Proposed New Clan Challenge System

The enthusiasm to play in the Clan Challenge system seems to have died a death lately, with the introduction of the Clan Leagues. I think the clan challenge needs a good shake up, as it is probably the best way to consistently get games against equivalently rated players.

It got mentioned here (http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=18583&page=4) that the clan challenges system needs to be modified and I posted the following...

Tables sorted by averages was brought up before. Why was that shot down again? It would be good to have a few divisions split up by number of games played. 'A Division' (not top/1 division) for clans over 1000 (arbitrary) games, 'B Division' for clans between 501-999, and 'C division' for teams with less than 500 games. Have as many divisions as necessary, and pick the game numbers so that the A division has 10 teams in it, the B division has the same number of teams, etc. Then within each division, order the teams by win percentages.

These divisions wouldn't be fixed. As a team in the B division overtakes a team in the A division in terms of challenges completed, then their places are swapped and both clans reordered in their new respective leagues.

This way, win percentages come into it, and its not just the clan which plays the most games that gets to the top. Of course, to be the top of the A division, then you'd have to play lots of challenges AND have a good winning percentage. Now that would be a worthy Clan Challenge system.

Comments, ideas, Suggestions?

D

I myself am more for a ladder idea. Points hold little value if they don't reser at given times.

Originally posted by Nyxie
I myself am more for a ladder idea. Points hold little value if they don't reser at given times.

I didn't mention points. My idea was win percentages.

D

Regardless of the type of new clan system is created, I believe the thing missing in the current system is penalizing the losing clan. If its point based, subtract point, winning % would handle themselves, position related like a ladder switch places with winner or drop a level. Something!

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I didn't mention points. My idea was win percentages.

D

Well you didn't have to mention points, because we already have them.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
The enthusiasm to play in the Clan Challenge system seems to have died a death lately, with the introduction of the Clan Leagues. I think the clan challenge needs a good shake up, as it is probably the best way to consistently get games against equivalently rated players.

It got mentioned here (http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=1 ...[text shortened]... entage. Now that would be a worthy Clan Challenge system.

Comments, ideas, Suggestions?

D

This was discussed at length before the leagues started - I think the general feeling was that the old system would become less important once the leagues started and that the leagues themselves would be the true measure of a clan's performance.

i think there could be clan sieges.

you win in the 10 player siege with 1 day and 28 day timebank ... and you have your top 10 available players defend it automatically to the next challenge in the queue.

it is just a question of how much programming is required by russ ... it may be a trivail addition to the siege and clan programming ... or it may be too much new programming for too little reward.

Rather than Sieges I think an all in Knockout Tournament would be good. If all in is too much for the system to cope with (see 2005 Grand Tournament) then some sort of banded Knockout would be good.

Thats the best suggestion thus far.
I play all the clan games Im given, and try my best, but dont really understand what were playing for. In the individual tournys and clan leagues its clear to see the progress ( or in my case lack of) of the competition, whereas the points table for the clans doesnt seem to mean much as theres no obvios target/conclusion.
Nuff rambling! K.O or "cup" is a great idea!
Lee

Originally posted by Exy
This was discussed at length before the leagues started - I think the general feeling was that the old system would become less important once the leagues started and that the leagues themselves would be the true measure of a clan's performance.

Yeah, Clan leagues are great, but...
Can u imagine being in a clan of mostly low rated players? You would get absolutely stuffed in the clan leagues, as there is no team ratings cap. Over and over and over, you would probably be pitted against guys upto 800 points higher than u. I don't really see the fun in that.

The Clan challenges was great in a sense that it got everybody games against people at or very close to their own ratings. It was also a bit of a waste of time because of the ridiculous scoring system. I think its a shame to let the clan challenge system die out completely, as it seems to be doing (interest is at an all time low), when all it might need is a bit of a tweaking to reignite interest.

Clan Leagues are probably the best indication of which is the 'best' clan, ie: who's got the most high rated players. This has led to people like Slow Pawn excluding people under 1600 from joining Metallica.

A modified Clan challenges system (like the one I mentioned above, or something similar) would give everybody a chance, and would probably be a better indication of who is really the best clan, ie: clans in which the clan leader negotiates fair challenges for players of all ratings, with all players having a good fair game.

Nyxie, I don't know what the ladder idea is, do you have a link to a thread explaining it, or do u fancy explaining it? 😉

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Yeah, Clan leagues are great, but...
Can u imagine being in a clan of mostly low rated players? You would get absolutely stuffed in the clan leagues, as there is no team ratings cap. Over and over and over, you would probably be pitted against guys upto 800 points higher than u. I don't really see the fun in that.

The Clan challenges was great in ...[text shortened]... dder idea is, do you have a link to a thread explaining it, or do u fancy explaining it? 😉

D

OK in the simplest terms. You beat a clan you move up a notch/rung. You lose you move down a notch/rung. I think the way yahoo does thier card games is very similiar to this. This would make it possible for any clan regardless of member rating or size to fight on an even playing feild. Since you're demoted a rung if you lose it works better then points. This is just my oppinion, but it would create a better paying field, and people would be more inclined to fight for thier place.

My clan started later then most here, I announced passing 100 points as metallica passed a 1000. Also The size of most page one clans means that I will never be able to play enough clan games to cacth them.

I don't share the view that interest in the old system is at an all time low. You only have to look at the bottom half of page 1 and top half of page 2 to see how close these clans are to each other. It only takes one to slow down and they will fall back to page 2 like the "Bad Bishops" and "BVA" [formerly "The Apostles"].

Metallica were formed in April 2004, but they arrived on Page 1 (what critics of the current system are claiming is impossible to do) well under 6 months.

This is also true of other clans on the Page 1.

So...

Whilst I agree that the scoring system is flawed - the facts point out that it's very possible to form a clan tomorrow and get it to Page 1 under the current system within 6 months.

This has been discussed many times before and the consensus was to wait and see what the Clan Leagues did to improve things. I think the idea is that the Leagues reward consistantly winning clans whilst the old system rewards fast playing clans.

If I could wave a magic wand and change one thing I would deduct the points won by the winning clan from the losing clan's total. This would create much more movement.

One thing I do like about thre current clan system is a challenge can start at any time. No waiting for the rest of the games to complete. I think this has the advantage of getting new clan members into games fast rather than wait for the next league season.

Im sure something like this has been said but....

Each clan has a rating. This is not based on the ratings of the players in the clan but is calculated by the results of that clan against other clans. In other words the clans are treated like an individual player. This way the clan tables don't need a start and an end date like the leagues, as when a clan becomes the top rated clan, it is gaining less point by winning a challenge while other clans gain more point by challenging higher rated clans. No one clan can take a massive lead unless it genuinly is the best clan.

Perhaps a rule that challenges should have at least two players involved from each clan would be useful. Also, clan league games count, that way the tables don't stagnate.

Originally posted by Exy
This was discussed at length before the leagues started - I think the general feeling was that the old system would become less important once the leagues started and that the leagues themselves would be the true measure of a clan's performance.

I don't think the clan league is a measure of anything, you want a
measure create banded clan tournaments. Set an average for 7
players and then the clans can figure out how they want to meet the
average. They can make it top heavy, but cause the lower boards to
be weaker, they can make the lower boards strong and weaken the
upper boards. The chess play would be the match, but the clans that
are filled with only high rated players would not be able to play in the
lower average matchs. Teams would have to think about more than
openings and end games for banded tournaments. A 20 game
tournament would be outstanding too, they would have to be without
an average limit, because it would take a completely filled team to
play in it.
Kelly