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.

F-400 Rankings with 1 year instead of 2 years

Postby BGtheBrain on Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:50 am

*****
Last edited by BGtheBrain on Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:28 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 MoB Deadly on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:21 am

Image
Image
Art by: codierose | High Score: 2550
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class MoB Deadly
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:07 am

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

Postby Dako on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:29 am

frequent and numerous wars are important

Wrong.
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 BGtheBrain on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:37 am

*****
Last edited by BGtheBrain on Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:28 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 17, 2012 11:10 am

I didn't look at this to closely when I drafted it for you, however looking at it today my interest is peaked as to how it affects the score(s) and interested to see the graphs. Some of those #'s seem awfully strange.
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 Swifte on Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:28 am

Can we get the "change" column for this to reflect the difference between the 2 year and 1 year ranking rather than a 9-15 1 year ranking? That's what I think we're more interested in.
User avatar
Colonel Swifte
 
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: usually Mahgreb
3

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

Postby IcePack on Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:55 am

Swifte wrote:Can we get the "change" column for this to reflect the difference between the 2 year and 1 year ranking rather than a 9-15 1 year ranking? That's what I think we're more interested in.


If I have time tonight to look at this again, I'll edit that into it no problem. I could also do a side by side for 1 year / 2 year
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 Foxglove on Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:31 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:I asked Icepack to provide me with an F-400 using a data cutoff of 1 year instead of 2.
The reasoning? Being in an active clan I feel frequent and numerous wars are important and I was curious to see the impact on the standings.

discuss...


Frequent and numerous wars are much more easily completed by clans that get eliminated early on in clan competitions. Clans that make it to the quarters, semis, and finals of these events are matched up in wars at a slower pace.

Also - I believe that a cutoff date of 1 year is unreasonable when you consider that our premier clan event (Conqueror's Cup) usually lasts about a year. Restricting the cut off date would mean that all results, for example, from the previous year's event might not be considered in the seeding rankings for the next year's event. That feels wrong to me.
Brigadier Foxglove
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:05 pm

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

Postby IcePack on Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:35 pm

Foxglove wrote:
BGtheBrain wrote:I asked Icepack to provide me with an F-400 using a data cutoff of 1 year instead of 2.
The reasoning? Being in an active clan I feel frequent and numerous wars are important and I was curious to see the impact on the standings.

discuss...


Frequent and numerous wars are much more easily completed by clans that get eliminated early on in clan competitions. Clans that make it to the quarters, semis, and finals of these events are matched up in wars at a slower pace.

Also - I believe that a cutoff date of 1 year is unreasonable when you consider that our premier clan event (Conqueror's Cup) usually lasts about a year. Restricting the cut off date would mean that all results, for example, from the previous year's event might not be considered in the seeding rankings for the next year's event. That feels wrong to me.


I tend to agree that 12 months doesn't show the big picture. I've played around with it quite a bit, I think 24 months is a good number. You've got to remember, most of those over 12 months are receiving a certain degree of decay, but still are included to reflect the most recent year(s) event without going way back into history and living off past success.

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 Dako on Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:52 pm

BGtheBrain wrote:Well if were only going to copy part of the statement

BGtheBrain wrote:wars are important

wow look, Im right again

I am not telling that you are wrong. I am saying that short and often wars are not that important and as Foxglove said wars against stronger opponents are much more valuable, harder, longer and rare than other wars.
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 chapcrap on Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:40 pm

Foxglove wrote:Frequent and numerous wars are much more easily completed by clans that get eliminated early on in clan competitions. Clans that make it to the quarters, semis, and finals of these events are matched up in wars at a slower pace.

I disagree with this.

Just because you go deeper into a competition does not mean you can not have the same number of wars as a clan who does not get eliminated. No correlation there. It's just a preference from one clan to another on how many wars they would like to have going on at once and how busy they like to keep themselves.
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

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

Postby IcePack on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:32 pm

Ok guys, here's the update with the comparison to 2 Year F400. Please keep in mind, 4-5 clans got knocked off the list because they didn't have enough data with the 12 year. So a few clans probably got a + comparison, when realistically it was from clans getting dropped off the list. Not sure I can spend much more time on this one right now, so hopefully this is enough info for you guys to discuss and compare with.

Image
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 BGtheBrain on Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:31 am

*****
Last edited by BGtheBrain on Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:28 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 ViperOverLord on Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:07 am

The general statistical rule is that a greater sample size results in greater accuracy. Therefore, I think that two years is a more accurate sample for the rankings; especially since clans may only do two or three major challenges during a year.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California

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

Postby chapcrap on Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:37 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:The general statistical rule is that a greater sample size results in greater accuracy. Therefore, I think that two years is a more accurate sample for the rankings; especially since clans may only do two or three major challenges during a year.

Well, the problem with that is that clans change. They add and lose players. Players get better and more experienced. Players get apathetic and don't pay attention. I think a better argument could be made to use a smaller sample size when it comes to accuracy, because of the other variables.
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

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.
ā–‘ā–’ā–’ā–“ā–“ā–“ā–’ā–’ā–‘
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
Colonel 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

Next

Return to Clan Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users