I would like to moot an idea for changing the way clan standings are calculated. The sum total of wins per clan is suboptimal for (at least) two reasons: a) it favors large clans which play short timings and therefore rapidly accumulate wins, compared to smaller clans with longer timings, and b) it is open to abuse and manipulation (e.g., collusion).
I propose (for discussion) the following formula instead: the net average rating loss or gain of a clan is to be the measure of the clan's standing.
Example: player X from clan X’ has a 100 point increase in his individual rating, while player Y (same clan) has a 50 point decrease. This makes a 50-point net increase for that clan. Player Z from clan Z’ drops 150 points in his personal rating, while player C from clan Z’ increases 450 points; the net increase for clan Z’ is 300 points. Clan Z’ is therefore ahead of clan X’ on net rating points. Note that it makes no difference whether the individuals of clan X' or Z' are rated higher or lower, only the net change is relevant.
Obvious objection: if clan X’ has 100 players who each increase by 10 points individually, that would be a net increase of 1000 points for the whole clan, whereas if clan Z’ has five players who each increase 100 points, that would be a net increase of only 500 points, which is prejudicial to the smaller clan.
Therefore, not the sum of the individual increases should be reckoned, but the average. This would rectify the discrepancy between large and small clans, irrespective of time limits or number of games played.
This formula would have the advantage of encouraging challenges slightly above one's own clan rating, since wins (assuming one does win) would accentuate one's rating increase, whereas challenging lower-rated clans and beating them would not gain as much.
Caveats:
a) Players should have separate ratings for individual games and clan games, as Suzianne has proposed, to stop skewing clan pairings by throwing non-clan games (sandbagging). Only clan-ratings would be reckoned for clan pairings, as well as for the final tally which clan posts the greatest average net increase in ratings. (Separate ratings have already been implemented for club members, so this would be merely an extension of current RHP policy.)
b) A maximum ratings differential should be observed for clan pairings (the current value of 200 points seems about right).
c) An arbitrary minimum of completed clan challenges would be sensible (just as a minimum number of games is required to calculate an individual's rating).
d) An arbitrary maximum number of clan-to-same-clan challenges would be sensible--a fairly low number, two or three challenges--to eliminate collusion between clans. Exceptions could be made to allow very large clans to play the same other-very-large clan more than two or three times, provided different players were involved in each challenge. Alternatively, clans which like to play each other would be allowed to play any number of challenges, but only up to the agreed-upon maximum would count towards the clan standings.
Request for comments.
Originally posted by moonbusI don't know why three people thumbed this idea down it seems plausible to me.
I would like to moot an idea for changing the way clan standings are calculated. The sum total of wins per clan is suboptimal for (at least) two reasons: a) it favors large clans which play short timings and therefore rapidly accumulate wins, compared to smaller clans with longer timings, and b) it is open to abuse and manipulation (e.g., collusion).
I pr ...[text shortened]... y up to the agreed-upon maximum would count towards the clan standings.
Request for comments.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieanything that would make the clan challenge more fair is going to be thumbed down by Metallica
I don't know why three people thumbed this idea down it seems plausible to me.
why do we even need a ladder?
the ladder is the problem
without the ladder there would be no need to game the system
Originally posted by lemondropYes indeed and I suspect that you are correct also, it was the metalidweebs that thumbed the proposal down for being a clan of saggy baggsters it would put them out of business for sure.
anything that would make the clan challenge more fair is going to be thumbed down by Metallica
why do we even need a ladder?
the ladder is the problem
without the ladder there would be no need to game the system
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnce again you are talking out of your backside with no insight to the truth.
Yes indeed and I suspect that you are correct also, it was the metalidweebs that thumbed the proposal down for being a clan of saggy baggsters it would put them out of business for sure.
I will say the idea will not come close to solving the problem.
There are too many ways to play against it.
I don't have time at the moment to explain it to you.
But, as you usually do, you will formulated your own convoluted idea of what i am thinking.
Of course, it won't be any more correct than all of your previous musings,
but your lap dog will be there to acknowledge your thoughts.
Originally posted by shortcircuitYour text is unworthy of our attention, its enough for us to note that already you are scheming ways to circumvent the proposals.
Once again you are talking out of your backside with no insight to the truth.
I will say the idea will not come close to solving the problem.
There are too many ways to play against it.
I don't have time at the moment to explain it to you.
But, as you usually do, you will formulated your own convoluted idea of what i am thinking.
Of course, it wo ...[text shortened]... than all of your previous musings,
but your lap dog will be there to acknowledge your thoughts.
- Joined
- 05 Jan 05
- Moves
- 687691
I think the only way to settle this is to scrap the clan system, there is never going to be a system that everyone will agree on, someone will always claim it's not fair, if it was totally fair every clan would be a winner and there would need no losers, that's not life, we would all be top and it would be dull
Originally posted by shortcircuitdon't worry goober
Once again you are talking out of your backside with no insight to the truth.
I will say the idea will not come close to solving the problem.
There are too many ways to play against it.
I don't have time at the moment to explain it to you.
But, as you usually do, you will formulated your own convoluted idea of what i am thinking.
Of course, it wo ...[text shortened]... than all of your previous musings,
but your lap dog will be there to acknowledge your thoughts.
when the ladder comes down
and the crying has stopped
you will find something else to screw up
it's your nature
Originally posted by lemondrop"without the system, there's no need to game the system".
anything that would make the clan challenge more fair is going to be thumbed down by Metallica
why do we even need a ladder?
the ladder is the problem
without the ladder there would be no need to game the system
No %$#&, Sherlock. Punish the bad behavior, not the normal behavior.
When people try to game the system, you punish the gamers, not the system.
Take your "blame the victim" BS somewhere else.
Originally posted by Wycombe AlSo we take down the ladder and Robbie and his Gang of Four Colluders get their way.
I think the only way to settle this is to scrap the clan system, there is never going to be a system that everyone will agree on, someone will always claim it's not fair, if it was totally fair every clan would be a winner and there would need no losers, that's not life, we would all be top and it would be dull
This is why they are colluding, to make the system worthless.
And all because they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Metallica fairly.
So a bunch of whiners get their way.
Better set up the emergency egress system to handle all the accounts heading for the door. Don't wanna get trampled at the door. No clan system, and everyone who joined the site for the clan system leaves.
WHY ARE WE LETTING ROBBIE AND CO. GET AWAY WITH THEIR "SCORCHED EARTH" POLICIES??
Better yet, every clan leader who wants to continue playing here should go ask Russ this very same question.
Originally posted by lemondropWhat you describe is the last days of RHP.
don't worry goober
when the ladder comes down
and the crying has stopped
you will find something else to screw up
it's your nature
This is what you clowns wanted from the beginning.
So your motives are now out in the open. I wonder if this is finally enough threat to Russ' livelihood to finally kick all you anarchists off his site.
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm not calling for the end of clans
What you describe is the last days of RHP.
This is what you clowns wanted from the beginning.
So your motives are now out in the open. I wonder if this is finally enough threat to Russ' livelihood to finally kick all you anarchists off his site.
only the ladder
is that simple enough for you?
Originally posted by SuziannePunish the bad behavior
"without the system, there's no need to game the system".
No %$#&, Sherlock. Punish the bad behavior, not the normal behavior.
When people try to game the system, you punish the gamers, not the system.
Take your "blame the victim" BS somewhere else.
spoken like a true Puritan whose entire world is viewed through the narrow lens of her own morality.