Clan clean up

Originally posted by @roma45
I play for fun
Why would I want points from losing a challenge?.
You seem to want failure rewarded
Arsenal fan?

Yes we all say that ( I play for fun ) when we are constantly losing
No

Originally posted by @padger
Yes we all say that ( I play for fun ) when we are constantly losing
No

I play tournaments more seriously
Won many more than you have.

Plus my dad is bigger than your dad

If it's turning into that sort of contest.

Plus I could thrash you any day of the week

Gauntlet thrown down

Want a game. This is a chess site afterall

Originally posted by @roma45
I play tournaments more seriously
Won many more than you have.

Plus my dad is bigger than your dad

If it's turning into that sort of contest.

Plus I could thrash you any day of the week

Gauntlet thrown down

Want a game. This is a chess site afterall

So I finally got your goat

Originally posted by @silverstriker
I don't see why a losing clan should get points either - maybe a 0 instead of negative points but then some clans wont play as many games as the risk isn't as great and some could get complacent.

As has been said before you cant please everyone.

Awaiting thumbs down for this one!

That would be the gross point system.

Originally posted by @padger
So I finally got your goat

I got yours the minute I did not back your daft idea

Points for losers?

Originally posted by @mghrn55
That would be the gross point system.

absolutely 🙂 - its how i filter the clans when im looking for clans to challenge. Clans that play more games i am more than likely to be able to arrange a game for my agents

Originally posted by @silverstriker
absolutely 🙂 - its how i filter the clans when im looking for clans to challenge. Clans that play more games i am more than likely to be able to arrange a game for my agents

Who on earth would thumb down that post?

Amazing!

I have come to the conclusion that the thing that is wrong with the scoring system is that it is based on games played
This would be the same as basing the football leagues on goals scored
Unworkable
It should be based on challenges won lost or drawn
To take into acount the number of people in a challenge this should be added to the result
So 2 points for every game won + 3 for the challenge and 1 point for a draw
so taking my earlier 5 peole challenge
the result would be
5 - 5 = 11 - 11
6 - 4 = 15 - 0
7 - 3 = 17 - 0
8 - 2 = 19 - 0
9 - 1 = 21 - 0

Originally posted by @padger
I have come to the conclusion that the thing that is wrong with the scoring system is that it is based on games played
This would be the same as basing the football leagues on goals scored
Unworkable
It should be based on challenges won lost or drawn
To take into acount the number of people in a challenge this should be added to the result
So 2 points ...[text shortened]... result would be
5 - 5 = 11 - 11
6 - 4 = 15 - 0
7 - 3 = 17 - 0
8 - 2 = 19 - 0
9 - 1 = 21 - 0

Last time I'm going to explain the problem with no negative points.

We'll use your system above.

Can A issues 500 5 man challenges and wins 10% of them 6-4. They therefore receive 15 points for every win. 15 x 50 = 750. Can A finishes the year with 750 points.

Clan B issues 50 5 man challenges and wins 80% of them 6-4. They therefore receive 15 points for every win. 15 x 40 = 600. Can B finished the year with 600 points.

How is it fair that clan A who only won a measly 10% of its challenges finished well above clan B that won 80% of its challenges.

Negative points are essential to stop clans issuing hundreds and hundreds of challenges where they will win the championship on bulk alone.

Sorry Padger, you're system just won't cut it with the current format.

Negative points (maybe not in the current state but see my proposal in site ideas that would make things more equatable for clans that lose by a small margin) are a must.

Originally posted by @radioactive69
Last time I'm going to explain the problem with no negative points.

We'll use your system above.

Can A issues 500 5 man challenges and wins 10% of them 6-4. They therefore receive 15 points for every win. 15 x 50 = 750. Can A finishes the year with 750 points.

Clan B issues 50 5 man challenges and wins 80% of them 6-4. They therefore receive ...[text shortened]... e ideas that would make things more equatable for clans that lose by a small margin) are a must.

You will never stop one clan being more industrious than other clans
Look at lemon drop
You are determined for some reason that I don't know to just knock every suggestion into touch
I would ask you for your idea to improve things but you just want to sit back and do nothing

Originally posted by @padger
You will never stop one clan being more industrious than other clans
Look at lemon drop
You are determined for some reason that I don't know to just knock every suggestion into touch
I would ask you for your idea to improve things but you just want to sit back and do nothing

Sigh

Can't you read.

I told you I have made suggestions in the site forum

Here is a copy and paste of that suggestion. Can't make it any easier for you

"I think my original idea still seems the best.

There must be negative points or the winner will just be the clan that issues the most challenges. No skill just overkill

For a 5 man challenge under the current rules no matter what the final result (except a draw) the winner gets 10 points the loser gets negative 10 points. A swing of 20 points.

If the system is changed to (in the event of a 5 man challenge) the winning clan receives 5 points, the losing clan gets negative 5 points but added onto that points allocation is a point for each game won.

If a clan wins a 5 man challenge 6 games to 4 the winning clan receives 5 points for the win plus 6 points for each game won totalling 11 points. The losing clan gets negative 5 points plus 4 points for each game won totalling negative 1 point. This is only a 12 point swing as opposed to the 20 point swing and rewards clans for playing out the challenge and for hard fought close challenges.

In the event of a drawn challenge each clan gets no points for the win/loss but gets a point for each game won.

The only case where there is a twenty point turnaround is when a clan is whipped 10 games to nil.

This should be an easy fix for Russ as points allocated after the completion of a challenge would be 2 tiered. Points for challenge win/loss/draw, and points for games won.

This sounds like the most logical system to me and would encourage clans to play challenges out to the end as points are still on the line for individual wins."

Well, there were my suggestions. Have not been sitting back doing nothing as you allege.

This suggestion makes sense. Yours doesn't. End of the matter for me.

Originally posted by @radioactive69
Sigh

Can't you read.

I told you I have made suggestions in the site forum

Here is a copy and paste of that suggestion. Can't make it any easier for you

"I think my original idea still seems the best.

There must be negative points or the winner will just be the clan that issues the most challenges. No skill just overkill

For a 5 man ...[text shortened]... nothing as you allege.

This suggestion makes sense. Yours doesn't. End of the matter for me.

Load of rubbish
I have already explained that to base results on games played is a mistake

Originally posted by @padger
Load of rubbish
I have already explained that to base results on games played is a mistake

Shall we base it on games not played then?

Originally posted by @padger
Load of rubbish
I have already explained that to base results on games played is a mistake

You'll have to take it to the site ideas then. You are the only one making a fuss.

If you don't like it then don't play.

What you have explained is meaningless drivel. You have no concept of what's involved. You can natter on now all you like but I'm done with you. No one else really cares that much about changing the system.

Have fun banging your head on the wall.

Originally posted by @roma45
Shall we base it on games not played then?

It should be based on challenges not games played
If the Scottish Premiership was based on goals scored then Rangers would be second not Aberdeen