim of a clan leader was to achieve mediocrity, then the clan rating that the likes of Carrobie pursued would have been the system for them.
Except that clan rating system would have rewarded that mediocrity to such a clan by putting them at the top of the table.
As to the negative points, if a clan loses far more often than they win, then their negative net points would be a reasonably accurate reflection of their ability and may be they should be lower than a clan that is near 0.
Not a perfect system, but better than both the clan rating (that we dumped) and gross point system that we replaced years ago.
18 May 17
Originally posted by Wycombe AlThat is the reason for negative points in losses.
a clan winning because they played more just doesn't make sense, clan leaders would just load their team with 20 players regardless of ability who are willing to play as many clan games as you can throw at them, they could then lose 50%, 75%, maybe more but would win just because they played more games. the idea of the scores being down to number of chall ...[text shortened]... ve 15 or more members what is the point in them competing, this would wipe out most of the clans
That stops mass challenge taking without results
Originally posted by shortcircuitHave you had a look at Lemondrop recently
Unless you can play a ton of those challenges, you won't get much positive either.
I wondered how he got so high even if he is sandbagging
It's lots and lots of one on ones with hardly any negativity
So if you want lots of small challenges ( because big ones could cost you dear ) then bring it on
Originally posted by padgerIt is risk vs reward, as it has always been.
Have you had a look at Lemondrop recently
I wondered how he got so high even if he is sandbagging
It's lots and lots of one on ones with hardly any negativity
So if you want lots of small challenges ( because big ones could cost you dear ) then bring it on
A 20 vs 20 challenge is heaven if you win and hell if you lose.
Originally posted by shortcircuitName any sport where defeating the champion doesn't count for a lot?
...
Name me any sport in the world where the champion is the one who barely did enough to get by.
Suppose, for the sake of comparison, that some team at the Chess Olympiads had defeated the USA and Russia and China and only narrowly lost to Ukraine. That'd be pretty darned impressive, wouldn't it?
The Misfits defeated Metallica 5 -1. We narrowly lost to Be :-) 3 - 4. We defeated Easy Riders 3 - 0. We defeated Yorkshire Laikers 8 - 2. All of those are page one clans (some of the results were from 2016). We're half way down page two. Not a level playing field, IMO.
Originally posted by moonbusYou've completed 9 challenges so far this year.
Name any sport where defeating the champion doesn't count for a lot?
Suppose, for the sake of comparison, that some team at the Chess Olympiads had defeated the USA and Russia and China and only narrowly lost to Ukraine. That'd be pretty darned impressive, wouldn't it?
The Misfits defeated Metallica 5 -1. We narrowly lost to Be :-) 3 - 4. We defeated E ...[text shortened]... me of the results were from 2016). We're half way down page two. Not a level playing field, IMO.
What do you expect ?
21 May 17
Originally posted by moonbusYou could make your claim hold weight if you repeated that scene 3 or 4 times.
Name any sport where defeating the champion doesn't count for a lot?
Suppose, for the sake of comparison, that some team at the Chess Olympiads had defeated the USA and Russia and China and only narrowly lost to Ukraine. That'd be pretty darned impressive, wouldn't it?
The Misfits defeated Metallica 5 -1. We narrowly lost to Be :-) 3 - 4. We defeated E ...[text shortened]... me of the results were from 2016). We're half way down page two. Not a level playing field, IMO.
After all, David beat Goliath ONCE!!!