I believe the only way we can retain an informal clan challenge system and avoid any future rating "boosting" techniques and potential collusion between a small number of clans is to employ a single clan rating that functions much the same way as a player rating.
The individual clan's members ratings are irrelevant, and play no part in the proposed rating system.
I have been prototyping an Elo system, modified to reflect the number of wins in a challenge. (Otherwise, a 1 vs 1 challenge win would award as many points as a 12 vs 12, for example)
Multiple challenge wins against a lowly placed clan results in very little movement.
A big multi-man challenge against a well rated clan can result in significant rating changes, (positive and negative for wins and losses, respectively) where as 1 vs. 1 challenges will often result in no rating change, or very little.
I would prefer there to be a weighting towards bigger challenges, where the risks to clan rating are more significant. Primarily to avoid the risk-averse clan leader creating multiple single man challenges, even when a bigger team is available.
So 10 "1 vs 1" challenges must not be equivalent to a single 1 "10 vs 10" challenge, with a preference for the latter.
Below I have linked a graph (Woodpushers Clan, in this example). Do not get distracted by their actual rating - this is just a prototype - but you will see that big wins (many games won) result in steep rating climbs, and vice versa.
Clan Rating Graph Example
Note : This graph would be embedded in every clan home page if this system was adopted, much like the player profile page.
So, the variables in the rating calculations are
- Each clans rating at the time of the challenge.
- The size of the challenge (preference for more players)
- The number of games won. (If you lose a large challenge by a single game, the rating damage will be limited)
A rating system such as this could remove the current annual system, and just be an on-going rating. (Much the same as any player rating currently)
This will shake up the existing tables, of course, but any clans who have consistently won challenges against other well rated clans will remain well placed.
Feel free to rip into this below! Have fun (but PLEASE keep on topic).
(edit:I wont be able to post to this thread until tomorrow AM GMT, sorry!)
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, I understand this is an issue. Any inactive clan would be dropped from the tables, and any attempts to retain top position by staying active with insignificant challenges could be easily be policed.
One issue I see with an ELO-type system is that a clan might get a high rating and then simply sit on it ... stop playing challenges.
Perhaps there should be decay built in if a clan goes inactive?!
Originally posted by padgerI agree with you I have no idea what an Elo system is
Sorry Russ
This makes as much sense as looking at mud
I have no idea who is playing against who ,how many members are involved,what the strengths of each challenge is
Interesting thing Russ said was there was collusion between a small number of players simple solution remove cheating points and threaten to ban them if it happens again
Problem solved
A clan being treated as a single player is daft in my opiniongiving a clan a rating will not stop collusion I can see many loopholes
Every solution to any problem has loopholes. It sounds like a much better system than the present one, and the details can be ironed out in advance if the actual loopholes are pointed out now. If we approach this as a team design development (rather than a gang war with finger-pointing and snide remarks) it's much more likely to be a good product that works the way we want. So, please, don't just whine, set out the details of the loophole so that others can find the workarounds.
Originally posted by MctaytoPerhaps the margin of victory should also factor in to the amount of points gained. At least then there would be a penalty for throwing those games.
I don't see how this will prevent the continuation of the Metallica method ie when sufficient games are won then lose/resign the rest thus lowering member ratings to assist in next match up.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI had suggested a proposal along that line that would have addressed that. I would have to dig into the original thread and find it.
Perhaps the margin of victory should also factor in to the amount of points gained. At least then there would be a penalty for throwing those games.
Originally posted by RussA system that needs policing cannot be the answer
Yes, I understand this is an issue. Any inactive clan would be dropped from the tables, and any attempts to retain top position by staying active with insignificant challenges could be easily be policed.
Any system worth it's weight should be self policing
Originally posted by MctaytoI don't know if Russ edited his post after you typed this but he does say that the more games won in the challenge will lead to greater clan rating gains so that issue has been addressed. What hasn't been addressed is the issue for which you have been vilified - falsely lowering your rating by throwing games elsewhere on the site. If Russ could sort this by introducing rating floors or something then that would further strengthen the integrity of the individual match ups that underpin the informal clan challenge system.
I don't see how this will prevent the continuation of the Metallica method ie when sufficient games are won then lose/resign the rest thus lowering member ratings to assist in next match up.
@Russ will we be allowed a preview of the clan rating formula you are applying?
Originally posted by RagwortI will be providing the rating in parallel to the existing system, and most likely make it visible to clan leaders for review/acceptance.
I don't know if Russ edited his post after you typed this but he does say that the more games won in the challenge will lead to greater clan rating gains so that issue has been addressed. What hasn't been addressed is the issue for which you have been vilified - falsely lowering your rating by throwing games elsewhere on the site. If Russ could sort this by ...[text shortened]... enge system.
@Russ will we be allowed a preview of the clan rating formula you are applying?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThis is considered. For the challenge winner - the rating adjustment uses the number of winning games. The losing clan, the number of losing games.
Perhaps the margin of victory should also factor in to the amount of points gained. At least then there would be a penalty for throwing those games.
Originally posted by roma45This is what we use right now for the player ratings.
I agree with you I have no idea what an Elo system is
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.