Conquer Club

F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Abandoned challenges and other old information.

Moderator: Clan Directors

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby Hamanu on Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:34 pm

We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof :D
User avatar
Brigadier Hamanu
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:15 am
Location: Opatija

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby DoomYoshi on Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:49 am

DYN should be above BOTFM, but other than that, this table looks good. Pros/Cons of both systems.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby IcePack on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:14 pm

Hamanu wrote:We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof :D


Yeah as I explained, some clans disappeared due to not enough info within the 12 month cut off period. Something to consider is lowering the weight requirement of 150 for a 12 month rating, but then newer clans would show up faster without having a very deep war record.

As stated above, pros and cons to both systems. Tho overall I think 2 year is going to be more accurate.

IcePack
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16524
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby TheCrown on Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:05 pm

IcePack wrote:
Hamanu wrote:We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof :D


Yeah as I explained, some clans disappeared due to not enough info within the 12 month cut off period. Something to consider is lowering the weight requirement of 150 for a 12 month rating, but then newer clans would show up faster without having a very deep war record.

As stated above, pros and cons to both systems. Tho overall I think 2 year is going to be more accurate.

IcePack


2 year or all time? If 2 year, then TNC's first 5 wars (all losses) should be erased off soon.
User avatar
Colonel TheCrown
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:25 pm
Location: California, US

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby BGtheBrain on Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:06 pm

*****
Last edited by BGtheBrain on Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Captain BGtheBrain
 
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby IcePack on Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:24 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:
TheCrown wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Hamanu wrote:We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof :D


Yeah as I explained, some clans disappeared due to not enough info within the 12 month cut off period. Something to consider is lowering the weight requirement of 150 for a 12 month rating, but then newer clans would show up faster without having a very deep war record.

As stated above, pros and cons to both systems. Tho overall I think 2 year is going to be more accurate.

IcePack


2 year or all time? If 2 year, then TNC's first 5 wars (all losses) should be erased off soon.

it goes 2 years currently.


This, the F400 currently reflects last 24 months.
Last edited by IcePack on Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16524
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby patrickaa317 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:42 pm

IcePack wrote:
BGtheBrain wrote:
TheCrown wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Hamanu wrote:We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof :D


Yeah as I explained, some clans disappeared due to not enough info within the 12 month cut off period. Something to consider is lowering the weight requirement of 150 for a 12 month rating, but then newer clans would show up faster without having a very deep war record.

As stated above, pros and cons to both systems. Tho overall I think 2 year is going to be more accurate.

IcePack


2 year or all time? If 2 year, then TNC's first 5 wars (all losses) should be erased off soon.

it goes 2 years currently.


This, the F400 currently reflects last 48 months.


So the F400 goes currently goes 4 years???
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby IcePack on Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:15 pm

patrickaa317 wrote:
IcePack wrote:
BGtheBrain wrote:
TheCrown wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Hamanu wrote:We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof :D


Yeah as I explained, some clans disappeared due to not enough info within the 12 month cut off period. Something to consider is lowering the weight requirement of 150 for a 12 month rating, but then newer clans would show up faster without having a very deep war record.

As stated above, pros and cons to both systems. Tho overall I think 2 year is going to be more accurate.

IcePack


2 year or all time? If 2 year, then TNC's first 5 wars (all losses) should be erased off soon.

it goes 2 years currently.


This, the F400 currently reflects last 24* months.


So the F400 goes currently goes 4 years???


Sorry, fixed*. I was pretty tired earlier. 2 years, 24 months.
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16524
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby agentcom on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:24 am

IcePack wrote:
Sorry, fixed*. I was pretty tired earlier. 2 years, 24 months.


2 years and 24 months? So what you're saying is 4 years, right? ;)
User avatar
Brigadier agentcom
 
Posts: 3980
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby IcePack on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:06 am

agentcom wrote:
IcePack wrote:
Sorry, fixed*. I was pretty tired earlier. 2 years, 24 months.


2 years and 24 months? So what you're saying is 4 years, right? ;)


I hate you lol
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16524
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby Leehar on Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:07 am

i thought the history went back 6 years?
show
User avatar
Colonel Leehar
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:12 pm
Location: Johannesburg

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby Dako on Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:34 am

War value decays 25% every 6 months.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Dako
 
Posts: 3987
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:07 am
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby laughingcavalier on Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:46 am

There is an easy way to test this, at least at the top of the table.
6 of the top 7 clans under the one year system are playing each other currently.
TOFU, TSM, Empire get their best or the same ranking position on a 2 year ranking.
PACK, AFOS,AOC get their best places under a 1 year ranking
So if TOFU beat PACK
Empire beat AOC
TSM beat AFOS
The 2 year ranking is a more accurate reflection of the relative strength of clans
But if
PACK beat TOFU
AOC beat EMP
AFOS beat TSM
Then the 1 year ranking is better
Image
Major laughingcavalier
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:31 pm

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:22 pm

I disagree that you can extrapolate that to the rest of the clans.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby Foxglove on Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:38 pm

laughingcavalier wrote:There is an easy way to test this, at least at the top of the table.


DoomYoshi wrote:I disagree that you can extrapolate that to the rest of the clans.


He pretty clearly said that the test was for the top of the table.

And very good point, LC! We will see. :)

Incidentally, anyone who is willing to do enough data mining can probably determine which formula is more accurate based on the past year's results. If you calculate the 1-year results for the past 12-15 months, you can determine whether or not the 1-year or 2-year formula more accurately predicted the winners of the previous year's challenges.
Brigadier Foxglove
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:05 pm

Re: F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby benga on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:44 pm

The thing is, that 1year ranking better reflects current form of clans.

The 2 year is better for overall ranking.
User avatar
Sergeant benga
 
Posts: 6925
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:15 pm

Next

Return to Clan Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users