Conquer Club

Sorry for the delay here. Learning how to do it on the new iMac and wife being sick, just took a bit longer than originally expected. I'm done now, moving to post it now.

Cheers,
IcePack

I think EMP vs. TFFS should count?

swimmerdude99 wrote:I think EMP vs. TFFS should count?

I think it did, we just didn't thump them enough for it to give our score a boost

They're a lot better than their ranking suggests tho.

I'm really liking the last column most, it gives a nice indication of how the leap ladder would have had things as well.

How can we go down in score/rank though?

Database updated. Thanks to Keefie for being annoying! I mean, seriously...

Where is RoTS? We have 3 completed..

The Ulti-M8s (UM8) have 4 completed wars. If I've done the math correctly, we should have 160+ weight points, enough to place us on the list.

-- crazy4catnip

NoSurvivors wrote:Where is RoTS? We have 3 completed..

While 3 completed can get you on the scoreboard, its not a guarentee. There are a few other factors that affect the weight value of a clan. Currently you don't have enough weight to show up.

Just for curiosity sake, I adjusted some of the settings to check out where RotS would be if I lowered the required values.

Bad news, your 3 loses basically puts you dead last....(you have 126 weight right now, you need 150 to get on the board, so your next clan result should put you on the board. But not the 1 vs 1 clan event.)

IcePack

crazy4catnip wrote:The Ulti-M8s (UM8) have 4 completed wars. If I've done the math correctly, we should have 160+ weight points, enough to place us on the list.

-- crazy4catnip

You're on the list, 22nd. UM8 with 160 weight points.

Thanks,
IcePack

Oops! Sorry!

I did a text search and it didn't match. It appears to be an image of some type.

-- crazy4catnip

swimmerdude99 wrote:I think EMP vs. TFFS should count?

Leehar wrote: I think it did, we just didn't thump them enough for it to give our score a boost
They're a lot better than their ranking suggests tho.

swimmerdude99 wrote: How can we go down in score/rank though?

IcePack wrote: There are plenty of factors that occur, there are hundreds of calculations and re calculations based on EMP entire history, not just recent wars. I don't think the TFFS war hurt you, but at the same time Leehar is (close) to correct, the score needed to be a little higher based on their literal point rank in order to really give you much of a boost. TFFS is a good clan, but they are right now a little "undervalued" so the algorythm probably needed to see a higher win % to really give you a boost due to their lower current ranking.

But Just glancing at your war history, there's one big win that empires about to lose off its history:

EMP TLW 47 13 10/06/10

After 2 years its decayed value is 0, so I think that (and maybe other big wins reaching or nearly reaching milestones) would be the best explanation of your score drop. The score adjustment was fairly minor, it could easily be attributed to decay.

IcePack

Thanks for that explenation bud carry on haha

Our clan just formed: A Question of Honour (QOH)

Please include us as we'll be competing very soon.

kuma32478 wrote:Our clan just formed: A Question of Honour (QOH)

Please include us as we'll be competing very soon.

I will include all war results, you'll need to complete 3-4 wars (likely) before your clans weight is enough to show up on the board.

IcePack

IcePack wrote:IcePack wrote: There are plenty of factors that occur, there are hundreds of calculations and re calculations based on EMP entire history, not just recent wars. I don't think the TFFS war hurt you, but at the same time Leehar is (close) to correct, the score needed to be a little higher based on their literal point rank in order to really give you much of a boost. TFFS is a good clan, but they are right now a little "undervalued" so the algorythm probably needed to see a higher win % to really give you a boost due to their lower current ranking.

But Just glancing at your war history, there's one big win that empires about to lose off its history:

EMP TLW 47 13 10/06/10

After 2 years its decayed value is 0, so I think that (and maybe other big wins reaching or nearly reaching milestones) would be the best explanation of your score drop. The score adjustment was fairly minor, it could easily be attributed to decay.

IcePack

However, it's pretty interesting that this same tffs war, actually gave us a boost in the DTX ranking. Goes to show that there's still a fundamental difference between the 2!

kuma32478 wrote:Our clan just formed: A Question of Honour (QOH)

Please include us as we'll be competing very soon.

Oh no!!!! You're kidding me!!!! You named yourself after [player]QoH[/player]??? His head will get too big now.

TheCrown wrote:

kuma32478 wrote:Our clan just formed: A Question of Honour (QOH)

Please include us as we'll be competing very soon.

Oh no!!!! You're kidding me!!!! You named yourself after [player]QoH[/player]??? His head will get too big now.

I mentioned it to Q yesterday as I was slapping his ass in a trench singles game. His lawyers are onto it

Has CL4 P2 D1 been taken into account?

Leehar wrote:Has CL4 P2 D1 been taken into account?

No, it wasn't marked completed when I went thru, or I missed it. Either way I'll be putting some more effort into sorting out CL4 results for F400 purposes.

IcePack

Added some new graphs, if anyones interested.

IcePack wrote:Added some new graphs, if anyones interested.

No interest?

IcePack wrote:

IcePack wrote:Added some new graphs, if anyones interested.

No interest?

I like them!

The more information provided the better in my opinion

always nice to have more info

some suggestions
put the legend on the right where it correspond to the current ranking
make it a bit more compact (smaller font and smaller scaling)
maybe make one image ...

put the list above the graphic ranking so we can read it immediately
and also add it to your last post when edited (the list only)
so we don't have to come back and forth

your dedication is very appreciated

pamoa wrote:always nice to have more info

some suggestions
put the legend on the right where it correspond to the current ranking
make it a bit more compact (smaller font and smaller scaling)
maybe make one image ...

put the list above the graphic ranking so we can read it immediately
and also add it to your last post when edited (the list only)
so we don't have to come back and forth

your dedication is very appreciated

Legend on the right: this location is auto generated. Moving to the right would require me to photoshop legend over for each img, not impossible but not sure it's worth the time? (at least currently)

Resizing isn't a problem, I kept it default because I thought it would be harder to read the graph smaller.

I tried photoshop them into one img. The graph gets cluttered and IMO becomes less readable.

Could you clarify the last paragraph? I'm not sure what ur asking there. Cheers!

IcePack

He means in OP you got to put the listing first and graphs at the bottom. And when you make an update you post the list in the "update made" post so people don't have to click on first page.