Originally posted by robbie carrobieAsk Mctayto about tournament entry rating
Yes this is a great point. Some mechanism would need to be used to make sure that players do not enter a clan with a vastly reduced rating to take advantage of the system. Perhaps the tournament entry rating could be used to prevent the player from playing anyone below that? In the case of players with a provisional rating they would need to complete their six games before their clan games counted.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNO!!
Actual site formula utilised to project ratings. Thanks to moonbus.
Hypothetical scenario.
Clan A v Clan B
1) robbie 1798 v mghrn55 1810: result 1/2 - 1/2
2) tomeasyrider 1600 v hetrz van rental 1610: result 0-1
3) settl 930 v suzzianne 1000: result 1-0
The following formulas were copy-pasted from the RHP FAQ:
New Rating = Old ...[text shortened]... two, + 19 for game three = +4 points for Clan A. (Do the math for Clan B.)
Hope this helps.
Originally posted by The PostmanIn my proposal a player who resigns a game would have no reduction in rating
Yes, something does need to be done.
There's a chap near the top of the clan ladder who has a all time high of 1647. Tournament entry rating of 1306 and actual rating of 1149.
Manipulated by playing lowly ranked non subscribers and resigning after a few moves. Then playing clan games against players of the same (1149) ranking who are of course inferior ...[text shortened]... players.
I think the tournament entry rating is a much better guide and should be used instead.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is too complicated and I think 90% of clan leaders would find it too complicated
Its not too complicated at all, you are simply too dim. Can you tell us why such a system is open to collusion for it cannot be because its too complicated, infact its very simple. Your suggestion of a review board will not address the issue of those who sandbag and do not get caught, will it. We cannot constantly police the system, we need a system that is self regulating and that rewards clans for good play.
The trouble is you and maybe 1 or 2 others understand what you are going on about but that makes easier for you to manipulate it as you did last year
08 Jan 17
Originally posted by moonbusWe are not looking for a way to put chains on the clan leaders
Set an arbitrary minimum number of challenges/games to be completed. Already been suggested. Just read the previous posts.
All that is required is a way to make manipulation of the system an unviable option.
A clan that dumps games to complete challenges should not benefit from this.
A clan should not benefit from sandbagging.
A clan should not benefit collusion.
Originally posted by my2sonsThe example of the hypothetical scenario based on net rating change is simple and straightforward: if your rating goes up, your clan's rank goes up; if you throw games (for any reason or 'rationale' whatever), your rating goes down and your clan's rank goes down, too. Simple. Straightforward. Neutral. If you don't understand the math, so what -- it's the same math running in the background already anyway for calculating individuals' ratings every day all day long.
too complicated meaning open to collusion by clever manipulators such as yourself.
We need a simple straightforward system with a clan review board in place to address issues such as collusion, sandbagging, etc.
Originally posted by padgerI have another good idea
Very good point
We really need to sort out collusion once and for all
A points removal from the protesters last year and a warning issued will stop it
A vote should happen obviously those involved in the four clans will be banned from voting no accused can be on the jury under and circumstances
Put integrity back then we can move forward
Some of the ideas about formulas back no sense totally full of loop holes that's what some players want
