Site Ideas
05 May 08
05 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI like the fact that you're thinking about improving the scoring system.
Those "sports" (chess isn't a sport) don't consist of discrete, separate games.
Moreover, the meaninglessness of many of the games results in resignations that impair the primary purpose of the site i.e. to play chess. I've had players resign games with me because their clan have already mathematically clinched a win in the clan match. ey haven't really earned. And it is detrimental to the whole concept of clan competition.
But to me a clan is a team.. (like football, sorry for the comparison)
And teams win, lose or draw.. regardless of the exact score (ie. 10-0 is a win and 6-5 is a win)..
The amount of people competing in that challenge is also rewarded as it's theoretically a better achievement to win a 10 man challenge, rather than a 2 man challenge..
It does not make some games irrelavant as the total balance of the clan challenge matters.. so every game counts.. and yes, when it's 10-0 and 2 games are left in progress, they don't change the outcome anymore.. what's the problem with that?
For the record, it's just my opinion.. (versus your opinion)
Edit: I have not seen so many examples of people resigning their games when they know that their result doesn't affect the outcome of the challenge. I've asked my clan members a while ago about this phenomonan: all 19 were against it, And no, I'm not against it, it's somebody's own choice.. I would only do it when my position is not strong to begin with, otherwise I just play as I like to play! (even have some games going on right now where the outcome of the challenge is already decided in our favor)
05 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AmsterdamnYour position is contradictory; on one hand you say the exact score shouldn't matter because it's a match but you also say matches with more people in it should get more points! Those two together don't make any sense.
I like the fact that you're thinking about improving the scoring system.
But to me a clan is a team.. (like football, sorry for the comparison)
And teams win, lose or draw.. regardless of the exact score (ie. 10-0 is a win and 6-5 is a win)..
The amount of people competing in that challenge is also rewarded as it's theoretically a better achievement on right now where the outcome of the challenge is already decided in our favor)[/i]
A Clan's rating should have some relationship to how the players in the clan have played in clan matches; after all it's supposed to be a "scoring system". You obviously didn't bother to actually read my argument; the "problem" with having games that are meaningless is that it goes against the very purpose of clan COMPETITION. And each game is a totally separate entity from each other game; why shouldn't they all count? In the system proposed, the winning clan gets both the benefit of their player's winning games (minus the player's lost games) + a bonus based on the size of the challenge. This encourages both larger challenges and all games to be played out to their logical conclusion. Both support the purposes of clan competition.
As to your edit; I recently had (and have had in the past) opponents resign clan games where they were at least equal (and often better) just to get the challenge over and cash in the points. Hard to believe, but true. This practice would be punished by the Pendejo-no1marauder system.
EDIT: As an added bonus, it discourages lopsided challenges as the gain in rating points would be far less for wins and far more would be risked by the favored side.
05 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderDoesn't this still mean that clans that play lots of challenges will still be at the top and those that play fewer will be at the bottom?
That's the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM, of course.
More than three years ago, Russ asked players to vote on the following question:
The current clan scoring system rewards clans for quantity of challenges played because there are no penalties for losing. Would [b]you like to see the current system replaced an ...[text shortened]... e every clan will have a shot.
Made sense then, makes sense now.[/b]
If people stop looking at the OVERALL leaders, based on longevity of the clan system, they will see that every year the points for every clan are reset to zero and the position for each clan in the year is based on that years performance.
As every clan has the ability to play as many or few matches as any other those that play lots will do better than those who play fewer challenges.
This will happen regardless of what scoring system is in place.
You will still get the whines about Clan A fielding a 1600 rated player who was down at 1300 against Clan B's 1290 rater just to win the extra "bonus points"
Do you not think the system is only boring to those who are not successful?
Put the clans in order by date formed and then look at just how few challenges some of the older clans have completed and just how few of them have 20 members.
Many of these clans have completed less challenges than Metallica currently have in progress at the present time.
If you take the top 20 clans on total points for 2008, at present only 4 have exceeded 1,000 points, 11 have exceeded 500 points.
Do you really see a change in the rating system meaning any real change to the top 10 clans for 2008? I don't, I don't think Russ does either, and as such I can't see him having any desire to change the current system.
For any Clan that want to see how they are doing this year, look at Total and net points for 2008. The Total and net points OVERALL are merely an historical figure.
05 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by adramforallI guess we'd have to see, wouldn't we? There are certain number of page 1 clans who have mediocre records in challenges won and I suspect they would fare even worse under the Pendejo-no1Marauder system. The system shouldn't be ALL about who plays the most matches as it is now.
Doesn't this still mean that clans that play lots of challenges will still be at the top and those that play fewer will be at the bottom?
If people stop looking at the OVERALL leaders, based on longevity of the clan system, they will see that every year the points for every clan are reset to zero and the position for each clan in the year is based on d net points for 2008. The Total and net points OVERALL are merely an historical figure.
Is the system only "boring to those who are not successful"? When it was put to a vote to "replace" the system, 86% voted "Yes". http://www.timeforchess.com/vote/result.php?voteid=5 That shows widespread, overwhelming dissatisfaction with the LCCSS.
A lot of clans have lost interest in trying to compete in the LCCSS, but start anew with a logical scoring system in place and there would be an explosion of clans and clan competition. A new "Golden Age" in Clans to replace the present Dark Ages. The people have spoken; Death to the LCCSS!!
05 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by adramforallBTW, Adam what made you change your mind from 2 and a half months ago when you wrote this in reference to the proposal:
Doesn't this still mean that clans that play lots of challenges will still be at the top and those that play fewer will be at the bottom?
If people stop looking at the OVERALL leaders, based on longevity of the clan system, they will see that every year the points for every clan are reset to zero and the position for each clan in the year is based on d net points for 2008. The Total and net points OVERALL are merely an historical figure.
The time is more than right for a new scoring system. Lets have a consulation on this and see if we can bring something new into play.
I like this idea. Its novel and rewards all the players for their participation.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19482&page=2
05 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AmsterdamnAmsterdamn: I was not asking to make it the primary list.
True, I'm not asking to change the system..
With the current system we're down on page 2, meaning that over 30 clans are above us...
What status is that??
The "net points (all time)" is just mentioned by me since you're asking for a system that also penalizes clans for losing.. I was not asking to make it the primary list..
You did YESTERDAY:
Amsterdamn: Just have the All time Net points list as the primary scoring system and all should be solved....
Right?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=93222&page=1
06 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderLike everything else a rethink based on the likes of challenges like that shown in Thread 92725 which would make a mockery of the system proposed.
BTW, Adam what made you change your mind from 2 and a half months ago when you wrote this in reference to the proposal:
The time is more than right for a new scoring system. Lets have a consulation on this and see if we can bring something new into play.
I like this idea. Its novel and rewards all the players for their participation.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19482&page=2
I do agree a new system could be a good idea but as any new system will not make a jot of difference to the overall clan system, the most active clans will still remain at the top, do we really need to bring one in?
06 May 08
Originally posted by adramforallThat challenge was rejected so it couldn't make a mockery of any scoring system. As a matter of fact, if accepted it would have helped the winning clan far less in the proposed system than the present one; the favored clan would have gained very few points based on the individual game results and would have risked a lot of points in each matchup. Two losses might have negated ALL the player points and any more might have pushed them into negative values. Of course, they would have gotten the challenge bonus points, but they get those anyway in the LCCSS.
Like everything else a rethink based on the likes of challenges like that shown in Thread 92725 which would make a mockery of the system proposed.
I do agree a new system could be a good idea but as any new system will not make a jot of difference to the overall clan system, the most active clans will still remain at the top, do we really need to bring one in?
It's just speculation by you what clans would be at the top in the new scoring system; I suspect you'd wind up surprised. I also suspect there would be a lot of clans formed and a lot more clan activity in response to the change. That would all be a good thing.
06 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut a challenge like that would make a mockery of the system if accepted and under your proposed system it would get substantially more points.
That challenge was rejected so it couldn't make a mockery of any scoring system. As a matter of fact, if accepted it would have helped the winning clan far less in the proposed system than the present one; the favored clan would have gained very few points based on the individual game results and would have risked a lot of points in each matchup. Two los ormed and a lot more clan activity in response to the change. That would all be a good thing.
Under the current system in a 16 v 16 had the higher rated clan won all matches they would have received 32 points.
Under your proposed system while the points won would be minimal (even at 2 points per win they get 32 points) and with the addition of 160 bonus points the winning clan gets 192 points.
Or am I missing something about the scoring system?
06 May 08
Originally posted by adramforallThis is ridiculous. First, AGAIN, the challenge wasn't accepted, so no points can be awarded, can they?
But a challenge like that would make a mockery of the system if accepted and under your proposed system it would get substantially more points.
Under the current system in a 16 v 16 had the higher rated clan won all matches they would have received 32 points.
Under your proposed system while the points won would be minimal (even at 2 points per w ...[text shortened]... points the winning clan gets 192 points.
Or am I missing something about the scoring system?
Second, you are assuming that the first clan would necessarily win EVERY SINGLE GAME. That is most unlikely. Upsets happen even at those ratings differentials and what if 1 or 2 or 3 of the players timeout or leave the site? The first clan could take a big rating hit making that challenge extremely risky for them. Now they risk nothing by proposing it.
Third, there's no real comparison between the 1200 based system and the present one numerically. The Pendejo-no1Marauder system would obviously fluctuate more than the LCCSS; that will make things a lot more interesting. EVERY clan challenge will be worth more points, EVERY game will count. Explain to me again how that is a "bad" thing? It might even restrain the lunatic rush to load up players with a 100 or more clan games (again, a GOOD thing).
The specific amount of bonus points per challenge is negotiable of course, though I think some bonus is warranted (after all the clan did win the challenge).
06 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHi No1..
Amsterdamn: I was not asking to make it the primary list.
You did YESTERDAY:
Amsterdamn: Just have the All time Net points list as the primary scoring system and all should be solved....
Right?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=93222&page=1
That's not asking for a new system, that is responding to somebody else's request..
But all's fine by me now.. slept well last night 🙂
But No1..
I guess it's more effective to actually have a vote on what system the community wants.. (instead of us having discussions which seem to lead to just discussions rather than solutions).
I think the majority agrees that using total points as a measure only rewards the ones who play a lot regardless of the quality, or in other words: losses are not penalized.. I think you and I agree on that too..
However, what the new primary measurement should be..
Perhaps Russ can invite us to send him a few ideas/proposals, he puts it in a new vote.. and then actually implements the outcome into the clan scoring system..
Also.. I think there should be some kind of transition of past efforts into the new system: it's not a necessity to let everybody start from zero..
Hope you like my addition here 🙂
06 May 08
What is the rating to be? Measure, or competition? It can't be both.
General consensus in discussions about rating (in different contexts) is that it is to be a measure. For competition, championship, league, etc systems are better suited.
Yeah, but measure of what? In case of individual players rating, everybody says "strength". As one can easily spot that even individual has better and worse days (or tournaments, or years), this usually ends saying "average strength".
In case of teams ... - well, if it at all makes any sense to measure something, then also, the teams strength should be measured. The simplest and clear idea is to use exactly the same rating system as in case of individual ratings. Two teams face, every team has some rating, the match ends as a win of one of the teams or as a draw, rating is updated accordingly.
You would say - "but teams put different lineups into different matches". Yes, indeed. But if the MixedTeam puts 2200-rated players in one match and 1500-rated players in another match, then this team *average* strength is lower than the average strength of the TopOnlyTeam which setups +2100 lineups only. So MixedTeam should be lower rated. This is not a punishment or reward, this is a *measure*.
PS Another story is that it would make sense to show the team list sorted by the past achievements (clan league successess and such)
06 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderHow difficult can it be for you to comprehend? Its a scenario not an actual event. A simple "what if".
This is ridiculous. First, AGAIN, the challenge wasn't accepted, so no points can be awarded, can they?
Second, you are assuming that the first clan would necessarily win EVERY SINGLE GAME. That is most unlikely. Upsets happen even at those ratings differentials and what if 1 or 2 or 3 of the players timeout or leave the site? The first clan ...[text shortened]... f course, though I think some bonus is warranted (after all the clan did win the challenge).
Every challenge will be worth more points under the "The Pendejo-no1Marauder" system.
This means that those clans that play more, will eventually show a much larger gap in total points, as they will win more, which is why they are currently at the top of the tables.
06 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by adramforallNo they won't because some of them are barely above .500 (and some top ten clans aren't even that). They will be penalized for losing, something that is NOT done now. By your "logic", Helden should be the #1 rated player on the site!
How difficult can it be for you to comprehend? Its a scenario not an actual event. A simple "what if".
Every challenge will be worth more points under the "The Pendejo-no1Marauder" system.
This means that those clans that play more, will eventually show a much larger gap in total points, as they will win more, which is why they are currently at the top of the tables.
You know this, so your sudden change of heart is disingenuous.