Clan Rankings - RPI Version [Archived]

[andy_is_awesome]

This might be too complicated, but perhaps we can give heightened importance to more recent wins/losses? Clans change and evolve over time as players come and go and this would have more of a bearing on current clan status. I'm not sure how that would be incorporated into a reliability factor, but maybe something like the importance/value of wins falls of by 20% each year or something.

i think regardless of who is in a clan, it is the clan that is competing and not the individuals. which individuals participated in what challenges should make no difference, because they were fighting under the same moniker. clans may change and evolve, players come and go, but i see no reason why this should be a factor...

I agree that games from 3 years ago shouldn't bear any weight on how my clan is currently ranked. In college football, they do pre-season rankings based on the last years record, but last years games don't play an importance on where the teams are ranked at the end of the current season. Just used as a starting point for the current season.

And how is Water's Fury ranked higher than the Agents of Chaos?
We beat them 13-7 and that was when we sucked.
viewtopic.php?f=442&t=79935
I think using challenge sizes to determine ladder rank is going to keep the ladder skewed in favor of the clans that play more. Just because a clan plays small challenges and less often, doesn't mean that they aren't better than a clan that plays bigger and more often. Thoughts?

(Not sure if my name is on the CLA list, but GrimReaper and Darthblood are in. I was just promoted to help them with the clan and wanted to make a comment.)

[jpcloet]

And how is Water's Fury ranked higher than the Agents of Chaos?
We beat them 13-7 and that was when we sucked.

You have to take into consideration OWP and OOWP. Water's Fury has played better competition in terms of facing Sky Force. AOC has only faced WF, and is currently beating up an un-ranked clan. I suspect that you will leap ahead of them with that win, but until you face some more solid proven clans, you will be near the lower end. I would suggest going up a level and try taking on Mythology or a clan of that ranking, or even higher if you feel you are ready. LOD is pretty much ready for their next challenge.

I think using challenge sizes to determine ladder rank is going to keep the ladder skewed in favor of the clans that play more. Just because a clan plays small challenges and less often, doesn't mean that they aren't better than a clan that plays bigger and more often. Thoughts?

Once a clan hits 3 completed matches and more than 60 games, the factor moves to 1.00. The general opinion is that 40 games is where you get a much better indication of talent and skill for one challenge. Everything we've seen so far tells me that the ladder is working the way it should. Plus after 180 games, the league seems to be showing very similar results among the top clans.

[HardAttack]

Just Curious and maybe i missed it.... but are the results of our divisional 20 game sets going to actually go down on Record as clan war results ?

I understand they are being factored into the clan ladder RPI ratings but i looked in a couple threads and couldn't find this being discussed.

IMO i think they should go down on record as a clan war. anyone else

jp said he was going to count it if they are 20 games completed vs the same clan


however, I disagree and do not think this should be counted as 20 games, as 20 games is too small of a sample and I suggest none should be counted unless it is at least 40 games or more against one clan, perhaps we should put this to a vote. With 40 games or more, more games the better tends to help measure skill a little more and evens out the luck drops and dice factors, after all, we all would like this clan ladder rating system to reflect skill more than luck, I personally would like it 60 to 100 games, but, to be fair, a minimum of 40 is a good measurement.



respectfully, blitz

The above examples are based on extremes. Being a mid class clan, Nemesis, is a tough one and full of passionate players and friends. We are new, barely 1 years old.
The above statement suggests to put the clan challenges into wastebasket which has been played based on less than 40 games. No no no ! This has no sense.
The comment, as soon as to be valid from now on, valid on the future clan challenges, then very valueable and wellcomed here. However, if it has sanction on previously completed challenges, then i strongly reject the idea. Then it slightly turns out to be backing of some specific clans who made their challenges fitting with the above criteria.
I have reasons :
1./ Such a rule/custom whatever had never been acknowledged, personally i have never known it before. As a nemesis clan member, it wasnt very tough for me to arrange my challenges in order them to have 40 games if i knew of such an application would take place. We currently have 40 and 30 games based completed two challenges. We won both and now going into a 3rd one which is going to be based on 32 games. What the above idea suggests now, it says me to send my one of very glorious clan challenge into wastebasket. This is very non sense man The 30 game based one, we took it against I.B. and won 19 - 11. What is not reliable with this ?
You simply will ignore this challenge, thereby you will give additional points to I.B. and will clean some points from nemesis. No, you should not do this. Instead of doing this, count the challenge as 25-15 it s when you normalize the 19-11 score based on 40 games.
2./ In real life law suit, no new rule can fine any previous case !!! You should not cancel the previous challenges but must maybe set a rule for clans to have their clan challenges to have minimum 40 games to be valid starting from today.
3./ Assume i had my challenges based on 40 games, then 1 year later, someone is going to come and say that 40 is not reliable. Lets make it 60. Then what ? Should i again put my 40 game based clan wars in waste again ?

Mate, your point is excellent, just you are missing only one point. You should not ignore previous challenges especially 30 games series.

[Lindax]

I personally think a minimum of 20 games is enough.

If it is decided that it will be 40 games, can you still take the results of 20+ game clan wars until now into account? I do not think it's fair that a change like that voids all results of clan wars with less than 40 games.

Lx

[jpcloet]

Agreed, going forward would require a vote. I suggest waiting a bit to vote on this due to some things I have possibly in the works as a clan director.

[GrimReaper.]

just curious, why is waters fury ahead of us?

[jpcloet]

just curious, why is waters fury ahead of us?

I answered this already.
viewtopic.php?f=438&t=90907&start=30#p2111585
You need to face some decent clans.

[jpcloet]

Table updated to include overall win% and the record included in the calculation. There are several ties from the league sets. Also updated for the Gold-Silver-Bronze color suggestion received via pm.

[HardAttack]

Looking nice Jpcloet

[Scott-Land]

Can you explain the W-L-T , Jp.

[Blitzaholic]

I personally think a minimum of 20 games is enough.

If it is decided that it will be 40 games, can you still take the results of 20+ game clan wars until now into account? I do not think it's fair that a change like that voids all results of clan wars with less than 40 games.

Lx

20 games is a JOKE

Agreed, going forward would require a vote. I suggest waiting a bit to vote on this due to some things I have possibly in the works as a clan director.

How can you agree?

Only weaker clans it benefits with luck dice and drop factors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The more game the better to even this out some, it's common sense

Gimme a break, pfffft, if you all don't agree with 40, at least meet me in the middle and consider 30, geeeez, am i alone on this? Speak UP

[jpcloet]

Can you explain the W-L-T , Jp.

W-L-T is the overall record of both challenges and the clan league 20 sets. Don't forget some of the results from the clan league are in there too.

[jpcloet]

How can you agree?

I can agree that more games means a better understanding of skill. If we went to 30 as the min, how would you suggest dealing with the 16 sets in the Season 2 league? Multiply by 2 maybe?

[Blitzaholic]

How can you agree?

I can agree that more games means a better understanding of skill. If we went to 30 as the min, how would you suggest dealing with the 16 sets in the Season 2 league? Multiply by 2 maybe?

I would suggest the clan league to be separate and not effect the clan rankings at all.

only clan challenges of at least 30 games should factor into that, I suggest 40, but, I guess I could wiggle some.


The clan league as being separate is a bragging right for any and all who may not be in 1st place on clan ladder or rankings or may not ever get there, but at least they can say they won a clan league season once

[Scott-Land]

Can you explain the W-L-T , Jp.

W-L-T is the overall record of both challenges and the clan league 20 sets. Don't forget some of the results from the clan league are in there too.

Is that divisional matches ? I honestly don't agree with rolling League into Clan War Results but if it's to get a more accurate assessment then so be it. BUT to roll in the win/loss record for 10 game sets ( I think that's what you're doing ) is terrible. Some of us pride ourselves being unbeaten in clan challenges. Granted if that loss came from 40 game league set but it's coming off 10 or possibly 20. It's not a clan challenge and we shouldn't be penalized for something we're not playing.

Agreed, going forward would require a vote. I suggest waiting a bit to vote on this due to some things I have possibly in the works as a clan director.

How can you agree?

Only weaker clans it benefits with luck dice and drop factors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The more game the better to even this out some, it's common sense

I'm right there with you Blitz. 10 / 20 games are not something they should consider.

[Bruceswar]

I too have also said the clan league should never count towards this ladder. As for the minimum game count. 20 is OK for an entry level clan to get their feet wet. Most clans want to play 40 or more games, so that is not a problem with counting the lesser matches.

[ahunda]

How about counting the results of an entire league season as one total instead as a couple of 10-20 game challenges ?

jpcloet posted in the thread of the current THOTA - DBC challenge, what result THOTA needs in that challenge, in order to gain any points for the ladder. Couldn´t the results of the league be calculated in a similar manner ?

- Calculate average strength / rating of opponents faced.
- Based on that, calculate result (wins - losses) needed by any given clan to gain points for the ladder.
- Calculate points won / lost for the ladder.

The result would then be based on 180 games against different opponents (for season 1). That should be enough to cancel out the luck factor.

In the ladder statistics we would then see official challenge results and league results as separate and different categories (adding another column for league results to that table in the first post), but both counting towards the overall ladder ranking.

Accordingly the 10-20 game sets of the league would then simply fall in a different category than official challenges. Clans could still pride themselves on their unbeaten challenges record. Just not unbeaten in league matches (I think, there is not a single clan, that did not lose at least one of these sets).

Some clans could then start teasing the big ones with their victory in a league match, the big ones could then indignantly refute this nonsense, because no one in his right mind could take such a small sample serious, and so the teasing & bragging & arguing can continue, and everybody is happy ...

I just think, that the league is quite a major event in terms of clan competition at the site and shouldn´t be left out here. Each of us did play 180 competitive clan games there after all ...

[jpcloet]

I'll have to compare the calculations 2 ways.

1. Using the actual results
2. Using a fictional "Average Clan" of all the clans involved.

In theory, I don't think the results would change much, although, it will affect W-L-T by only 1 now instead of 7.

Do you figure out the fictitious clan at the beginning or the end? I think D1 would be ok at the beginning, D2 has a number of clans with not enough history (less than 1.00 reliability factors) and likely should be at the end.

[Blitzaholic]

Can you explain the W-L-T , Jp.

W-L-T is the overall record of both challenges and the clan league 20 sets. Don't forget some of the results from the clan league are in there too.

Is that divisional matches ? I honestly don't agree with rolling League into Clan War Results but if it's to get a more accurate assessment then so be it. BUT to roll in the win/loss record for 10 game sets ( I think that's what you're doing ) is terrible. Some of us pride ourselves being unbeaten in clan challenges. Granted if that loss came from 40 game league set but it's coming off 10 or possibly 20. It's not a clan challenge and we shouldn't be penalized for something we're not playing.

Agreed, going forward would require a vote. I suggest waiting a bit to vote on this due to some things I have possibly in the works as a clan director.

How can you agree?

Only weaker clans it benefits with luck dice and drop factors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The more game the better to even this out some, it's common sense

I'm right there with you Blitz. 10 / 20 games are not something they should consider.

ty scott for speaking up.


I for one will NOT be playing in season 2 if clan league is counted towards clan challenges.

[jpcloet]

Would you be comfortable with disclosing 2 ladders?

RPI Clan Ladder - Challenges only
RPI Clan Ladder - Comprehensive

[Blitzaholic]

Would you be comfortable with disclosing 2 ladders?

RPI Clan Ladder - Challenges only
RPI Clan Ladder - Comprehensive

YES, Like I said, they should be separate.

thank you for considering.

1. RPI Clan Ladder - Challenges only-minimum 40 games
2. RPI Clan Ladder - League or Comprehensive-minimum 20 games

[ahunda]

I for one will NOT be playing in season 2 if clan league is counted towards clan challenges.

Did you read my suggestion, Blitz ?

I understand the concerns about counting 10-20 game sets as challenges for the ladder. But could you live with taking the 180 league games as one big total ? That are far more than your suggested 40 game minimum for official challenges, and it should really rule out the luck factor. After all, at the end of the season most clans ended up, where one would expect it.

I repeat: Each participating clan played 180 competitive games in the league. Do you want to throw these results out of the window ? Or could we find a way to incorporate them into the ladder ?

And to clarify my suggestion: The league results would count towards the ladder, but not as a challenge.

The current table in the first posts shows Grade, Win % and W-L-T. I would add another column for league results and remove them from Win % and W-L-T. Thus the league would be in a category of its own, having no impact on the challenge record of clans, but still count towards the overall ranking (Grade).

I'll have to compare the calculations 2 ways.

1. Using the actual results
2. Using a fictional "Average Clan" of all the clans involved.

I´m not really good in these things, but if you calculated the fictional "average clan", wouldn´t you simply need to take the overall wins / losses for one calculation per clan ?

In theory, I don't think the results would change much, although, it will affect W-L-T by only 1 now instead of 7.

As stated, I wouldn´t count it as a challenge, but put it in a separate category of its own. Taking it out of the W-L-T record for official challenges altogether.

And one difference would be, that all 180 games would count, not only the 80 of your division.

Do you figure out the fictitious clan at the beginning or the end? I think D1 would be ok at the beginning, D2 has a number of clans with not enough history (less than 1.00 reliability factors) and likely should be at the end.

I guess, I´d do it at the end. So challenges, that took place during the season, are considered already.

1. RPI Clan Ladder - Challenges only-minimum 40 games
2. RPI Clan Ladder - League or Comprehensive-minimum 20 games

Couldn´t we assign some kind of quotient to challenges, so that their impact on the ladder is directly related to the size / scale of the challenge ? A 60 game challenge counting as much as three 20 game challenges ?

Small & new clans would have the option to try out smaller challenges, whilst established big clans would be free to set their individual minimum game numbers for challenges.

[Blitzaholic]

I did ahunda, again, bruce, scott, myself, many others, think they should be separate.

this way if one clan is # 1 in one area, at least another clan could be # 1 in another area.

gives more clans things to shoot for, for example: some go for score, some go for medals, some play sequential, others freestyle, some clans will go for clan challenge ladder rankings, some for clan league rankings.

If and when separated THOTA would be currently # 1 in both areas and if you did not have a chance to surpass them in one area, you more likely could more easily in another area.


It's a little more work for JP to separate the stats, but, in the long run, it will be worth in. always nice to have options and more than one way for a clan to reach # 1.

[ahunda]

Well. To be honest: I think, you (and Scott) are mostly concerned about your unbeaten challenge record. Both THOTA and the Monkeys now have a loss in the ladder statistics, because you lost one of your 20-game-sets in the league. And you would like to get rid of that. Scott made that quite clear, I think:

BUT to roll in the win/loss record for 10 game sets ( I think that's what you're doing ) is terrible. Some of us pride ourselves being unbeaten in clan challenges. Granted if that loss came from 40 game league set but it's coming off 10 or possibly 20. It's not a clan challenge and we shouldn't be penalized for something we're not playing.

Perfectly understandable, and I too agree with that. I believe, my suggestion would solve the issue though, because the league results would NOT count as a challenge. The 20-game-sets would NOT count in the win-loss record of clan challenges.

The more game the better to even this out some, it's common sense

With that same logic, how can you be opposed to including 180 competitive clan league games in the ladder ?

Clans did compete & prove their worth/strength over months. Those results, when added to the ladder (but NOT as a challenge) should only add to the significance/validity of the ladder, as it would be based on a much larger sample of games.

I honestly see no reason whatsoever to have separate ladders for challenges & league.

[Bones2484]

I honestly see no reason whatsoever to have separate ladders for challenges & league.

Ditto. And I have no problem with 20 games, even though I think 30/40 is much more preferable.