@booger saidWe used to have "sieges" on here which is essentially the same thing
Another site uses the Ladder style of competition.
They have 150+ teams competing and any team not active for 30 days is removed. The teams have a lot of members and hundreds of players are participating.
It's rather boring though.
Once you reach the top you just wait to be knocked back down.
It was abandoned through lack of use
@booger saidWins/games.Although as you say,the bigger clans will play more games.
@venda
I never said "most successful"
I said most points.
Even then, a 20 man clan would obviously have the advantage over smaller clans because they can play more games throughout the year.
Definitely unfair to small teams...
I don't know the answer to that one 😉
@booger saidIn 2016, several people proposed more or less the same modification to the clan system, and were shouted down.
@Sands-Al
That too, well said.
A 6 to 4 win should only be 2 points if you went with that system. In my opinion.
The number of extra wins being the points won.
That way...if you have a guy resigning or "losing" because he sees the match has been won would actually be taking points away from his own team.
Edit...That system with a seperate clan rating is much better than the system used now.
@ed-freyfogle said@ed-freyfogle,
@Very-Rusty
Disappear bedeutet verschwinden für immer
Viele würden das gerne sehen. Also nimm eine Nummer und bete. 🙂
-VR
@booger saidYour problem is you don't understand math
@mghrn55
You have players that have 300 more wins than losses? On guy has 500 more wins than losses...
That math is impossible Their rating should have gone up drastically. Oh wait...they lost regular games which keeps their rating down 🙄
How convenient...
@sands-al saidAl, the purpose for the large point totals as rewards or penalties was originated to encourage large challenges. It is highly unlikely that in a 20v20 challenge you would have 28 draws and 12 defining games as Booger likes to insinuate. Do you believe that a team that wins a 20 man challenge 10.9 - 9.5 should only be awarded 1 point for such a huge investment in time and energy to play the match? Likewise, if a challenge is won 19-1, you are saying the winning team in only entitled to a 1 point win (as in a won challenge is +1 and a lost challenge is -1 )? Neither of those options are going to encourage large challenges. Based on this thought process, does a 10-10 challenge get zero points for each side?? Hardly seems fair because of the effort involved, does it?
i think the winning clan should get points only for the games they won, the losing team none, in a 10 match challenge it does seem odd that if it finishes 6-4 you get 10 points as you only won 6 games so 6 points, none for the losing team, awarding points for all matches will just help the larger teams more as they can lose a large challenge and still rake in lots of points
You have seen many different approaches utilized to challenges. Taking on the challenges with maximum risk of lost points, should generate the most points for the winning team. Risk vs reward.
The true facts of the matter is all clans are not willing to put forth the effort necessary to get to the top. Since I began as a clan leader in 2008, there have been three different sets of rules changes in an attempt to thwart how clan chess was to be played. Each set of changes required a different mind set to play them, but in the end, most clans didn't want to play hard enough to get to the top.
I have listened for so long about people getting bent about resigning games once a challenge was already decided, I am deaf to it. The games are of no relevance, the challenge outcome will not change, everyone knows the rating system is a crock so it isn't bothering that (although that is the crutch they still rely on crying about). When professional sports teams play a best of 5 or best of 7 series in the playoffs, once one team has achieved the minimum number of wins necessary to win the challenge, they don't play any more games. Why? Because those games would be meaningless. No different here. Think about it.
If you really want to clean this mess up, limit all players to one clan only. Then you eliminate a bunch of the manipulation that is going on right now. The concept is this is a team endeavor, not an individual endeavor. Any time two clans match up where a player is a member of both clans, he/she is ineligible to participate in that challenge. Another problem is the physical make up of clans is not close to equal with some teams stacked with strong players and others will many lower rated players. I can go on for a long time on this, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Too many whining about the unfair advantage this team or that team has, while not realizing that the shortcoming is on them, the whiners. The goal of clan chess is to win more points than all of the other clans. Simple. To do so, you need to play a lot of games and win a lot of those games. Period. The team that wants it the most, in most cases ends up victorious.
I will add my take to how the scoring system works.......
Before I joined the clan system, I have heard that the Gross points system was used to determine the winner.
This just turned the clan feature into a contest to see which clan can create the most challenges.
Which is why there is a subtraction of points for losing challenges, the Net Points system.
So, by way of example, if a clan that wins 300 challenges and loses 400 challenges, should they score ahead of a clan that wins 200 challenges and loses only 50 challenges ?
That doesn't seem right, does it.
Conversely, if you compare the 200W 50L clan and compare is with a clan that wins 10 challenges and loses 0 challenges, the 200W should normally win.
The net point system, while not perfect, gives a reasonably good reflection which clan should win the title based on the point system rewarded.
Like I have said before, to win you have to play a lot and win more than you lose.
As to giving clans points when they lose a challenge doesn't make sense to me.
And it more seems to resemble the Gross point system.
Gross points would work if every clan played the same number of challenges, and every clan faced every other clan at least once, i.e. - a clan league.
Since clans seem to come and go as they please or when the leader is interested in playing, the system we have now seems to work OK.
Of course improvements are possible, but scrapping the system isn't the answer.
We saw what happened with Russ's pilot in 2016-2017.
and btw ...... trying to change a feature because you are disenchanted with one clan doesn't won't work.
Russ's attempt at that taught us a good lesson on that.
If someone comes into this forum (with a fake usercode at that) and starts by saying that Metallica is cheating, let's change the system, I think Russ has learned from that.
Some real progress was made when IVV (with maxtheminnow) in 2021 and Breaking Bad (with vespin) in 2022 provided an option.
Just put up and play !! Quite simple, really.
"Gross points would work if every clan played the same number of challenges, and every clan faced every other clan at least once, i.e. - a clan league."
Exactly.It would also work for net points,but that is not going to happen.
We have had clan leagues for a number of years but they are very sparsely supported.Because all clans have players with different skill levels they were a bit like a premiership team playing against a team of schoolkids.The results were usually a foregone conclusion I'm not even sure the leagues still exist.
My take on all this is that net points/gross points or whatever mean nothing because they cannot they cannot be realistically compared to other clans, due to the reasons mentioned.I don't really care who appears first on the net points list or if they have arrived there by underhand methods.I play clan games to win ,as I do in every game and it's nice to see my clan winning challenges but other than that I don't really care.
This forum was originally created for clan members to engage in polite banter regarding the challenges.Let's try and keep it that way.
Metallica's profile sums it up perfectly-"just playing the game".Just get on with it and forget about the lists.
@ptobler saidja, das ist ein Schreibfehler von 'disappear' - verschwinden.
Kann mir jemand erklaeren was 'disapper' bedeutet?
Ed war da schneller als ich.
For al who thumb down because of the German: I would rather have a person ask in their mother tongue than not beng able to understand.