clan suggestions

Originally posted by padger
I have already replied to your first time with this
You obviously do not read all the posts
On your example one clan is trying to win 800 challenges or the other that is only trying to win 200
Who do you think deserves to win most
The one who takes time sorting out challenges or the one who just does enough to get by

I read your posts. Or most of them. Maybe I missed one. There's lots to read. 😀

My response is the same.
Metric should be performance as well as playing a lot.
A champion should not be crowned for just trying hard ( as admirable as it may be).
Success should also be a determining factor.

Net points, though imperfect, does a better job of combining the 2 factors above than gross points.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by radioactive69
I think my original idea still seems the best.

There must be negative points or the winner will just be the clan that issues the most challenges. No skill just overkill

For a 5 man challenge under the current rules no matter what the final result (except a draw) the winner gets 10 points the loser gets negative 10 points. A swing of 20 points.
...[text shortened]... age clans to play challenges out to the end as points are still on the line for individual wins.

Your suggestion is very similar to my modified suggestion (2.1 and 2.2 in my re-post).
Just some of the numbers are slightly different.
But Russ can analyse that and come up with something that works.

Good ideas all around.

Originally posted by padger
I have already replied to your first time with this
You obviously do not read all the posts
On your example one clan is trying to win 800 challenges or the other that is only trying to win 200
Who do you think deserves to win most
The one who takes time sorting out challenges or the one who just does enough to get by

That is not true. The clan who works the hardest gets the gold.
Name me any sport in the world where the champion is the one who barely did enough to get by.
I can't get on board with you on this.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
That is not true. The clan who works the hardest gets the gold.
Name me any sport in the world where the champion is the one who barely did enough to get by.
I can't get on board with you on this.

You have just qualified my argument
The clan that tried the hardest to get 800 challenges against the clan that only tried to get 200 must be the harder working clan
If they had won a better percentage of the games they would be streets ahead of the other clan
According to 2016 stats Metalica played a total of 326 games and won the title
And Wycombe played 675 games and came 3rd and yet they won 100 games more than Metalica is that fair ?
I cannot believe that this is the way to go forward

Originally posted by padger
You have just qualified my argument
The clan that tried the hardest to get 800 challenges against the clan that only tried to get 200 must be the harder working clan
If they had won a better percentage of the games they would be streets ahead of the other clan
According to 2016 stats Metalica played a total of 326 games and won the title
And Wycombe playe ...[text shortened]... 100 games more than Metalica is that fair ?
I cannot believe that this is the way to go forward

So what you're saying is that the clan that issues and plays the most challenges should be crowned as champions, even if they only win say 30% of them as they are the hardest working clan.

Sorry, no skill talent needed to do that. All a clan needs is people willing to play hundreds of games at a time as fast as possible win, lose or draw. doesn't make sense and I'm pretty sure would never be instituted.

Would be the death knell for the clan system

Originally posted by padger
You have just qualified my argument
The clan that tried the hardest to get 800 challenges against the clan that only tried to get 200 must be the harder working clan
If they had won a better percentage of the games they would be streets ahead of the other clan
According to 2016 stats Metalica played a total of 326 games and won the title
And Wycombe playe ...[text shortened]... 100 games more than Metalica is that fair ?
I cannot believe that this is the way to go forward

Actually you are not correct in your analysis.
Total points is not the metric we use. It used to be, but they voted to change it to net points.
Since net points is the determiner, why would anyone be worried about total points??
I know for one, I am not.
Our focus is on nothing but what the determiner is.

Originally posted by radioactive69
So what you're saying is that the clan that issues and plays the most challenges should be crowned as champions, even if they only win say 30% of them as they are the hardest working clan.

Sorry, no skill talent needed to do that. All a clan needs is people willing to play hundreds of games at a time as fast as possible win, lose or draw. doesn't ma ...[text shortened]... e and I'm pretty sure would never be instituted.

Would be the death knell for the clan system

What I am saying is the clan that plays the most and participates in the general clan set up
In other words involves lots of other clans should be given a fair crack of the whip not be knocked back for trying
Your way if you took three clans
A plays B and wins 6 - 4
C never plays at all
The order at the moment would be
A 10
C 0
B -10
Explain to me how this is fair

Originally posted by padger
What I am saying is the clan that plays the most and participates in the general clan set up
In other words involves lots of other clans should be given a fair crack of the whip not be knocked back for trying
Your way if you took three clans
A plays B and wins 6 - 4
C never plays at all
The order at the moment would be
A 10
C 0
B -10
Explain to me how this is fair

If you read my post then a result of 6-4 would mean 11 points to the winner and negative 1 point to the loser. A difference of 12 points as opposed to the 20 points under the current system.

Originally posted by radioactive69
If you read my post then a result of 6-4 would mean 11 points to the winner and negative 1 point to the loser. A difference of 12 points as opposed to the 20 points under the current system.

C would still be in front of b without playing

Originally posted by padger
What I am saying is the clan that plays the most and participates in the general clan set up
In other words involves lots of other clans should be given a fair crack of the whip not be knocked back for trying
Your way if you took three clans
A plays B and wins 6 - 4
C never plays at all
The order at the moment would be
A 10
C 0
B -10
Explain to me how this is fair

A won every challenge they played (1) and lost none (0)
C won every challenge they played (0) and lost none (0)
B did not win any challenge they played (0) and lost every challenge they played (1)

Records are as follows"

Clan A 1-0 + 1 point
Clan C 0-0 0 points
Clan B 0-1 -1 point

That is how

Originally posted by padger
C would still be in front of b without playing

If you watch any pro sports or college sports, the standings are figured EXACTLY this way.

A team that is 0-1 is below all teams that are 0-0

Originally posted by padger
C would still be in front of b without playing

Yes.....now you're getting it.

Originally posted by radioactive69
Yes.....now you're getting it.

So how is this fair ?

Originally posted by padger
So how is this fair ?

If you watch any pro sports or college sports, the standings are figured EXACTLY this way.

A team that is 0-1 is below all teams that are 0-0

Originally posted by shortcircuit
If you watch any pro sports or college sports, the standings are figured EXACTLY this way.

A team that is 0-1 is below all teams that are 0-0

Yes but they are only -1 because you made them that way
In my scoring it would be
A = 12
B = 4
C = 0
Which is much fairer and rewards actually playing a match not sitting on the sidelines