Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, you're right in theory. However, two thoughts:
That idea does nothing to stop clans who load up 20 players with games, then bring in new members [who have never played for that clan] to 'replace' them.
In other words, rotation can still occur without the 'old' clan members rejoining.
a)no clan has yet had 20 people in then all 20 leaving again; but that's an extreme case I grant you.
b and more importantly) Either scheme is going to hurt someone. With my scheme, there would be a risk of some clan points being added inappropriately. With your scheme, people would suffer a massive drop in personal ratings if, say, they left because of an illness and then returned. Hardly fair.
Giving it some further thought, and this one's probably tricky to code: If a player leaves a clan, they can keep playing the games they have in progress and they have no change in personal rating until they win/loose. However, these games no longer count for anything in the clan scoring.
That way people'd keep their ratings, and would stop clan leaders' booting people to keep the number of games up as the games of a booted person wouldn't mean anything to the clan.
A good compromise?
1 edit
Originally posted by the one00Yes, a good compromise. In response to earlier [valid] concerns about forced resignations, I have already modified my proposal [and mentioned this twice on page 1 of this thread] to something similar to this. The new proposal is:
Giving it some further thought, and this one's probably tricky to code: If a player leaves a clan, they can keep playing the games they have in progress and they have no change in personal rating until they win/loose. However, these games no longer count for anything in the clan scoring.
********
If a player leaves a clan, the clan takes a zero for all of their games in progress, but the player may still finish those games as normal rated games.
********
If, by "no longer count for anything in the clan scoring", you mean that the clan takes zeros for all those games, then we are in complete agreement.
Originally posted by the one00Don't think that's good either, creates another loophole:
However, these games no longer count for anything in the clan scoring.A good compromise?
For example:
Clan A - Clan B
5 player challenge
Current score: 4-3 (4 wins A, 3 wins B, 1 draw)
2 games in progress, both will be won by Clan B
However, player from Clan A leaves clan temporarily until these games are finished..
Result: Clan A wins eventhough they would have lost the challenge when these games would still count..
Probably far fetched, but still..
Simple solution:
When somebody leaves a clan, he/she can not rejoin for 1 year..
Originally posted by SwissGambitGood good
Yes, a good compromise. In response to earlier [valid] concerns about forced resignations, I have already modified my proposal [and mentioned this twice on page 1 of this thread] to something similar to this. The new proposal is:[quote][b]********
If a player leaves a clan, the clan takes a zero for all of their games in progress, but the player may sti ...[text shortened]... g", you mean that the clan takes zeros for all those games, then we are in complete agreement.
Sorry; I didn't read through the 1st page fully.
😀
Originally posted by AmsterdamnI think SG's already outlined the problem with this idea:
[b]Simple solution:
When somebody leaves a clan, he/she can not rejoin for 1 year..[/b]
"That idea does nothing to stop clans who load up 20 players with games, then bring in new members [who have never played for that clan] to 'replace' them"
Yes, the new compromise does introduce another loophole, but we're never going to be able to close them all. It's a case of which is the least bad solution.
Originally posted by the one00Sorry to disagree..
I think SG's already outlined the problem with this idea:
"That idea does nothing to stop clans who load up 20 players with games, then bring in new members [who have never played for that clan] to 'replace' them"
Yes, the new compromise does introduce another loophole, but we're never going to be able to close them all. It's a case of which is the least bad solution.
When somebody leaves a clan and gets replace by somebody who has never played there before, then it's not rotation.. it's simply replacing a member who left.. when the people that left do not rejoin, it's not such a huge advantage in the long run (the pool of players eventually runs out)..
Therefore still think it's better to just not let people rejoin a clan they left within a year..
Originally posted by AmsterdamnWhat an absurd "solution". Most clans don't have anywhere near 20 members so you would be massively restricting player freedom for no good purpose. People quit clans and rejoin them all the time for many reasons - illness, work commitments, personal reasons, etc. etc. etc. The "problem" isn't important enough to screw with player freedom here; a more logical solution would be to reform the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM so that it didn't reward the playing of massive amounts of challenges by rewarding clans for winning and not penalizing them for losing.
Sorry to disagree..
When somebody leaves a clan and gets replace by somebody who has never played there before, then it's not rotation.. it's simply replacing a member who left.. when the people that left do not rejoin, it's not such a huge advantage in the long run (the pool of players eventually runs out)..
Therefore still think it's better to just not let people rejoin a clan they left within a year..
Originally posted by no1marauderCome on No1..
What an absurd "solution". Most clans don't have anywhere near 20 members so you would be massively restricting player freedom for no good purpose. People quit clans and rejoin them all the time for many reasons - illness, work commitments, personal reasons, etc. etc. etc. The "problem" isn't important enough to screw with player freedom here; a more log ...[text shortened]... amounts of challenges by rewarding clans for winning and not penalizing them for losing.
The Clan Scoring System can easily be "fixed" by making the All Time Net Points the primary indicator..
That way you will have a rating where clans are also penalized for losing massive amounts of challenges..
Although I read in another thread that you don't see that as a solution either..
Have to agree with you on the topic that is discussed in this thread, my "solution" to prevent people from rejoining within a year would also affect the players with good intentions..
Ok - here is the solution - are you ready ... its a good one ...
Count the number of players playing clan games for a clan.
If the number of active members exceeds 20 then ONLY players belonging to the clan and have existing active games for that clan can initiate new clan games.
Then the number of "active" clan players will never exceed 20.
Regardless of rotating, dropping, whatever.
Of course widget and no1marauder will have to find another topic to have a tiff about but, its a sacrifice I am willing to make.
Originally posted by AmsterdamnIn this situation, Clan B should get the full point from those last two games. This is what I had in mind. I'll change the wording from "the clan takes a zero" to "the clan takes a forfeit loss" to make it a bit more clear that a player cannot cheat a rival clan out of won games by leaving his own clan.
Don't think that's good either, creates another loophole:
For example:
Clan A - Clan B
5 player challenge
Current score: 4-3 (4 wins A, 3 wins B, 1 draw)
2 games in progress, both will be won by Clan B
However, player from Clan A leaves clan temporarily until these games are finished..
Result: Clan A wins eventhough they would have lost the chall ...[text shortened]... ..
[b]Simple solution:
When somebody leaves a clan, he/she can not rejoin for 1 year..[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderThe proposal has been modified long ago to address the issue of player freedom. The fact that you will not read the updated version of the proposal is your problem.
What an absurd "solution". Most clans don't have anywhere near 20 members so you would be massively restricting player freedom for no good purpose. People quit clans and rejoin them all the time for many reasons - illness, work commitments, personal reasons, etc. etc. etc. The "problem" isn't important enough to screw with player freedom here; a more log ...[text shortened]... amounts of challenges by rewarding clans for winning and not penalizing them for losing.
Originally posted by RDMThe main flaw in this proposal is that a disgruntled clan member could leave a clan, then drag out their clan games to prevent that clan from filling their spot for a while.
Ok - here is the solution - are you ready ... its a good one ...
Count the number of players playing clan games for a clan.
If the number of active members exceeds 20 then ONLY players belonging to the clan and have existing active games for that clan can initiate new clan games.
Then the number of "active" clan players will never exceed 20.
Regardles ...[text shortened]... ill have to find another topic to have a tiff about but, its a sacrifice I am willing to make.
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitWell, RHP/Russ ought to decide what it/he really wants.
What is the problem with Clan's who can draw in mercenaries?
P-
Do we want a clan system where the top team is the one who recruits the most players to play for them?
Or do we want to actually enforce the 20-member limit?
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe clan score system stunk from day one, everything else is just glaze on the bundt cake. If this is a problem, I like the idea of Active players needing to finish active games before new members can start... but that raises another problem when someone has to leave a clan for a good reason.
Well, RHP/Russ ought to decide what it/he really wants.
Do we want a clan system where the top team is the one who recruits the most players to play for them?
Or do we want to actually enforce the 20-member limit?
Just like trying to 'fix' the vacation system... you're taking good things away from players who are not trying to 'abuse' the system.
P-