Vote for adjustments to the clan scoring system

Originally posted by my2sons
It is a good idea. What is the next step?

Prepare yourself for disappointment.

Is there anywhere that admin has actually even paid any mind or consideration to this "vote"?
We seem to be all over the place on what it is we even want that there is not a direction for them to even go with this.

As a clan leader, i check every challenge for fairness and eliminate sandbagging in that manner, but I would like to see a change to the overall ranking system to where a clan can have some sort of a chance at the top without the oldest clans holding onto points that were won long ago by members who have long since left.

Originally posted by MrVarnell
Is there anywhere that admin has actually even paid any mind or consideration to this "vote"?
We seem to be all over the place on what it is we even want that there is not a direction for them to even go with this.

As a clan leader, i check every challenge for fairness and eliminate sandbagging in that manner, but I would like to see a change to the ov ...[text shortened]... e oldest clans holding onto points that were won long ago by members who have long since left.

To answer your first question, no, there's been no indication anybody in charge is reading the Site Ideas forum.

If you've read the OP, I was asking for a vote on adramforall's model on changing the clan scoring system. If implemented, this would essentially start the clock over each year with a race between all clans to score clan points based on fairly matched challenges. However, that idea has not received much in the way of support.

Out of the ashes of that request for a vote, came the idea of the sandbagging flag, which does seem to have some support, at least from some of the posters to this thread who have suggested a vote on that instead.

Darvlay drops by every once in a while to rearrange the deck chairs and provide encouragement. 😉

Originally posted by sbacat
To answer your first question, no, there's been no indication anybody in charge is reading the Site Ideas forum.

If you've read the OP, I was asking for a vote on adramforall's model on changing the clan scoring system. If implemented, this would essentially start the clock over each year with a race between all clans to score clan points based on fairly m ...[text shortened]... lay drops by every once in a while to rearrange the deck chairs and provide encouragement. 😉

this would essentially start the clock over each year with a race between all clans to score clan points based on fairly matched challenges.

To I this already happens every year with the yearly net points race. Which seems to me that most clans go by in the clan forum. And which seems to be most accurate as far as clan performance to I and others.
Some don't like the idea of needing to have some quantity of clan matches in this race. I do. Is the suggestion to have clans in order as to their year to date net points performance? You can get this by clicking on YTD net points and then it lists the clans in order of their YTD net points performance.
I think the flag suggestion can only make this race more fair.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
[b]this would essentially start the clock over each year with a race between all clans to score clan points based on fairly matched challenges.

To I this already happens every year with the yearly net points race. Which seems to me that most clans go by in the clan forum. And which seems to be most accurate as far as clan performance to I and YTD net points performance.
I think the flag suggestion can only make this race more fair.[/b]

That's essentially correct. The sandbag flag is a guide, but it's voluntary. Once it's implemented, you can easily see when you're being offered a sandbagger in a challenge but you can still take the challenge. And if the sandbaggers win, the sandbagging clan earns full points as if it had been a fair contest even though it wasn't.

What's different about adramforall's model is that clan points earned from a lopsided challenge are greatly diminished and points are even lost due to an upset.

Right now the way the rules operate, the clan that wins the most challenges scores the highest points, regardless of the relative 'quality' or fairness of those challenges. Adramforall's model takes a great deal of the benefit out of the all-you-can-eat-lopsiders mentality that has come into play.

Net points function exactly as you say to indicate relative strength comparatively over a year period, but the proposed changes to scoring seek to level the playing field by encouraging clans to match like strength players against each other. There's currently no automated mechanism to enforce that part of it.

The flag is a step in the right direction...

Originally posted by sbacat
That's essentially correct. The sandbag flag is a guide, but it's voluntary. Once it's implemented, you can easily see when you're being offered a sandbagger in a challenge but you can still take the challenge. And if the sandbaggers win, the sandbagging clan earns full points as if it had been a fair contest even though it wasn't.

What's different about a ...[text shortened]... sm to enforce that part of it.

The flag is a [b]step in the right direction...[/b]

A "sandbag flag" carries with it the implicit accusation that somebody is cheating. Mods have stated forcefully that such accusations will no longer be tolerated on this site. A "sandbag flag" is inconsistent with this statement and therefore should not be considered an option.

Originally posted by drdon
A "sandbag flag" carries with it the implicit accusation that somebody is cheating. Mods have stated forcefully that such accusations will no longer be tolerated on this site. A "sandbag flag" is inconsistent with this statement and therefore should not be considered an option.

Lets call it a "rating way below ability" flag.

Just because someones rating is way down does not necessarily mean they are sandbagging.

Originally posted by drdon
A "sandbag flag" carries with it the implicit accusation that somebody is cheating. Mods have stated forcefully that such accusations will no longer be tolerated on this site. A "sandbag flag" is inconsistent with this statement and therefore should not be considered an option.

I disagree. I've had many clan challenges were a lopsided match up in the challenge was needed to even up the score and make the clan challenge fair. For either side. Plus sandbagging is not cheating. It's not against the rules. It's unethical as we all know. But it's not cheating. And as adramforall just stated just because someone's rating is way lower than their highest rating does not mean their trying to be unethical.

I agree with you that a "Red Flag" might come across as a little harsh, and a sign that someone is trying to pull one over on you. But maybe a little yellow flag or a yellow dot next to the names of players that are way under their normal high rating in the preview clan match. Just to let clan leaders say hey maybe I need to look into this a little further. For I know it would help me, and also it would help stop the sandbagging practice.

The Leagues system is a far greater system than the clan challenge system...except the leagues could use the clan challenge results page.

the leagues is a fair system, everyone plays everyone in that league, so what is the use of sand bagging? you want your strongest team at the top level, should be able for each clan to field up to 3 league teams...so a sand bagger would only cheat his own team....for your top players should play at the top level.
its a fixed season so whats the use of deliberatly rotating players in this case?

obviously each clan would need sufficient members to participate rather than just inventing new clans...

so the top league would be page 1 of what is the clan challenge ranking,

The incentive is to recruit players for the leagues so field maximum league teams for maximum scoring in the ranking system.

this eliminates the fake challenges teams create simply score easy points.🙂

Originally posted by barstudd

the leagues is a fair system

Since when is it fair to match a 1600 player against a 2200 player?

The leagues are all about playing with a team of higher rated players. The higher their ratings the better.

Look at your top 8 players and then look at the top 8 players from say KPK Clan 25138

Do you honestly believe that the matchups are fair?

I'd stick to some simple modifications:

- use Tournament Entry Rating for matching up players (max 100 points difference)
- keep all current ranking systems, but make Annual Net Points leading

Originally posted by Amsterdamn
I'd stick to some simple modifications:

- use Tournament Entry Rating for matching up players (max 100 points difference)
- keep all current ranking systems, but make Annual Net Points leading

The tournament Entry Rating is unfair for clan matches. And it can be completely manipulated by anyone for clan matches. Especially with (max 100 points difference). My vote would be 100% against this idea of max 100 points. And there needs to be something better than the TER I think.

The Annual Net Points as the lead ranking system Is a good idea to I.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
The tournament Entry Rating is unfair for clan matches. And it can be completely manipulated by anyone for clan matches. Especially with (max 100 points difference). My vote would be 100% against this idea of max 100 points. And there needs to be something better than the TER I think.

The Annual Net Points as the lead ranking system Is a good idea to I.

Why unfair?
If somebody drops from 1800 to 1000, the TER will be 1700 for at least 365 days..
In the current system you can set this player up against any other (true) 1000 rated player..
When applying TER, you can only match him/her with players who have a TER between 1600 and 1800.

There will always be ways to manipulate, but that's why you have clan leaders, to spot that..

Originally posted by Amsterdamn

If somebody drops from 1800 to 1000, the TER will be 1700 for at least 365 days..
In the current system you can set this player up against any other (true) 1000 rated player..
When applying TER, you can only match him/her with players who have a TER between 1600 and 1800.

There will always be ways to manipulate, but that's why you have clan leaders, to spot that..[/b]

Why unfair?
All a clan member or members have to do is keep their rating way below normal for a year. Many have already done that. Thus having to match them within a 100 point difference from their TER is completely unfair.

There will always be ways to manipulate, but that's why you have clan leaders, to spot that..

Then how does this idea help clan leaders to avoid unethical sandbagging clans or clan leaders?? or help this site with sandbagging in general? I see it as only making the problem way worse.

A flag or yellow warning sign next to anyone below 350 points from their highest rating ever can not be manipulated much as far as I can see. If you see something I don't or see how this could be manipulated much, please share.

Originally posted by adramforall
Since when is it fair to match a 1600 player against a 2200 player?

The leagues are all about playing with a team of higher rated players. The higher their ratings the better.

Look at your top 8 players and then look at the top 8 players from say KPK Clan 25138

Do you honestly believe that the matchups are fair?

Agree 100%.