Conquer Club

I couldn't disagree more, DJ. If two clans are evenly matched and they play each other, and one team wins by a single game, it should reflect in the ranking that there isn't much difference in the clans. If the clans are ranked 1 and 2, the weight of the war will mean that they will stay 1 and 2 regardless of what other clans had done.

If, on the other hand, the #1 clan beats the #2 clan by 20 games, it would mean that they are not that close and a #3 clan would probably have a chance to move up...which is what's going to happen Jan. 1.

DJ Teflon wrote:Otherwise, no point in clan tournaments or clan wars, we may as well have occassional one-off team games between a few clan guys, randomly organised.

If two evenly matched clans play:

Clan A wins by 1 game then their ranking improves a tiny bit.

Clan A wins by 5 games then their ranking improves by 5 tiny bits.

Clan A lose by 1 game and their ranking decreases by one tiny bit.

The difference between victory and defeat here is just 2 tiny bits, whereas the difference between a small and an average-size victory is way bigger.

In our hearts, the difference between a narrow victory and a narrow defeat is massive.

I'm just thinking it would be good if this were reflected as well as the margin of defeat (and everything else also in the calculations).

For example:

If a 5-game victory between equaL clans is worth 5 points, 1-game victory worth 1 point etc., then, instead:

A 1-game victory is worth 6 points,
5 game victory worth 10 points,
10 game victory worth 15 points
1-game defeat worth -6 points

Or something like that to reflect the significance of winning the overall war, as well as individual games?

This is the formula we have. If you have a better one, feel free to start it. It would not hurt my feelings if someone else took over the clan rankings.

I wrote a long response to your argument but I got lost in what I was trying to convince you of. A war of evenly matched clans decided by 1 game should reflect a narrow victory...simple as that.

Chuuuuck wrote:I tend to think like an algorithm. A narrow defeat isn't much different than a narrow win. If the score is 30-30 with 1 fairly even game to go and a round of 15-2 dice decides the game. I don't think there should be a big difference in the rankings regardless of which clan won, unless there was a large difference in their relative rank.

A #1 clan shouldn't lose to a #20 clan, and it should show in the games the power of the #1 clans play and the outcome should be a blow out... if its not, then that #1 clan deserves to drop some imo

I agree with DJ a little. A win should count a little bit more, no matter what.

Another thing that I was thinking is that old wars shouldn't factor into the rankings. Wars that happened more than 2 years ago shouldn't be factored in. Or at least not count as much, IMO.

The old wars don't count. It only goes back 2 years.

Gunn217 wrote:The old wars don't count. It only goes back 2 years.

Awesome. I wasn't sure, but I think that is the best way.

Let me give an overview:


The Algorythm is awesome.

If it reflected the value of a win per se as well as everything it already does it would be even more awesome.

Rankings updated. I may not have time to get it done tomorrow and i had some time today so I went ahead and did it.

I've made huge strides on the computer today so the ranking looks decent. I know the its a little fuzzy and I'll fix it next month.

I put the wars that are counted in the spoiler at the bottom. I have no editor so go over the results to make sure they were calculated correctly. Make sure the abbreviations are the same top to bottom.

It's weird that thota fell to 5th. Otherwise, nice work. It looks like we're behind only kort now. I guess we'll have to beat them now if we want to move up. Well, I think we might get our chance : )

There was a calculation error that RJ found in the ranking. I had left out some challenges in December. Fixed now with updated table to follow sometime today or tomorrow.

Gunn217 wrote:There was a calculation error that RJ found in the ranking. I had left out some challenges in December. Fixed now with updated table to follow sometime today or tomorrow.

Lot's of red down arrows...
Pack went down for beating the higher ranked (at the time) IA? Hate to see what beating Myth is going to do to our ranking!

tec805 wrote:

Gunn217 wrote:There was a calculation error that RJ found in the ranking. I had left out some challenges in December. Fixed now with updated table to follow sometime today or tomorrow.

Lot's of red down arrows...
Pack went down for beating the higher ranked (at the time) IA? Hate to see what beating Myth is going to do to our ranking!

actually if i am reading this right your IA win was in the prior update you had no wins in December so it only makes sense for you to drop a bit in ratting

and you actually went from 7 to 6 in rank it self due to BOTFM loosing to OSA

The PACK didn't drop. I don't think that arrow thing works. If it does, it's probably screwed up from me dicking with it and getting a bunch of different rankings while I'm ironing out the kinks.

Gunn217 wrote:The PACK didn't drop. I don't think that arrow thing works. If it does, it's probably screwed up from me dicking with it and getting a bunch of different rankings while I'm ironing out the kinks.

ya i think ur right ur arrow system is not working i noticed when i was inputting and comparing like krot was not 1 last month but it said they did not change

Quick question, are ACC ties still included?

How about Random Suicide Tournament and / or Random League?

The ACC games are included, at half price. The suicide tournaments are not,as of now, included. Cheme's thing didn't have enough games to be included in my opinion. Benga's could be included if you took both sets. I'm not inclined to include them at this point since people didn't know they would be included at the onset.

Thanks for the rapid response Gunn

Yeah, I think 1/2 of the total points score is the easiest way (Farang's post here seems to suggest either that, or looking at game types seperately).

For what it is worth I am against the random tournaments being included....9 games is not a good point to start...Especially only being allowed to use 4 players a set

What are the requirements for a clan to appear on this system?

SOH completed a war and 2 rounds of the ACC last year, their first year of excistence. Adding this incase its as simple as must have completed x number of wars.

Something about the weight score achieved thru wars. That is a question that FD would have to answer, I have no idea.

Gunn217 wrote:Something about the weight score achieved thru wars. That is a question that FD would have to answer, I have no idea.

Thank you for the quick responce.

I'm fairly new to the forum so am slow on old players or certain lingo, but am I right in reading FD is a player on a break? If so, I will wait for his return and SOH to be a record high new entry on the table!!

cookie0117 wrote:

Gunn217 wrote:Something about the weight score achieved thru wars. That is a question that FD would have to answer, I have no idea.

Thank you for the quick responce.

I'm fairly new to the forum so am slow on old players or certain lingo, but am I right in reading FD is a player on a break? If so, I will wait for his return and SOH to be a record high new entry on the table!!

FarangDemon is the guy who started this ranking. He's a math wiz and knows what's what. I know that if SoH plays a few wars, they'll be included. It's a matter of enough games played, I think.

Yes..I believe you must earn a weight of 150 before you enter the rankings...it's just a matter of having enough results, or a big enough sample size to make your ranking stable and relevant compared to clans with more history. Even with 150 weight, I think newer clans come into the rankings higher than they should and clans also get too much credit for beating new clans...but oh well...what can ya do...still a pretty good system.