F400 Clan Ranking - Needs Repair

by **Chariot of Fire** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:57 am

I think you're quite right mate. For me - and I expect countless others - the F400 by IcePack is the one genuine, flawless system we have for computation of rankings. There should be no element of 'maybe' involved, nor should decisions lie at the discretion of one individual. "Oh hey, our clan has just done really well in this tourney. Maybe we can include the results in the F400?" A question such as this should never be posed, and IcePack should never have to be in a position to decide.

Strict ground rules for qualification, ascertained prior to the tourney commencing. Simple.

by **IcePack** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:01 am

Well, 3 things:

1) my crazy life has settled down. I'm back Full time

2) F400 will be posted tomorrow, the Lindax tournament issues got me sidetracked and couldn't complete it tonight.
3) I agree, I've tried making an effort to ensure event organizers were on board before hand and announcing event decisions. This participate one was missed, and I'll review and get back ASAP once Lindax lets me know whether or not he's willign to track that info. In the meantime, everyones free to make commentary on the issue of what they think about the possibility of adding minor to significant amounts of 1 vs 1 in a event that isn't fixed structure like most other clans are.

As mentioned prior to VOL in PM, there are policys for regular clan wars / events already in place. Most events have fixed structure in nature, so this one a little unique which hasn't quite been addressed by the clan community. But in general, i completely agree moving forward these "grey area" event should be addressed and each event announced whether its being included ongoing in the future.

I'll comment more in the morning.

IcePack

by **josko.ri** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:20 am

Reading all this, I am just wondering how ACC results are included, because they consist of some sets of 1v1 matches. I can think of 2 possibilities how ACC results can be included, I am wondering which one is correct, and is IcePack aware of this issue?

1. Full result of a match is included. That means that ACC 1v1 matches also enters into ranking.
2. Here is included final result excluding 1v1 matches. In that case it can happen that the clan who won war in ACC will lose war in F400.

by **IcePack** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:42 am

josko.ri wrote:Reading all this, I am just wondering how ACC results are included, because they consist of some sets of 1v1 matches. I can think of 2 possibilities how ACC results can be included, I am wondering which one is correct, and is IcePack aware of this issue?

1. Full result of a match is included. That means that ACC 1v1 matches also enters into ranking.
2. Here is included final result excluding 1v1 matches. In that case it can happen that the clan who won war in ACC will lose war in F400.

Some analysis / comparison were done previous to my taking over F400. It was decided that the results would be divided by 50% in F400, and that the actual results were very similar to what it would be if all the time had been spent going through the games.

Since this policy was used in all previous ACC, when I took over I continued what had been decided in the past. As it would be calcd one way for past and another for future, not giving the same info. And if it was ever something I was able to tackle, makes it more complicated for me to untangle and redo if I switched halfway thru.

Going back roughly 1 year ago: viewtopic.php?f=438&t=174424&p=3897318&hilit=icepack#p3897318

IcePack

by **Qwert** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:08 pm

well this its how i see this:
When i start preparation for CL5, i have many discusion abouth all part of competitions, and this also include F400. Ofcourse this could not be discused withouth Icepack. So after some discusion, we came to conclusion that Scores in Cl5 will be count combined for F400 (to be eligibile for counting).In Cl5 match betwene clans count separate( home -one match---away-one match), and for F400 together(home-away one match), and this give 16 clan game chalenges.
Also i take full responsibilities to all scores will be add to Topic, specialy open for this purposes.

I think that for all mini clan tournaments, organiser need to talk with icepack, to see how they need to create format of tournaments to be eligibile for F400. And its will be good if Organisers track all this and post to icepack.
Now in this case, if organiser dont want to make discusion with icepack,,and dont want to track results,, then its probably best that this tournament will not be included in f400.

by **ViperOverLord** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:42 pm

^^^

I agree that it's a good idea for event organizers to work with IP if they want to try and make their events count in the F400. But, I think it's also very important that the clans know before an event starts (preferably before signing-up for an event), if it's going to count in the F400.

My suggestion would be that events have to be pre-qualified to count. The resulting clarity is most optimal.

That said, I realize IP is a volunteer and he should do what works for him. For instance, he has said that part of the issue is it is counted based upon the contingency that an organizer(s) reports results to him b/c he can't possibly be digging through all the results of every contest by himself and I understand that. So, therefore it's up to the organizer(s) in a sense as to whether some results get included. But to be counted in the F400, the organizer(s) should still be required to agree to his terms before an event. And if said organizer(s) don't live up to the terms then we can chip in and report events upon his request and in the future, IP won't certify events for organizer(s) who don't follow through. But, there definitely needs to be a pre-certification IMO.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:50 pm

Viper for overlord. Oh wait....

by **ViperOverLord** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:06 pm

Chariot of Fire wrote:Viper for overlord. Oh wait....

I'm sure I'm nowhere near as qualified as IP when it comes to doing the rankings. I'm just a glorified heckler in the peanut gallery. :lol:

by **IcePack** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:11 pm

I'll work on setting up (and posting) some official policy's so people know ahead of time what to expect as well as how some existing competitions are counted (or not) and maybe go through the thread and continue working on that FAQ.

In the meantime, I'm working on the update. Here are the last 6 weeks for people to review / comment while I work on it, if you see any corrections let me know.

IcePack

show

by **Gilligan** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:15 pm

Weight: obese, lol

by **aaronvollrath** on Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:07 pm

Not having direct privileges is now severely affecting my ability to invite the players that I want to invite. My players who are used to 24 hour invites, may gloss over PM's etc and then I'm forced to use a lesser player or potentially forfeit a game(s) b/c of the irregularity in the system.

you can create links and send them directly to the player(s) you want by using this format:

[to]gamenumber password[/to]

may address some but not all of your issues/concerns

by **Qwert** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:14 am

cc4-myt vs tlw 29-11,,,, this its over but dont know exactly date

by **IcePack** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:36 am

Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

by **patrickaa317** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:43 am

IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

I personally think current layout is perfect, thanks.

by **Qwert** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:45 am

IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

i wonder how will this look,if scores dont have this 1 year and 2 year, and go like in Player scoreboard, who will be in first place?

by **deantursx** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:44 pm

IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

Its perfect in regards to the 1 year and 2 year. I did notice that the July 15th update didn't have a points changed column though. I think you certainly want to keep that.

by **IcePack** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:52 pm

deantursx wrote:
IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

Its perfect in regards to the 1 year and 2 year. I did notice that the July 15th update didn't have a points changed column though. I think you certainly want to keep that.

Yes, that's still a "normal" fixture. I'll reference this post: viewtopic.php?f=438&t=174424&start=915#p4235484

I was chatting w/ swifte and doing the update. The Points Change column is the last one I do on an update, and it looked like my wife might have to get run to the hospital. So, since I didn't know if id get back for awhile I eliminated the column, posted what I had and got offline so i could deal with more important things at the time.

The Aug 1 update will have the column, as usual.

IcePack

by **IcePack** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:53 pm

Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

i wonder how will this look,if scores dont have this 1 year and 2 year, and go like in Player scoreboard, who will be in first place?

Im not sure i understand?

by **Qwert** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:05 pm

IcePack wrote:
Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

i wonder how will this look,if scores dont have this 1 year and 2 year, and go like in Player scoreboard, who will be in first place?

Im not sure i understand?

i say if scoreboard look like player scoreboard, where scores are not erase after two years of play.

by **IcePack** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:06 pm

Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

i wonder how will this look,if scores dont have this 1 year and 2 year, and go like in Player scoreboard, who will be in first place?

Im not sure i understand?

i say if scoreboard look like player scoreboard, where scores are not erase after two years of play.

You mean, include all results with no decay?

by **patrickaa317** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:09 pm

IcePack wrote:
Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

i wonder how will this look,if scores dont have this 1 year and 2 year, and go like in Player scoreboard, who will be in first place?

Im not sure i understand?

i say if scoreboard look like player scoreboard, where scores are not erase after two years of play.

You mean, include all results with no decay?

Nice job on translation, I bet that's what he means.

by **IcePack** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:18 pm

patrickaa317 wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Qwert wrote:
IcePack wrote:Does everyone like the current layout of the scores?

IE:

2 YR Score, then 1 year, then name, then rating?

I do that because the 2 YR SCore is the main score for most people, and wanted it highlighted on the left by boxing it in. but then the 1 yr score is between 2 year and the name. Just want to make sure people dont want 1 yr, 2 yr, then name.

Either way. just curious. Working on this again this morning and double checking all the numbers.

i wonder how will this look,if scores dont have this 1 year and 2 year, and go like in Player scoreboard, who will be in first place?

Im not sure i understand?

i say if scoreboard look like player scoreboard, where scores are not erase after two years of play.

You mean, include all results with no decay?

Nice job on translation, I bet that's what he means.

Thought so. I just ran it using a 6 year data window, most of the clans are in the same / similar spots as the 2 year window with some minor differences.

by **IcePack** on Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:50 pm

F400 Clan Ranking - Needs Repair

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [July 1 Update]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Update Shortly]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Updated!]

Re: F400 Ranking [Aug 1 Updated!]

Who is online