If it's so quiet

Originally posted by @padger
Why do I keep getting a vision of the unsinkable ship that just ploughs on into oblivion

Maybe your're a cup is half empty type of guy.

Devise a model and post it up for perusal. It's hard to argue anything when you haven't submitted anything. The only thing you seem to want is no negative points and that frankly is impossible. The current system as it stands is better than anything that does not contain negative points.

Put up a model for discussion and we'll take it from there

Originally posted by @radioactive69
Maybe your're a cup is half empty type of guy.

Devise a model and post it up for perusal. It's hard to argue anything when you haven't submitted anything. The only thing you seem to want is no negative points and that frankly is impossible. The current system as it stands is better than anything that does not contain negative points.

Put up a model for discussion and we'll take it from there

I thought I already had
Having thought about it it should just be based on most games won
The filter is there already
In the example I gave
Clan A that wins 10 games 6 - 4 Clan B and gets 100 points is counted the same as Clan C that won 10 games 10 - 0 Clan D they still only get 100 points
Equally the losing Clans B and D in each example gets -100
Using most games won would give
Clan A 60 points
Clan B 40 points
Clan C 100 points
Clan D 0 points
Surely a much fairer reflection of what each Clan achieved in their challenges

Using the most games won filter ,which in my opinion is a truer reflection of how a clan performs
I would like to say well done to the Fast Players on winning the 2016 championship
Funny thing is if you go back over the years Metallica would never have won in any year
Which is probably why they wouldn't want to change things

Originally posted by @padger
I thought I already had
Having thought about it it should just be based on most games won
The filter is there already
In the example I gave
Clan A that wins 10 games 6 - 4 Clan B and gets 100 points is counted the same as Clan C that won 10 games 10 - 0 Clan D they still only get 100 points
Equally the losing Clans B and D in each example gets -100
...[text shortened]... Clan D 0 points
Surely a much fairer reflection of what each Clan achieved in their challenges

Sorry, but in my view that is a step backwards from the system in play at the moment. To me your model makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the easiest thing is to stick with the current system until something better comes along.

Maybe you don't understand the model I have submitted. It's a lot more fairer than the current model.

Originally posted by @radioactive69
Sorry, but in my view that is a step backwards from the system in play at the moment. To me your model makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the easiest thing is to stick with the current system until something better comes along.

Maybe you don't understand the model I have submitted. It's a lot more fairer than the current model.

I cannot accept that it is OK to lose points that you have already won
It doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense it cannot be right
Your model while being better than the current one is still based on negativity

Originally posted by @padger
I thought I already had
Having thought about it it should just be based on most games won
The filter is there already
In the example I gave
Clan A that wins 10 games 6 - 4 Clan B and gets 100 points is counted the same as Clan C that won 10 games 10 - 0 Clan D they still only get 100 points
Equally the losing Clans B and D in each example gets -100
...[text shortened]... Clan D 0 points
Surely a much fairer reflection of what each Clan achieved in their challenges

We had discussed that and evaluated it.
One of the main points that came out of this proposal, and basically sank it, was that this would spell the end of large challenges.
Because one could just set 10 one player challenges instead of one 10 player challenge.
Which goes against the original intention of the clan system.

I believe I had proposed a hybrid system of sorts that awarded and deducted points at the game level and the challenge level.
Just trying to accommodate everyone.

Most important change which isn't being discussed right now is creating a separate player rating for clan games.
If Russ isn't willing to take this on, we are pretty much wasting our time here.
I am not pushing for status quo because I am a member of Metallica, btw ....

Originally posted by @padger
Using the most games won filter ,which in my opinion is a truer reflection of how a clan performs
I would like to say well done to the Fast Players on winning the 2016 championship
Funny thing is if you go back over the years Metallica would never have won in any year
Which is probably why they wouldn't want to change things

Seems to me you are looking for any system that knocks Metallica out of first. In any event, we at Metallica are very adaptable and will likely contend for first whatever system is in place. But knock yourself out, the current system is here to stay.

Originally posted by @padger
Using the most games won filter ,which in my opinion is a truer reflection of how a clan performs
I would like to say well done to the Fast Players on winning the 2016 championship
Funny thing is if you go back over the years Metallica would never have won in any year
Which is probably why they wouldn't want to change things

Really Padger? Here's an idea, let's change the width of all the goal post in football to twice what they are now then go back and see how many games would have been won or lost based on this new set of standards. Seems like idiocy to me but I'm sure you will understand completely.
Here's another idea. Let's make a normal work week 35 hours and now go back and figure out how much overtime everybody is owed.🙄😲

Originally posted by @my2sons
Seems to me you are looking for any system that knocks Metallica out of first. In any event, we at Metallica are very adaptable and will likely contend for first whatever system is in place. But knock yourself out, the current system is here to stay.

I have no feelings about Metalica whatsoever
If they want to win at all costs makes no difference to me
I just do not like having points taken away for no good reason
You are all blinkered to the fact that the current system is not fair and never will be while you have negative points

Originally posted by @carystover
Really Padger? Here's an idea, let's change the width of all the goal post in football to twice what they are now then go back and see how many games would have been won or lost based on this new set of standards. Seems like idiocy to me but I'm sure you will understand completely.
Here's another idea. Let's make a normal work week 35 hours and now go back and figure out how much overtime everybody is owed.🙄😲

Are you a union man ?
Seems to me you should be

Originally posted by @padger
I have no feelings about Metalica whatsoever
If they want to win at all costs makes no difference to me
I just do not like having points taken away for no good reason
You are all blinkered to the fact that the current system is not fair and never will be while you have negative points

That's the way the system is and needs to be given it's current format.

If you don't want to lose points don't play any challenges. Play in the clan leagues instead.

Originally posted by @padger
I thought I already had
Having thought about it it should just be based on most games won
The filter is there already
In the example I gave
Clan A that wins 10 games 6 - 4 Clan B and gets 100 points is counted the same as Clan C that won 10 games 10 - 0 Clan D they still only get 100 points
Equally the losing Clans B and D in each example gets -100
...[text shortened]... Clan D 0 points
Surely a much fairer reflection of what each Clan achieved in their challenges

We had the gross points system a few years ago but it was accused of bias towards the clans that play the most games in theory a clan could lose more challenges than win but still be on top at the end of the year.
After a vote it was decided net points was the fairest system but certain individuals found a way to cheat.
Eventually this was rectified after a vote

Your system of awarding points to a losing team is a non starter it will hand the title to the clan that plays the most games
You accuse Metallica of not wanting change? Your system would help them and any clan willing to play lots of challenges
There can't be points handed out to the losers. No game in the world does that.
The elo system again thst will not work.
With the 200 buffer large challenges are a thing of the past Which is a shame due to cheating a player can't have the chance of taking a bug scalp. Mainly playing the same players over and over like in banded tournaments.
I suppose it's easier to condemn ideas than come up with a magic fair formula but your system would be grossly unfair towards the smaller clans.

Originally posted by @padger
I have no feelings about Metalica whatsoever
If they want to win at all costs makes no difference to me
I just do not like having points taken away for no good reason
You are all blinkered to the fact that the current system is not fair and never will be while you have negative points

Winning at all costs !!
Where did you get that from ? Carrobie ??
This is a past time for members of our clan.
And I am sure for members of almost every clan on this site.

It was an obsession for a select few individuals on this site.
Individuals who have been dealt with by administration, btw ...

Originally posted by @padger
Using the most games won filter ,which in my opinion is a truer reflection of how a clan performs
I would like to say well done to the Fast Players on winning the 2016 championship
Funny thing is if you go back over the years Metallica would never have won in any year
Which is probably why they wouldn't want to change things

Padger,

I am speaking for myself here not Metallica, shortcircuit does that very well for us.

IF it came to most games won, I believe our team would win providing every team had to play every other team a certain number of times. As it now stands there are teams who will not play us no matter what the match ups.

IF this were in place there is no doubt in my mind that we would win. You see not all but most of our team are retired or have taken early retirement so can play a lot of games if needed.

To make it fair as you are saying a RULE would have to be set up that every clan had to play every other clan so many times. Then you would come up against the problem of the match ups which would not be easy. Much pressure would be put on the lower rated players to play many more games than usual to get the match ups.

There are just so many complications in the way you would like to see things done. There have already been changes which Metallica have adapted to. I say just leave things the way they are. A stop was put the fiasco of 2016, we don't want any repeats of that happening in the future, at least I don't. I believe Administration has made it very clear this type of behavior will not be condoned

-VR

Your system of awarding points to a losing team is a non starter it will hand the title to the clan that plays the most games
You accuse Metallica of not wanting change? Your system would help them and any clan willing to play lots of challenges
If you go to the clan table and change the filter to most games won Metallica do not win in any year
So that theory goes up in smoke