- Joined
- 14 Apr 07
- Moves
- 415130
Originally posted by RagwortVery good points. Limiting match ratings to 100 or 200 only makes it difficult to get games WITHOUT improper matches. I have a strong 1800 player with a high of 1900+. He plays tournaments and after a dozen timeouts from medical things, he is 1650. If I match him to 1800 as he should be, my average challenge rating takes a dive; or the other clans goes up to far for that tool to work in analysis.
A couple of observations on the debate so far:
With regard to ratings:
The RHP rating reflects the performance across the whole site so creating a clan rating strikes me as over burdensome. It would have one immediately bigger problem which is that any new clan rating will be provisional for a period and would lead confusion until the rating was establ ...[text shortened]... ames to its membership from similar strength opponents should be hamstrung by the system either.
My own rating is not sandbagged. It is "playing too many games to keep up with", therefore my rating suffers. You should use my 5 year average to judge my abilities.
Buyer beware has my vote.
- Joined
- 14 Apr 07
- Moves
- 415130
Originally posted by dsmithDon't even use points. How about like a ladder game? Clan has to challenge the very next one up, winners of the challenge, gets to move up; loser moves down...one place. Two challenges in place at one time that way NO NEED TO COUNT POINTS while a competitive system still in place.
Very good points. Limiting match ratings to 100 or 200 only makes it difficult to get games WITHOUT improper matches. I have a strong 1800 player with a high of 1900+. He plays tournaments and after a dozen timeouts from medical things, he is 1650.
Draw would mean a do over but just once (challenge). If the lower clan looses again, they drop below their lower neighbor. That way two clans can't plug up the upward motion. The top clan can only sit there until the second place clan knocks them down.
This would mean Easy and Metallica always playing each other, not bottom dwellers.
So there are enough games; make the only clan challenge every player plays 2 games with every other player; wins vs. wins, highest number wins challenge.
Since rating vary, like the ladders, maybe a 10 position window.
- Joined
- 17 Jun 08
- Moves
- 179883
Hi Folks,
I've mulled over the suggestion for days, and I have to say I agree with almost every one, and I think there's be an improvement in clan play if they're adopted
My original idea was naive, and didn't really address the real issues
For the ones where two opposing points of view were presented:
Maximum rating differential... I like the 200 point variance we've got
- I have two 2000+ players, it'd be hard to find challenges for them without it
One player, one clan (no challenges if the other leader is a member of yours)
- I can go either way on this one, I like the first better, but I'm flexible
Points for winning are allocated as is currently done (or, winner takes it all)
- A draw is a good outcome, it says the challenge was not just fair but equal
The recent posts from dsmith
- to focus the limit on a player's 5 year rather than current rating has merit
- treating the clan challenges as a ladder system
on the second point, i haven't had any experience but i'd like to see some input
Thanks
~leo
Originally posted by GiannottiI still think it should be 100 on a five year average but would settle for 200
Hi Folks,
I've mulled over the suggestion for days, and I have to say I agree with almost every one, and I think there's be an improvement in clan play if they're adopted
My original idea was naive, and didn't really address the real issues
For the ones where two opposing points of view were presented:
Maximum rating differential... I like th ...[text shortened]... the second point, i haven't had any experience but i'd like to see some input
Thanks
~leo
The points for winning need sorting out
Where a clan at the moment can win 10 - 8 and get 20 points and the losing team gets -20 is not fair and never will be
It should be 10 +(a winners points ( perhaps 5 ))
Losers 8
Clan position on a ladder situation would not work
I go back to my original idea of clans can only get winning points playing clans on the same page
This would not only sort out collusion but also get a real idea who is the top team
Originally posted by padgerI like the idea of clans only getting points for playing clans on the same page at the beginning of the year and then adjust every 3 months. That would stop the collusion between the sleazy riders and their three sisters dead in its tracks.
I still think it should be 100 on a five year average but would settle for 200
The points for winning need sorting out
Where a clan at the moment can win 10 - 8 and get 20 points and the losing team gets -20 is not fair and never will be
It should be 10 +(a winners points ( perhaps 5 ))
Losers 8
Clan position on a ladder situation would not work
I go b ...[text shortened]... same page
This would not only sort out collusion but also get a real idea who is the top team
- Joined
- 17 Jun 08
- Moves
- 179883
This thread is starting to lose traction.
I'd like to believe that we can achieve a list of suggestions for the site administrators before the end of the year, so that 2017, won't turn out like 2016.
If you're with me on this, please express your thoughts on what we've got so far.
Thanks,
~leo
Originally posted by GiannottiAs long as your list has methods to prevent Metallica sandbagging and throwing games in won challenges then count me in 😉
This thread is starting to lose traction.
I'd like to believe that we can achieve a list of suggestions for the site administrators before the end of the year, so that 2017, won't turn out like 2016.
If you're with me on this, please express your thoughts on what we've got so far.
Thanks,
~leo
Originally posted by GiannottiWhile the suggestions are well intentioned, they do not address challenges being thrown.
This thread is starting to lose traction.
I'd like to believe that we can achieve a list of suggestions for the site administrators before the end of the year, so that 2017, won't turn out like 2016.
If you're with me on this, please express your thoughts on what we've got so far.
Thanks,
~leo
The focus has been on the perceived notion of sandbagging by certain individuals.
There has been no suggestions on how to deal with some clans throwing challenge points at other clans.
I offered something that has not been adopted to your list.
That being that any challenge that has games not lasting 3 moves be declared null and void !!
Imperfect because perpetrators can work around it.
But this should be a baseline for discussion.
The suggestions that have been put out so far will only choke the clan system.
It has already become more difficult to set challenges because of administrative burdens put on them with the last set of "improvements".
Sandbagging has become the poster child of grievance mongering by the malcontents on this site.