Clans
28 Jun 18
Originally posted by @padgerJust don't bother and leave the site.
And having pondered the question I have come to the following conclusion
If we all played clan games as suggested by @mgm55 and captain pugwash and his cabin boy
49% of the games played in clan games are absolutely useless and count for less than nothing
So why bother at all
Problem solved
Originally posted by @radioactive69Typical response from a cabin boy
Just don't bother and leave the site.
Problem solved
Nothing constructive at all
Originally posted by @padgerHey, I thought I'd have a look at your thread in site ideas. Took me a while to find it. It's gathering a lot of dust alright. I notice Russ replied to a few threads but avoided your thread like the plague.
Typical response from a cabin boy
Nothing constructive at all
Don't worry, I'm confident you'll have a constructive thought one day (about 50 years from now more than likely). Go the Tadger !!!
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @radioactive69Still can't find an original thought
Hey, I thought I'd have a look at your thread in site ideas. Took me a while to find it. It's gathering a lot of dust alright. I notice Russ replied to a few threads but avoided your thread like the plague.
Don't worry, I'm confident you'll have a constructive thought one day (about 50 years from now more than likely). Go the Tadger !!!
Shame and I thought you might learn something from captain Pugwash but perhaps not
Originally posted by @lemondropI'll explain the current net and gross points systems.
if it is exactly the same then why the big discrepancy in the standings when comparing the two?
also by eliminating negative points every game matters and is of equal value
it is a much fairer and competitive structure using gross points
it's just my opinion and I realize it will never be adopted
edit: under a gross point system, regardless of wheth ...[text shortened]... ED IN THE FINAL TALLY and by eliminating negative points, every game would carry the same weight
By way of example.
2 clans agree to a 10 player challenge or 20 games.
One clan is in front 11 games to 4.
The challenge is decided.
The 5 remaining games still in progress will NOT change the outcome of the challenge.
The winning clan gets 20 points.
The losing clan gets:
- 0 points under the gross points system.
- deducted 20 points under the net points system.
Either way, playing out the remaining open games does not change the outcome of the challenge.
The debate between the 2 systems is how to assign a score to a clan for losing.
In sports leagues, losing teams get 0 points for losing a game.
But in leagues every team plays the same number of games.
And plays every other team at least once.
This does not happen in clan play.
To make up for this, losing a challenge costs points to make up for different clans playing different numbers of challenges of different sizes.
A little clearer now ?
Originally posted by @mghrn55what does all this have to do with simply having the clan that wins the most games being the ladder champion?
I'll explain the current net and gross points systems.
By way of example.
2 clans agree to a 10 player challenge or 20 games.
One clan is in front 11 games to 4.
The challenge is decided.
The 5 remaining games still in progress will NOT change the outcome of the challenge.
The winning clan gets 20 points.
The losing clan gets:
- 0 points und ...[text shortened]... rent clans playing different numbers of challenges of different sizes.
A little clearer now ?
no need to explain anything
it should be easy enough even for you
Originally posted by @lemondropShould be easy enough for you.
what does all this have to do with simply having the clan that wins the most games being the ladder champion?
no need to explain anything
it should be easy enough even for you
A clan that wins 300 challenges and loses 600 challenges should not be considered to have a better result than a clan that wins 150 and loses only 50.
Nor should a clan that plays only 20 challenges in a year and happens to win them all be considered to be the best clan.
The net points system, while flawed, represents a balance between the 2 extremes.
Better ??
Originally posted by @mghrn55I think the better system is one that makes every game count (eliminating dumping) one that does away with negative points (making each game equal) and one that encourages more play.
Should be easy enough for you.
A clan that wins 300 challenges and loses 600 challenges should not be considered to have a better result than a clan that wins 150 and loses only 50.
Nor should a clan that plays only 20 challenges in a year and happens to win them all be considered to be the best clan.
The net points system, while flawed, represents a balance between the 2 extremes.
Better ??
Now tell me what is wrong with that
03 Sep 18
Originally posted by @mghrn55no
I'll explain the current net and gross points systems.
By way of example.
2 clans agree to a 10 player challenge or 20 games.
One clan is in front 11 games to 4.
The challenge is decided.
The 5 remaining games still in progress will NOT change the outcome of the challenge.
The winning clan gets 20 points.
The losing clan gets:
- 0 points und ...[text shortened]... rent clans playing different numbers of challenges of different sizes.
A little clearer now ?
because the losing teams in say football league at least get goal difference
Originally posted by @radioactive69I give up. We can't reason with these clowns.
Which can expressed as a negative e.g 10 goals for, 20 goals against, net -10 goals.
Thanks tadger, you're helping to disprove your own case
I think I'll explain string theory to my dog. 😴
Originally posted by @radioactive69You silly little cabin boy
Which can expressed as a negative e.g 10 goals for, 20 goals against, net -10 goals.
Thanks tadger, you're helping to disprove your own case
They don't lose any of the points they have already won do they ?