Moderator: Clan Directors
Dako wrote:Wow, great job. I will look at it again to reread it cause there are a lot of info here.
xxtig12683xx wrote:yea, my fav part was being in the sewer riding a surfboard and wacking these alien creatures.
shit was badass
josko.ri wrote:I very like this system of calculation, results are very reliable I think. decay idea is great. only one complaint, you put 32-28 result in TOFU vs KORT challenge in database, which couldnt be valid. for achieving that result TOFU used forbidden bonus according to the official rules of the challenge, so it shouldnt be validated as regular result.
jpcloet wrote:I have a few question on the final rankings to help clarify.
1) TSM is due to lack of challenges correct?
2) MM seems to be the biggest outlier in my mind, considering the overall quality of opponents. Is S2 playing a part? This is the only real anomaly for me.
3) Is the O&H loss by LOW keeping LOW from the top 3?
4) What does the top 10 look like with a KORT win over THOTA in CCup1?
jpcloet wrote:I have a few question on the final rankings to help clarify.
1) TSM is due to lack of challenges correct?
jpcloet wrote:2) MM seems to be the biggest outlier in my mind, considering the overall quality of opponents. Is S2 playing a part? This is the only real anomaly for me.
jpcloet wrote:3) Is the O&H loss by LOW keeping LOW from the top 3?
jpcloet wrote:4) What does the top 10 look like with a KORT win over THOTA in CCup1?
leehar wrote:I'd think the O&H loss would be too far back to have that much waiting, and it's still a surprise that IA is in the top 3 after losing to Low in their most recent full-scale challenge?
FarangDemon wrote:Tieing Grim Reapers and losing to BSS and Gen 1 gives TSM an 800 weighted at 17%, so that's what is bringing them down the most. I'm guessing that was CL3, so it's recent.
jpcloet wrote:Yes that was CL3, that mean's this is now a fully inclusive measure. Some will argue the league should not be included.
jpcloet wrote:One of the things I did before was to have the final league score against a generic team so that it got some weight as the divisions. More so for CL2.
Eg.
TSM 55 CL3A 45
jpcloet wrote:FarangDemon wrote:Tieing Grim Reapers and losing to BSS and Gen 1 gives TSM an 800 weighted at 17%, so that's what is bringing them down the most. I'm guessing that was CL3, so it's recent.
Yes that was CL3, that mean's this is now a fully inclusive measure. Some will argue the league should not be included. One of the things I did before was to have the final league score against a generic team so that it got some weight as the divisions. More so for CL2.
Eg.
TSM 55 CL3A 45
Dako wrote:I disagree that Div C&D were stronger than Div A&B. You can only tell that one clan was stronger than the other at the moment with given settings, but you cannot propagate it on the whole division strength.
Dako wrote:I didn't say you were wrong in your opinion on "each clan against score of the division" method. I haven't said your point didn't have sense ether. Please read my post more careful next time as it will save breath for both of us .
josko.ri wrote:@ Leehar
do you think that all Divisions were equally stronger/weaker or some Divisions were stronger and other ones were weaker?
Dako wrote:josko.ri wrote:@ Leehar
do you think that all Divisions were equally stronger/weaker or some Divisions were stronger and other ones were weaker?
What does equally stronger mean? I reread your sentence like 3 times and couldn't grasp what you were trying to say.
Rodion wrote:If you want to rank clans against divisions, you need to create several "Frankensteins" for it to work.
josko.ri wrote:equally strong (or) weak. means that noone Division were stronger than any onther Division. true or false?
josko.ri wrote:I wanted to say, that no matter in which Division someone played, it is important which clans they played with. as this system of calculation validate all historical data of all clans, then CL3 results should be validated according to clans faced and their ranking in moment when match was done, and it would be very unfair to just give 55 (wins achieved) vs 45 (average wins in Division) because some Divisions are weaker and some are stronger. numbers and rankings(from previous wars) of clans from particular Division will show which clans were weaker/stronger and therefore validate performance of a clan according to strenght of opponent's clan, not according to average number of wins in a Division.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users