Page 1 of 80

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:27 pm
by chemefreak
IcePack wrote:
I understand the system fairly well id say. If you want to clarify what you mean by "the OTP issue" perhaps I can be of some help here.

IcePack


I'm glad to hear it. Can you explain how Otpisani is so highly ranked? Due to results in file and decay factors, along with the weighting that is involved there is most likely an error in the data. Are you able to locate it? Or did you just find an anomaly in the formula?

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:31 pm
by IcePack
I'll look into it tonight, @ work currently.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:41 pm
by chemefreak
IcePack wrote:I'll look into it tonight, @ work currently.


No worries. My hope is that it is a simple fix. Everyone seems to like this ranking system so much.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:44 pm
by Foxglove
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:I'll look into it tonight, @ work currently.


No worries. My hope is that it is a simple fix. Everyone seems to like this ranking system so much.


It's been, by far, the best one that we've ever had.

And by "best" I mean there have been fewer complaints that it's inaccurate than any of the other systems we've used over the years.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:46 pm
by chemefreak
Foxglove wrote:
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:I'll look into it tonight, @ work currently.


No worries. My hope is that it is a simple fix. Everyone seems to like this ranking system so much.


It's been, by far, the best one that we've ever had.

And by "best" I mean there have been fewer complaints that it's inaccurate than any of the other systems we've used over the years.


Amen.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:09 pm
by Crazyirishman
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:
I understand the system fairly well id say. If you want to clarify what you mean by "the OTP issue" perhaps I can be of some help here.

IcePack


I'm glad to hear it. Can you explain how Otpisani is so highly ranked? Due to results in file and decay factors, along with the weighting that is involved there is most likely an error in the data. Are you able to locate it? Or did you just find an anomaly in the formula?


Quite simple I think. 1.) Start new clan 2.) Win your 1st two clan challenges 3.) Enjoy a spot in the top 10

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:39 pm
by chemefreak
Crazyirishman wrote:
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:
I understand the system fairly well id say. If you want to clarify what you mean by "the OTP issue" perhaps I can be of some help here.

IcePack


I'm glad to hear it. Can you explain how Otpisani is so highly ranked? Due to results in file and decay factors, along with the weighting that is involved there is most likely an error in the data. Are you able to locate it? Or did you just find an anomaly in the formula?


Quite simple I think. 1.) Start new clan 2.) Win your 1st two clan challenges 3.) Enjoy a spot in the top 10


That is not the way the Algorithm should function. My money is on an incorrect piece of data. If it is not, then the formula needs examined to see if it is an inherent issue or one created by the transfer of knowledge from FD to Gunn to Ice.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:21 pm
by IcePack
chemefreak wrote:
Crazyirishman wrote:
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:
I understand the system fairly well id say. If you want to clarify what you mean by "the OTP issue" perhaps I can be of some help here.

IcePack


I'm glad to hear it. Can you explain how Otpisani is so highly ranked? Due to results in file and decay factors, along with the weighting that is involved there is most likely an error in the data. Are you able to locate it? Or did you just find an anomaly in the formula?


Quite simple I think. 1.) Start new clan 2.) Win your 1st two clan challenges 3.) Enjoy a spot in the top 10


That is not the way the Algorithm should function. My money is on an incorrect piece of data. If it is not, then the formula needs examined to see if it is an inherent issue or one created by the transfer of knowledge from FD to Gunn to Ice.


Well I haven't looked into the specifics yet, but the top 10 are merely 200 points away from "starting" positions. To gain weight you need 3-4 clan scores entered into the mix, and I believe if you win all of them you can "debut" in top ten (whether you stay there is another matter).

The same scenario happened with LHDD entering the top 10 after New Comers Cup 2, although (I believe) they've slowly drifted downwards from there.

The rating system is fairly reflective of clan strength, essentially the only "complaints" that I remember seeing in the past two threads are of new clans being able to peak relatively high.

For OTP however, I will check all data and ensure the information provided the algorithm is correct. Rest assured, even if the current spot is "correct" as OTP plays more clan wars they should theoretically "settle" where they more accurately should be.

IcePack

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:25 pm
by John Deere
That shouldn't be right Ice. We had to win something like 8 wars straight to get in the top 10. And one of those where in the top 10.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:38 pm
by IcePack
John Deere wrote:That shouldn't be right Ice. We had to win something like 8 wars straight to get in the top 10. And one of those where in the top 10.


I just got home (worked some massive OT today) so I'll start checking some stats.

IcePack

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:40 pm
by chemefreak
IcePack wrote:
John Deere wrote:That shouldn't be right Ice. We had to win something like 8 wars straight to get in the top 10. And one of those where in the top 10.


I just got home (worked some massive OT today) so I'll start checking some stats.

IcePack


Ice, no hurry man. There is nothing starting soon that will rely on the F400. Plus, we don't want you to burn out too fast as the "Keeper of the Ranks" :D

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:54 pm
by IcePack
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:
John Deere wrote:That shouldn't be right Ice. We had to win something like 8 wars straight to get in the top 10. And one of those where in the top 10.


I just got home (worked some massive OT today) so I'll start checking some stats.

IcePack


Ice, no hurry man. There is nothing starting soon that will rely on the F400. Plus, we don't want you to burn out too fast as the "Keeper of the Ranks" :D


I don't think i'll burn out, this kinda stuff really interests me ;) I only wish i could do more!
IcePack

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:26 pm
by MudPuppy
IcePack wrote:I don't think i'll burn out, this kinda stuff really interests me ;) I only wish i could do more!
IcePack

Awesome attitude, Ice. Thanks for taking on yet another project to improve the CC/clan world.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:01 pm
by IcePack
Notes re: OTP

Started before 02/24/12 w/ 1000 pts. No decay until "earned" points thru wars.

OTP vs AKA 28-13 02/24/12 decayed approx 20%
Earned 1012 PointsTotal @ 41 "Weight" (AKA rated 850) OTP Tied 18th
OTP vs BOTFM 8-4 03/28/12 decayed approx 16%
Earned 1038 Points Total @ 51 "Weight" (BOTFM rated 1073) OTP Ranked 18th
PACK vs OTP 7-5 03/28/12 decayed approx 16%
Earned 1056 Points Total @ 63 "Weight" (PACK rated 1242) OTP Ranked 16th
DYN vs OTP 7-5 03/28/12 decayed approx 16%
Earned 1011 Points Total @ 75 "Weight" (DYN rated 1051) OTP Ranked 20th
OTP vs RA 8-4 03/28/12 decayed approx 16%
Earned 1035 Points Total @ 87 "Weight" (RA rated 847) OTP Ranked 19th
OTP vs TNC 39-22 04/08/12 decayed approx 12%
Earned 1138 Points Total @ 148 "Weight" (TNC rated 974) OTP Ranked 10th
OTP vs TFFS 24-17 06/01/12 decayed approx 9%
Earned 1157 Points Total @ 177 "Weight" (TFFS rated 946) OTP Ranked 10th

Please keep in mind I had to lower one factor so they would "show" on rankings so early as their first war, the way its built they need 150 weight to be factored in (because it can skew results a bit without the weight) and they dont reach 150 weight until TNC war.

Essentially, since they've had so many wars factored in, in a short time period they are able to gain some points faster than other clans. Also, they / TNC were fairly "equal" when they faced each other (ranking wise) and so when they scored such a high win rate vs a "equal" clan it boosts them. Just like PACK war, they should have been "severely" out ranked by PACK but kept it close, so it actually gave them a (small) bump in the ratings. (this is why CL wars are less weighted I believe) Tho i am a bit surprised at how large a jump based on a single war but I believe its based on the algo expectations for war score were greatly exceeded.

One thing cheme to keep in mind (please take this as constructive criticism, if i may) but adding large amounts of clan results on the same day can actually have an effect on clan scores as the date and order of challenges in database does have some effect within rankings. So if we could more accurately submit them on day of completion (and avoid doing them all at once on same day...or if you do that, perhaps moving to completed but date them when the challenges finish) so the challenges are entered as completed. Its a small difference, but it does make a difference.

But, I redid the database until reaching each one of OTP matches and scored based on the end of those dates each time. All appears to be working the way it should. I will keep looking into it a bit more...

IcePack

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:30 am
by benga
Can you explain then how KORT got 10 pts w/o any new results coming in for them
and OSA got only 31 for winning 2 wars??

This was meant as a change from last month.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:38 am
by MichelSableheart
So basically it's big wins against middle clans, small losses against strong clans, all relatively recent to guarantee that the results haven't decayed yet which gives them a strong score?

@Benga: I would guess (without looking at the actual data) that KORT gaining points without new result comes from a severe loss decaying.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:00 am
by Qwert
nothing strange here, this list are update once per month, that why people have surprised how some clans jump in table.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:57 am
by Leehar
benga wrote:Can you explain then how KORT got 10 pts w/o any new results coming in for them
and OSA got only 31 for winning 2 wars??

This was meant as a change from last month.

clan league?

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:11 am
by Chariot of Fire
Leehar wrote:
benga wrote:Can you explain then how KORT got 10 pts w/o any new results coming in for them
and OSA got only 31 for winning 2 wars??

This was meant as a change from last month.

clan league?


That's what I'd have put it down to, but there are no June results for KORT in the list under the OP.

Brownie points?

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:36 am
by IcePack
@ benga...leaving for work, but happy to look into this as well. Although the previous explanation seems to fit my initial thoughts

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:43 am
by chemefreak
IcePack wrote:One thing cheme to keep in mind (please take this as constructive criticism, if i may) but adding large amounts of clan results on the same day can actually have an effect on clan scores as the date and order of challenges in database does have some effect within rankings. So if we could more accurately submit them on day of completion (and avoid doing them all at once on same day...or if you do that, perhaps moving to completed but date them when the challenges finish) so the challenges are entered as completed. Its a small difference, but it does make a difference.


It doesn't matter when I add them. The date we provide has the end date of the war. So if I do 5 wars today, I list the completion date separately for numbering purposes. Please feel free to update your data accordingly. Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Atustsi2x0-2dDR6TVo4YnhQcWZzeUs0YXNlMHZrd3c&hl=en_US#gid=0

The end date is the date the last game of that war was completed.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:46 am
by IcePack
I don't see any CL results there? The reason I mentioned that is there were quite a glut of same day entries in the info I was provided which effects the rankings.

Examples: 3/28/12 as 4/1/12

I'll take my info and compare to that link.

IcePack

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:50 am
by chemefreak
IcePack wrote:I don't see any CL results there? The reason I mentioned that is there were quite a glut of same day entries in the info I was provided which effects the rankings.

I'll take my info and compare to that link.

IcePack


We don't keep track of CL results. Only wars. Our file is the official record. If there is a glut of entries on certain dates in our data that is because those wars ended on that date. Nothing we can do about that! Also, if wars end on the same date, we try to find the last game played of each war and determine which one ended first. This was extremely important for the ladder and even though that is not active anymore we still pay attention to that variable.

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:54 am
by IcePack
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:I don't see any CL results there? The reason I mentioned that is there were quite a glut of same day entries in the info I was provided which effects the rankings.

I'll take my info and compare to that link.

IcePack


We don't keep track of CL results. Only wars. Our file is the official record. If there is a glut of entries on certain dates in our data that is because those wars ended on that date. Nothing we can do about that! Also, if wars end on the same date, we try to find the last game played of each war and determine which one ended first. This was extremely important for the ladder and even though that is not active anymore we still pay attention to that variable.


Understood. However for CL results that you don't track, do you do the same date entry check when you move to completed? IE: if you move all CL first rounds together do they all bear the same date or do you check the final date on those as well?

IcePack

Re: [New] F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:14 am
by chemefreak
IcePack wrote:
chemefreak wrote:
IcePack wrote:I don't see any CL results there? The reason I mentioned that is there were quite a glut of same day entries in the info I was provided which effects the rankings.

I'll take my info and compare to that link.

IcePack


We don't keep track of CL results. Only wars. Our file is the official record. If there is a glut of entries on certain dates in our data that is because those wars ended on that date. Nothing we can do about that! Also, if wars end on the same date, we try to find the last game played of each war and determine which one ended first. This was extremely important for the ladder and even though that is not active anymore we still pay attention to that variable.


Understood. However for CL results that you don't track, do you do the same date entry check when you move to completed? IE: if you move all CL first rounds together do they all bear the same date or do you check the final date on those as well?

IcePack


They are not moved all at the same time, however, for instance, Phase I - Division X - CL4 was not moved until the final game ended AND the TOs had completely updated all the charts, games, etc. then asked me to move them. (Which could have been days, if not weeks later) So let's say Otpisani had 5 series in the their division. The 1st series may have been over 7-10 weeks prior to it being moved to closed. You will have to go through the games and determine when the last one ended for each series...thus the reason we don't track those!

Also, let me point out one very important thing that goes all the way back to jpcloet...the clan leagues are TOURNAMENTS and not wars. Accordingly, they involve "forced" pairings. jpcloet never wanted to include these in official rankings since they may involve "unfair" challenges. Remember when we would not issue medals for the CCup? This was jpcloet's mandate because the tournament style events encourage unfair match-ups, especially at the beginning. Now, what changed with the CCup was the "go live" of the leap ladder. Basically, in the leap system, the rankings would not be effected by a high ranked clan demolishing a low ranked clan since there would be no movement on the ladder. This is what finally allowed the CCup match-ups to get medals and have their results included on the war tables. The CL match-ups are forced, way too small to yield accurate results, and a bitch to track the "mini-wars" contained therein. They also include map restrictions that apply to other challenges. So within each mini-challenge you can only use a map once. So by playing a clan earlier you have a wider range of maps to choose. Thus, the later games are not entirely reflective of the strength of your clan since you were map limited by the tournament structure.

Everyone likes the F400 because it pops out rankings that seem right. Which is fine with us. We are glad that it seems to work for everyone. However, if you really look into it, you will see real shortcomings of a formula like this when you start tracking different types of events using only one formula.

My advice would be to go through every CL event and determine when each "mini-war" ended to accurately get your results. However, since everyone's results would be skewed equally, perhaps pick the end date of the last one to end overall and use that result for EVERY "mini-war" for that certain event, at that level. Then your results may be skewed, but all done so equally, especially with the decay factor coming into play.