Originally posted by RussI do not think this will work and it will certainly not sort out clans helping one another out
This is what we use right now for the player ratings.
In this case, we substitute "clan" for "player", and factor in the number of games won/lost in a challenge, rather than a simple single game win/loss.
Why should there be any need for policing of any sort
I think you should look at other alternatives
Originally posted by padgerA clan can not repeatedly play another clan to boost rating. A rating can only be lifted by beating another high rated clan.
I do not think this will work and it will certainly not sort out clans helping one another out
If a group of clans decided to engineer a series of wins/loses between themselves, they would end up exactly where they started if done equally.
Originally posted by RussIs the player's rating going to be separate from their tournament rating
A clan can not repeatedly play another clan to boost rating. A rating can only be lifted by beating another high rated clan.
If a group of clans decided to engineer a series of wins/loses between themselves, they would end up exactly where they started if done equally.
That would stop tournaments being ruined as some are doing now to sandbag
Good idea clans can't play each other over and over I would also add players can't play the same players over and over say a maximum of 12 times a year that would close the loophole of certain clans sharing players for collusion as is happening now.
Hi Russ,
Thanks for addressing this.
Big clans would be favoured by your proposed clan-elo system based on win margins in big challenges.
I offer two suggestions to redress this imbalance towards big clans:
1. A two-tier system, one tier for large clans and a second one for small clans. The cut-off is open to discussion, but somewhere around 4 to 6 players might be about right for the peewee league clans, above that for the heavy-weight clan league.
2. Allow small clans to form temporary alliances to challenge one big clan. The result would benefit or debit the two small clans as if they had been one big one, for that challenge. This would allow small clans to challenge big ones on equal terms.
On-going assessment is good. “How many months in the top five” makes more sense than the current “annual first-past-the-post clan.”
Yeah, shake up the tables! Some here have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It is time to break up the hegemony of a few domineering clans.
Originally posted by RussWhat will be the starting point rating for each clan on day 1 ?
A clan can not repeatedly play another clan to boost rating. A rating can only be lifted by beating another high rated clan.
If a group of clans decided to engineer a series of wins/loses between themselves, they would end up exactly where they started if done equally.
I'm not a clan leader anymore but when I was the most difficult part was finding fair challenges for my players.
I've stated many times that I wasn't really interested in the clan net points table which is at the epicentre of all the discussions, but I appreciate that a lot of others are.
My focus was on finding good games for my players,being careful to avoid the obvious sandbaggers
What I would say is what ever system is adopted don't make it too complicated for my successor to find meaningful challenges and as said by someone earlier, it shouldn't need policing.
Originally posted by RussRuss, just to be on the safe side, please prevent a clan playing another clan more than once every 3 months. This should prevent collusion once and for all.
A clan can not repeatedly play another clan to boost rating. A rating can only be lifted by beating another high rated clan.
If a group of clans decided to engineer a series of wins/loses between themselves, they would end up exactly where they started if done equally.
Thanks, my2sons
Originally posted by RussI see very interesting
I am confident I now have a workable system in place. I might be able to squeeze in a preview by Monday, but unfortunately, it is more likely to be the following Monday as I might be off off dev duties for a week.
Will this stop sandbagging ?
Either intentionally as in the case of Mctayto or unintentionally as in Metallica getting rid of unnecessary games
If so then I am all for it
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
I think this new system is an excellent start, but it does not address a few problems.
How are individual match ups made fairly? For example could a team of 1600 vs. a team of 1400 rated players. If the individual ratings tend to favor one side, one clan will have a clear advantage.
There is also the problem of players dumping games in tournaments or open invites, to appear low rated in clan games for easier match ups.
I suggest each player gets a clan rating, a rating that is only affected by clan games.
Also to keep matches close as possible you should allow a 50 point difference between the sum of all ratings for each game played in a challenge. For example in a 10 man challenge the difference between the sum of all rating should be less than 500. The 200 point rule that currently prevents imbalanced match ups should still be in place. Or else you might see a 2200 vs a 1200 and then the other 9 games in the challenge could be stacked.
A better, but more difficult solution is to incorporate the difference in rating sums into the rating formula somehow. This can allow for imbalanced match ups, but there will be less reward for the favorite to win and greater reward for the underdogs.
''A better, but more difficult solution is to incorporate the difference in rating sums into the rating formula somehow. This can allow for imbalanced match ups, but there will be less reward for the favorite to win and greater reward for the underdogs.''
this would work well, base on ratings when challenge issued or ratings when challenge finishes? this is where sanbagged rating via tournamnets could screw it up, each individual should have a clan rating and a tournamnet rating
The only solution to this problem once and for all is to ban the sandbagging cheats. We all know who they are (individuals and clans). Once we have the new setup, it won't be long before Metalica, Carrobie and Mctayto are at it again. Russ, you need to sort them out properly, or honestly, more and more subs will start to leave this otherwise great chess site.