Originally posted by Russhow about you sending a mass pm to all clan leaders asking for input, some don't read or take part in any forums.
The clan forum has a thread linking here.
as the clan table runs from jan 1st till 31st dec then points go to zero, challenges started before 31st dec should not count towards the following years total.
collusion is the main issue here, the only way i can see an end to it is do what happened last year suspend clans, personally i would remove collusion points as well waste their time and send a message to those who collude. no need to ban anyone
i have nothing against one man clans let them continue every clan on here started with one player.
for me no player should play for more than one clan, but if its allowed then the two clans involved should not be allowed to play each other, conflict of interest.
a player who has not moved should not be allowed to be selected for a clan challenge say 14 days or what ever time you think.
if a player times out more than say ten times in a year the player cant be selected again for 60 days or longer?
if a clan has 20 players if a few leave no new players can do challenges till previous players have ended all games stop the rota system
each clan should have the power to challenge any clan they want once a year the challenge will be automatically approved
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you recommend to stop collusion that is a major issue I would remove points that would send a message
A system based on net clan ELO has to be implemented, this will kill sandbagging and lopsided challenges stone dead and force clan leaders to make much more fairer challenges.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHaving read through a quite exhausting study on the ELO system which if played honourably would work
A system based on net clan ELO has to be implemented, this will kill sandbagging and lopsided challenges stone dead and force clan leaders to make much more fairer challenges.
However how would this work with the Mctayto's of this site ?
They would still cock up the system
Originally posted by padgernot really, there is no incentive to reduce ones rating or keep it artificially low because the only way you can gain points is to play people equally or higher rated and when you do that you rating would rise and the cycle would begin again until you reach a plateau.
Having read through a quite exhausting study on the ELO system which if played honourably would work
However how would this work with the Mctayto's of this site ?
They would still cock up the system
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRuss.
not really, there is no incentive to reduce ones rating or keep it artificially low because the only way you can gain points is to play people equally or higher rated and when you do that you rating would rise and the cycle would begin again until you reach a plateau.
First of all, thank you for starting this thread.
I have a couple of suggestions.
1 - the idea of a separate clan rating has merit. My idea is on top of this suggestion. The current rating formula in the FAQ contains a constant K. I will call this a variance constant for lack of a better term. Currently this is set at 32 for rating below 2100, 24 for ratings 2100-2400, and 16 for ratings above 2400.
Can we use a lower K value for computing new rating at clan game completion. Let's start with 16 for all ratings for clan games only.
This would limit rating shifts to maximum 8 points for each completed game between equally rated players. Other values can be considered. Suggestions welcome.
2 - I believe that a policing or refereeing component needs to be kept in place. There is a precedent in place. Initial thoughts are clan suspensions and points rollback.
There is a precedent for this (Strategic Ultimatum last year).
Points rollback has been done before as well.
Perhaps retroactive actions can be considered.
Thanks .... Mike.
Originally posted by my2sonsI reject this as it does nothing to prevent sandbagging. Only an ELO based system will prevent sandbagging.
I recommend awarding net points in each clan challenge based solely on wins over losses. For example, in a 11-9 result, the winning clan gets 4 points, the losing clan nothing. In a 10-2 result, the winning clan gets 16 points.
If by some miracle, the result is 0-0-4 draws, the two clans get nothing.
I like a clan only player rating if possible.
F ...[text shortened]... the expense of another clan in a given year. This should end clans colluding with one another.
Originally posted by mghrn55clan suspension and roll backs does nothing to actually address the problems we are facing at present, you have been told this numerous times by myself and others.
Russ.
First of all, thank you for starting this thread.
I have a couple of suggestions.
1 - the idea of a separate clan rating has merit. My idea is on top of this suggestion. The current rating formula in the FAQ contains a constant K. I will call this a variance constant for lack of a better term. Currently this is set at 32 for rating below 2100, 2 ...[text shortened]... s been done before as well.
Perhaps retroactive actions can be considered.
Thanks .... Mike.
Originally posted by roma45Collusion has already been addressed thats why Russ made the rule that you cannot play a clan any more than three times at once.. Sandbagging has not been addressed, an ELO based system will stop sandbagging dead in its tracks. I would say that sandbagging is wrecking the system, the six Metallica wins in a row with an overall win to loss ratio of 80% is proof of that. Furthermore there will be no incentive for clans to collude because they will get no benefit from the collusion because the system will be based on performance. Performance against weaker players is likely to result in practically no reward no matter how many challenges you play. Performance against players similarly rated will bring benefits and performance against higher rated players will bring the greatest benefit of all.
Can you explain how Elo will end collusion
Collusion is the cancer that I'd ruining the site
Suspensions and points removal every time will stop it Hi
Originally posted by roma45Yes. The explanation is this:
Can you explain how Elo will end collusion
Collusion is the cancer that I'd ruining the site
Suspensions and points removal every time will stop it Hi
The crucial insight is that collusion is merely a symptom of a fundamental flaw in the way clan standings are calculated. At present, clan standings are based on bulk wins. This tends to favor: a) large clans which play short timeouts and b) clans which play each other over and over again (i.e., collusion).
By pegging clan standings to individuals' ratings, two birds are killed with one stone: both collusion and sandbagging become irrelevant because neither offers any advantage.
The point of pegging clan standings to individuals' ratings is this: whenever a player throws a game, it drops not only his own personal rating, but that of his clan as well. Thus, sandbagging will cease to offer any benefit to the clan and will therefore disappear over the course of time without anyone's having to forbid it or ban anyone.
Furthermore, pegging clan standings to individuals' ratings means that raising a clan's standing would depend on challenging clans with similar, or higher, ratings than one's own; whereas repeatedly thrashing a clan with lower ratings (i.e., collusion) would not raise one's own clan standing appreciably. Thus collusion would cease to offer any incentive because, although one clan can repeatedly feed another clan bulk wins, it cannot do so and maintain its own average rating--and repeatedly beating a clan with ever lower ratings would not appreciably raise the other clan's standing.
Suspensions and points removal will not stop either collusion or sandbagging; they merely re-act to symptoms, after the fact, without addressing the underlying cause (which is how the standings are calculated at present, based on bulk wins). Recalibrating the standings criteria by pegging clan standings to individual ratings will effectively render both phenomena irrelevant before the fact by removing the motivation for them.
