Site Ideas
09 Mar 17
The proposed rating system :
- Rewards the winning clan in the challenge
- Rewards winning the challenge by as many games as possible.
- Rewards larger challenges.
(And, of course, the opposite is true.)
Regarding collusion, if a clan repeatedly plays another, then there is no benefit to the winning clan (high rating) beating the opposing clan (low rating).
Sand bagging - the clan rating is totally distinct from the clan members player's rating. The clan rating is not comparable to a player's rating, only other clans. Any player losing games to fool an opponent into making a mismatched challenge is an entirely different problem. The rating proposed does not solve this.
The suggestion that this is just net games is true in that a winning clan in a challenge is decided by who won the most net games - how could it be anything else? But a multiplier is used to increase the rating for the winner, decrease the rating of the loser, based on the initial rating difference of the clans. So, no, not just the same as net games.
The accusation of "you win by playing fewer games" makes no sense. A clan could feasibly win some challenges, then sit on their high rating. Or, one would hope, they would play some more games, as this is meant to be fun.
The same could be said of any individual's player rating right now, I'm not aware of anyone who refuses to play any chess to protect their rating. Just what is the point?
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by Johannes Goethenew is only wecome if it makes sense, this new system will not stop collusion, there is no point in wasting another year watching cheats ruining the system
This is the attitude of most humans, when something is new there are not happy about.
I think this system should have a chance. The old system did not function anymore.
the old system lasted 15 years until a few used collusion last year, in the past points have been removed and clans suspended, must be done now
simple answer ELO totally will not work,
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by padgerWhy would you expect a clan that has played many challenges, but lost a fair proportion of them (or didn't have such convincing wins) to be placed above another clan that has played fewer, but with better results?
Can anyone explain to me how this is a good thing to even try
Currently the positions would be
1st Played 24 challenges won 16
2nd Played 105 challenges won 66
3rd Played 62 challenges won 30
4th Played 52 challenges won 24
5th Played 80 challenges won 42
As I said the only thing it proves is the less challenges you play the better
This system may wel ...[text shortened]... ork on a group of players all playing different ratings
The sooner this idea is gone the better
If a clan is winning challenges, and winning by a large number of games, then they will have a high rating, regardless of the volume of challenges.
Otherwise we are just back at the "volume" system we have now.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by RussSorry but what is wrong with the volume system
Why would you expect a clan that has played many challenges, but lost a fair proportion of them (or didn't have such convincing wins) to be placed above another clan that has played fewer, but with better results?
If a clan is winning challenges, and winning by a large number of games, then they will have a high rating, regardless of the volume of challenges.
Otherwise we are just back at the "volume" system we have now.
To get the highest net points you have to win more games the new system will only help clans playing a few select or collusion challenges
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by RussThe reason is competition
Why would you expect a clan that has played many challenges, but lost a fair proportion of them (or didn't have such convincing wins) to be placed above another clan that has played fewer, but with better results?
If a clan is winning challenges, and winning by a large number of games, then they will have a high rating, regardless of the volume of challenges.
Otherwise we are just back at the "volume" system we have now.
This proposal kills it
Originally posted by padgerI'm with you Padger. The dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
For this system to work it would need a computer the size of the one in "Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy "
There is no fair way this system can match up all the variables needed to make it work
Lets drop the whole thing now before we go down a hole that there is no recovery from
What's wrong with double points for a challenge winner (e.g. 10 player game winner gets 20 points less 1 point for each game lost ) and the losing clan gets a negative of the difference in games. E.g. if a 10 man clan challenge ends up 11 to 9 then the winning clan gets 20 points minus the 9 losing games therefore 11 points and the losing clan gets a negative of the difference in this case negative 2. The points awarded in this case would be 11 for the winner, negative 2 for the loser. There must be an incentive to win the challenge. This takes care of that but also rewards the losing clan for not losing by much
This measure would make it important to play each and every game out.
Also a committee of esteemed clan leaders can be formed to arbitrate on suspected wrongdoing e.g. collusion among clans.
This would be the fairest system that would encourage all clans to play their best.
Any comments are welcome
- Joined
- 12 Nov 05
- Moves
- 145614
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by radioactive69People's definitions of esteemed clan leaders would differ so might be difficult to set up. The same users would be arguing and would probably scare others off.
I'm with you Padger. The dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
What's wrong with double points for a challenge winner (e.g. 10 player game winner gets 20 points less 1 point for each game lost ) and the losing clan gets a negative of the difference in games. E.g. if a 10 man clan challenge ends up 11 to 9 then the winning clan gets 20 points minus the ...[text shortened]... he fairest system that would encourage all clans to play their best.
Any comments are welcome
I'm not completely sold on the double points idea but like the negative points idea in your example and suggest a modification.
How about if you had a 10 player challenge - each clan gets 10 points to begin with (1 per player involved) and then the winning clan get a bonus of how many points they win by and the losing clan loses that same amount.
Example 1
Clan A v Clan B have a 10 player challenge and Clan A wins 12-8
Clan A gets 14 points (10 points + bonus winning margin of 4)
Clan B gets 6 points (10 points - losing margin of 4)
Example 2
Clan C and Clan D play a challenge with 5 players. Clan C win 5-4
Clan C get 6 points (5 points for 5 players + 1 bonus)
Clan D gets 4 points (5 points for 5 players - 1)
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by SilverstrikerYeah, I was thinking along those lines but the problem with no negative points is is that the clan who plays the most challenges will win overall.
People's definitions of esteemed clan leaders would differ so might be difficult to set up. The same users would be arguing and would probably scare others off.
I'm not completely sold on the double points idea but like the negative points idea in your example and suggest a modification.
How about if you had a 10 player challenge - each clan gets ...[text shortened]... t 6 points (5 points for 5 players + 1 bonus)
Clan D gets 4 points (5 points for 5 players - 1)
By having a negative points factor the clan that wins overall doesn't necessarily need to be the one playing the most challenges.
The double points is reduced in my proposal by the amount of games lost by the winning clan so unless the winning clan wins in a complete sweep they will not receive double points.
There has to be an added incentive to win a clan challenge but the current format of double points to the winner and double negative points to the loser needs to be fixed. In the case where a challenge has been decided there is still incentive to play out the rest of the games to gain extra points.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by radioactive69Surely the idea of the lists in the first place was like an advertisement for the busiest and most productive clan
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines but the problem with no negative points is is that the clan who plays the most challenges will win overall.
By having a negative points factor the clan that wins overall doesn't necessarily need to be the one playing the most challenges.
The double points is reduced in my proposal by the amount of games los ...[text shortened]... as been decided there is still incentive to play out the rest of the games to gain extra points.
People looking for a clan to join would look on the first page and so on to find a busy clan and one that they like the look of
My main complaint of the old system was the negative part of the points awarded
In no other game do you lose points that you had already won
The collusion part of it could be sorted with 90 day no replay or if already playing no play
I think something along the lines you propose would be a solution
I say again there was a promise of other solutions to the problem
Let's have a look at them
All this ,is a programme that looks nice but does absolutely nothing
Originally posted by Russunhinge a players rating from their clan games rating, problem solved panic over, lets play chess.
The proposed rating system :
- Rewards the winning clan in the challenge
- Rewards winning the challenge by as many games as possible.
- Rewards larger challenges.
(And, of course, the opposite is true.)
Regarding collusion, if a clan repeatedly plays another, then there is no benefit to the winning clan (high rating) beating the opposing clan (low r ...[text shortened]... aware of anyone who refuses to play any chess to protect their rating. Just what is the point?
Originally posted by roma45it does address it you are simply too dim to understand.
new is only wecome if it makes sense, this new system will not stop collusion, there is no point in wasting another year watching cheats ruining the system
the old system lasted 15 years until a few used collusion last year, in the past points have been removed and clans suspended, must be done now
simple answer ELO totally will not work,
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSame old robbie back to insults when he does not get his way
it does address it you are simply too dim to understand.
You cheated last year and are cheating again you and the few who follow should be booted problem solved
In any universe will the new system you demanded stop collusion
I can see lots of loopholes and I am dim. A genius at collusion like you will see more
No system will work only points removal and suspension with a warning do it again booted out
Now jog on and hit alert like you always do little coward kiss russes ass tell him well done
You are a cheat a liar and a coward robbie get a life
Originally posted by roma45Gee thats bitter, come on give us a smile and cheer up, its not so bad 😀 Russ has explained why collusion will no longer be of any real benefit. I like the new system because it seems beyond Shirty which means he will have difficulty attempting to exploit it.
Same old robbie back to insults when he does not get his way
You cheated last year and are cheating again you and the few who follow should be booted problem solved
In any universe will the new system you demanded stop collusion
I can see lots of loopholes and I am dim. A genius at collusion like you will see more
No system will work only points ...[text shortened]... ward kiss russes ass tell him well done
You are a cheat a liar and a coward robbie get a life
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis system will benefit no one
Gee thats bitter, come on give us a smile and cheer up, its not so bad 😀 Russ has explained why collusion will no longer be of any real benefit. I like the new system because it seems beyond Shirty which means he will have difficulty attempting to exploit it.
So if it is employed I for one will become a nonsub
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by RussThe proof will be in the pudding.
Why would you expect a clan that has played many challenges, but lost a fair proportion of them (or didn't have such convincing wins) to be placed above another clan that has played fewer, but with better results?
If a clan is winning challenges, and winning by a large number of games, then they will have a high rating, regardless of the volume of challenges.
Otherwise we are just back at the "volume" system we have now.
In theory what you say should deter Metallica from dumping games in challenges thus sandbagging.