Perception of Top 10 Clans [Annually + Longevity]

[Blitzaholic]

well we just beat Tsm in a barn burn a few weeks ago and they were a strong #2 clan, or 1a. vs 1b. at the time. Tofu has not beat anyone in the top 5 as of yet, it does not mean they can't, but, we would like them to face Tsm or IA, preferably Tsm, before we square off. Where Thota has beat all the top clans year after year and proven it, we would just like to see Tofu do the same, if they beat #3 clan and #2 clan, I am sure we may face off by years end. I have a lot of respect for Tofu clan, but each clan has to prove their worth for the top spot, and earlier in the year of 2010, Tsm did just that, so it was fair for us to play them, they earned their stripes. It was our hardest challenge, Low was our 2nd hardest challenge (with 7 Tofu members in Low) at the time, and we won that was well the year before, and dragoons and bushwackers were a tops the year before that and we beat them as well. All were great battles.

The Cup will play out. They move up taking on the legion.. and if they win there then they get winner of Empire vs KORT. You guys take on Nemesis who winner takes on winner of LoW vs IA

If I was a betting man ... I think you will see IA vs THOTA and KORT vs TOFU


It could very well end up with you guys taking on TOFU or it could be neither of you 2. Of the 8 teams left it is really anybody's ball game to be had. A few slip ups in games could cost you a whole match.

Kort made some terrific pick ups with adding White Moose and Killmanic to their roster, no doubt, you are up and coming and will be a force to reckon with.

[reptile]

I have no clue how you are going to count 40 game challenges or even 60 game challenges as more than a 112 game season that involves EVERYONE, not just who certain clans accept the challenges from. Especially when they turn around and criticize LoW for trying to help out someone trying to just get into the CLA by accepting their challenge after many have already declined it because they weren't "good enough". This is the same clans that you are going to allow their challenges be worth ten times as much as when they HAVE to play the lower ranked clans. Like i said, it is anything but FAIR. in FAIR everyone has an equal chance to prove themselves.

[Blitzaholic]

yah, i really dont see the point of coming up with a list for top clans of 2010 as it is still early in the year. if you did you probably should wait to see the final results of the CLA league and the Conqueror's Cup to decide. Is that not what the league and cup were created for? to give an "equal" chance for each clan to prove their strength... not just a clan challenge where it is 1v1 and done and the "little guys" dont even get a chance?

In my opinion the Cup and CLA should count just as much as clan challenges if not more! But apparently they do not on most ladders. I dont understand it, but at the same time i am not going to lose any sleep over it.

In my opinion it comes down mainly to who you have played against and who you have played against has played against. Your opinion no matter who you are will be very bias. I could make arguments all day for 75% of the active clans on why they should be ranked higher or lower than they are on every ladder i have seen thus far.

If i had to come up with the fairest way to rank clans, it would be very similar to Chuuuuuk's way (all clan leaders vote). Probably have each clans resume made up by someone (that included all challenges and CLA performance and Cup performance up to date), then sent to each clan leader. The clan leader in turn takes all the info and posts it in his own clans private forums, where the ENTIRE clan comes up with their own ranking of the other clans from all the info provided from the resume. Each clan is given a week or two to do this. Then each clan leader sends this list back to whoever is organizing it. Then they basically post what each clan said, as well as the averages.

Then again though, i could just make my own ladder and use 90% the CLA season and 5% challenges and 5% the CCup just to make sure we are #1. But i think CoF might have hit it right on the button

Can't all this go in the thread "Perception of CC's Top Handbag Wielding Clans"?

we won't form a top 10 until towards the end of the year.

The reason the cup and clan season do not count as much is because 1.) they are smaller game samples, and 2.) you are forced to play clans in a format, not negotiated.

Some may be throwing around the idea for top 10 to 15 clans, they may want to consider 60 games minimum.

I like the diea of using JP's formula for the ladder, plus adding a human element merged with it, something like perhaps Chuuuuck's poll on the cup of ranking of clans. The combination of these may reflect the ladder and perception of clans a little more accurately.

[reptile]

I have no clue how you are going to count 40 game challenges or even 60 game challenges as more than a 112 game season that involves EVERYONE, not just who certain clans accept the challenges from. Especially when they turn around and criticize LoW for trying to help out someone trying to just get into the CLA by accepting their challenge after many have already declined it because they weren't "good enough". This is the same clans that you are going to allow their challenges be worth ten times as much as when they HAVE to play the lower ranked clans. Like i said, it is anything but FAIR. in FAIR everyone has an equal chance to prove themselves.

[Blitzaholic]

I am not coming up with anything with JP, it is just some of us in the clans may be viewing it this way in the possible future.

[reptile]

I have no clue how you are going to count 40 game challenges or even 60 game challenges as more than a 112 game season that involves EVERYONE, not just who certain clans accept the challenges from. Especially when they turn around and criticize LoW for trying to help out someone trying to just get into the CLA by accepting their challenge after many have already declined it because they weren't "good enough". This is the same clans that you are going to allow their challenges be worth ten times as much as when they HAVE to play the lower ranked clans. Like i said, it is anything but FAIR. in FAIR everyone has an equal chance to prove themselves.

[Blitzaholic]

I am not coming up with anything with JP, it is just some of us in the clans may be viewing it this way in the possible future.

That is the point, we have to look at the future. I personally believe that the fairest way in the future to rank clans (if you must rank them) would be through tournaments and league's (where everyone has a chance to participate .... not just 2 clans at a time that most clans wont get a chance to face the better ones).

You are talking blind ... think about it.

The clan challenges over many more games is where the ladder has always been determined, the clan seasons and cup influence the ladder little and may become separate at some point reptile. I think the cup and clan seasons are great accomplishments, don't get me wrong, but for example 8 games in clan season against one clan here in there is little compared to Thota vs Tsm 80 games.

[reptile]

I have no clue how you are going to count 40 game challenges or even 60 game challenges as more than a 112 game season that involves EVERYONE, not just who certain clans accept the challenges from. Especially when they turn around and criticize LoW for trying to help out someone trying to just get into the CLA by accepting their challenge after many have already declined it because they weren't "good enough". This is the same clans that you are going to allow their challenges be worth ten times as much as when they HAVE to play the lower ranked clans. Like i said, it is anything but FAIR. in FAIR everyone has an equal chance to prove themselves.

[Blitzaholic]

well i am done arguing this, seems to be no point.

maybe someone else will. though i doubt it because most people in my clan think that the ladders are all BS and i am beyond starting to agree with them.

i am not going to be a pawn to make sure the top clans stay where they are is all. Once someone can explain to me how LoW hurt itself in all the ladders by its performance in the last few months EVEN AFTER THE O&H CHALLENGE while others have not done all that well and have not been hurt at all is beyond me.

I love LoW and the CLA and what is going on there, but i refuse to be a pawn. What happens in the next couple months with both will be a direct result of BS. Enjoy the CLA and your "ranking" ranking.

this thread here reptile is NOT the ladder, JP uses a formula for the ladder. This thread here is a perception of top clans over the past years based off memory of some experienced clan players that have some longevity. I do not have the year 2010 up yet because as you said, we need to wait til later in the year.

What I was suggesting for this thread for me in the future, was borrowing JP's ladder and adding a human element to it, like Chuuuuck cup poll of votes of top clans and factoring that into JP's ladder (merging them) so at least the perception of top clans from years past may be reflected for accurately.


You are correct reptile, the perception of past top clans and the ladder both are NOT perfect, perhaps merging as you suggested earlier I think may serve helpful.

[reptile]

You are right blitz, i guess i am more-so arguing the ladder than this... sorry for bringing my thoughts from that to this.

I edited all my previous posts. no more posts from me

I like what you are doing blitz, keep up the good work with motivation you have (CC seems to leak it out of me... for one)

[Blitzaholic]

You are right blitz, i guess i am more-so arguing the ladder than this... sorry for bringing my thoughts from that to this.

I edited all my previous posts. no more posts from me

I like what you are doing blitz, keep up the good work with motivation you have (CC seems to leak it out of me... for one)

no worries reptile, you know you my boy and I respect you a lot. I think it may be fair to say you are not the only one with concerns of the ladder. It is a challenging task for anyone.

[Kinnison]

Okay, look.

More games in a challenge makes it more probable the winner of the challenge is in fact the stronger clan overall, YES.

But that does NOT invalidate the meaning of a 20 or 30 or 40-game challenge. All any challenge determines is the relative ranking of THOSE TWO CLANS. the length of a challenge should just be as the margin of victory now is... an indicator of how strongly the relative rank of those two clans is established.

G1 is a tournament clan, we like the varying formats, running them, playing them, and the constant change. The likelihood of playing 60 games against the same people, in the same format, even with changing maps... is not high. certainly not on a regular basis. We are far from alone in this. Rule our challenges less than 60 games, and you kill off a huge amount of historical data, and will drastically cut down on the number of clan challenges overall on the site. Sure, your top few clans will still play them, and probably plenty of them...

...and a lot of us will simply proceed to ignore your ladder, and go about our merry way. This is NOT a threat from G1, this is a PERSONAL PREDICTION ONLY. Raise the bar too high for your ladder, and people will ignore it. There's still TLO, CCup, CLA... And frankly, if you make it too hard to get on this ladder, someone will start up another one.

"Oh, that'll be for 'lesser' clans," I can hear you already. Nope. Beating another clan 30-10 is just as valid as winning 40-20... maybe more so. The point of this sort of thing is to include and rank EVERYONE, is it not?

(edit)HECK(/edit), you should put in a divisor for the AGE of a challenge, just to keep people fighting currently, and so results match more recent activity. but don't rule out the smaller challenges, you're doing yourself and the ladder far more of a disservice than any conceivable advantage by doing so.

[jnd94]

*cough* THOTA masturbation *cough*

[Gold Knight]

*cough* THOTA masturbation *cough*

Would that be under the criteria of beastiality, or a completely different subject altogether...?

[reptile]

Nicely put Kinnison

[Gold Knight]

Okay, look.

More games in a challenge makes it more probable the winner of the challenge is in fact the stronger clan overall, YES.

But that does NOT invalidate the meaning of a 20 or 30 or 40-game challenge. All any challenge determines is the relative ranking of THOSE TWO CLANS. the length of a challenge should just be as the margin of victory now is... an indicator of how strongly the relative rank of those two clans is established.

G1 is a tournament clan, we like the varying formats, running them, playing them, and the constant change. The likelihood of playing 60 games against the same people, in the same format, even with changing maps... is not high. certainly not on a regular basis. We are far from alone in this. Rule our challenges less than 60 games, and you kill off a huge amount of historical data, and will drastically cut down on the number of clan challenges overall on the site. Sure, your top few clans will still play them, and probably plenty of them...

...and a lot of us will simply proceed to ignore your ladder, and go about our merry way. This is NOT a threat from G1, this is a PERSONAL PREDICTION ONLY. Raise the bar too high for your ladder, and people will ignore it. There's still TLO, CCup, CLA... And frankly, if you make it too hard to get on this ladder, someone will start up another one.

"Oh, that'll be for 'lesser' clans," I can hear you already. Nope. Beating another clan 30-10 is just as valid as winning 40-20... maybe more so. The point of this sort of thing is to include and rank EVERYONE, is it not?

(edit)HECK(/edit), you should put in a divisor for the AGE of a challenge, just to keep people fighting currently, and so results match more recent activity. but don't rule out the smaller challenges, you're doing yourself and the ladder far more of a disservice than any conceivable advantage by doing so.

I can definately see where this is coming from, though i think it was pointed out awhile ago that it would be "easier" to judge and compare challenges that had similar game counts. I really dont have a problem with 40 at all, think its a good show of the clans regardless. Only reason I might be a little bit biased on challenges lower than 40 is that my clan of AOD has about 15-20 members that are pretty active, and a 20 game challenge wouldnt leave much for participation of our whole clan and would not leave much variety to the challenge besides specialty maps and settings.

As for the age factor, i believe JP already has a decay factor built into the ladder system to make it beneficial to remain active in challenges, so no big worries about that. And i believe that the smaller past challenges have been "grandfathered" in for the most part, though it's tough to tell what the future holds for them. There is still alot of unsolved debates within the clan landscape that have a lot of different viewpoints, challenge size being one of them, so the future is still pretty murky on the subject.

[AgentSmith88]

Okay, look.

More games in a challenge makes it more probable the winner of the challenge is in fact the stronger clan overall, YES.

But that does NOT invalidate the meaning of a 20 or 30 or 40-game challenge. All any challenge determines is the relative ranking of THOSE TWO CLANS. the length of a challenge should just be as the margin of victory now is... an indicator of how strongly the relative rank of those two clans is established.

G1 is a tournament clan, we like the varying formats, running them, playing them, and the constant change. The likelihood of playing 60 games against the same people, in the same format, even with changing maps... is not high. certainly not on a regular basis. We are far from alone in this. Rule our challenges less than 60 games, and you kill off a huge amount of historical data, and will drastically cut down on the number of clan challenges overall on the site. Sure, your top few clans will still play them, and probably plenty of them...

...and a lot of us will simply proceed to ignore your ladder, and go about our merry way. This is NOT a threat from G1, this is a PERSONAL PREDICTION ONLY. Raise the bar too high for your ladder, and people will ignore it. There's still TLO, CCup, CLA... And frankly, if you make it too hard to get on this ladder, someone will start up another one.

"Oh, that'll be for 'lesser' clans," I can hear you already. Nope. Beating another clan 30-10 is just as valid as winning 40-20... maybe more so. The point of this sort of thing is to include and rank EVERYONE, is it not?

(edit)HECK(/edit), you should put in a divisor for the AGE of a challenge, just to keep people fighting currently, and so results match more recent activity. but don't rule out the smaller challenges, you're doing yourself and the ladder far more of a disservice than any conceivable advantage by doing so.

I can definately see where this is coming from, though i think it was pointed out awhile ago that it would be "easier" to judge and compare challenges that had similar game counts. I really dont have a problem with 40 at all, think its a good show of the clans regardless. Only reason I might be a little bit biased on challenges lower than 40 is that my clan of AOD has about 15-20 members that are pretty active, and a 20 game challenge wouldnt leave much for participation of our whole clan and would not leave much variety to the challenge besides specialty maps and settings.

As for the age factor, i believe JP already has a decay factor built into the ladder system to make it beneficial to remain active in challenges, so no big worries about that. And i believe that the smaller past challenges have been "grandfathered" in for the most part, though it's tough to tell what the future holds for them. There is still alot of unsolved debates within the clan landscape that have a lot of different viewpoints, challenge size being one of them, so the future is still pretty murky on the subject.

GK was much nicer in his response than I was going to be. What he said is exactly right - challenges older than 2 years aren't included and the closer they get to being 2 years old the less they factor in. The older small challenges have also been grandfathered in. Basically Kinnison, you are arguing about crap that has already been dealt with. I guess I can't fault you for not wanting to sift through the many pages in this thread, I wouldn't want to either. I'm not sure where 60 games came from either, the suggested minimum is currently at 40 games and I didn't think that was close to changing. The ladder is an attempt to take all the numerical data about challenges amongst clans and trying to rank the clans accordingly. Just like the RPI in NCAA basketball is imperfect, so is the ladder.

The problem is that clan challenges are significantly different from the CLA. Since jp is the one doing the ladder, he has the final say on how things are weighted. Obviously those who did well in the CLA would prefer to see this weighted heavier. All I know is that jp puts a HELL of a lot of work into collecting and sorting all that data. I guess if anyone is unhappy with this ladder then they can make their own.

[Kinnison]

Okay, I've already been corrected 3 times (including PM) about the 'aging' effect built into the ladder. I didn't know about it, and I'm suitably impressed, it shows good forethought.

I came here to speak out against the 60-game proposal. As an example only, I point out that G1 has complete 4 challenges just since the turn of the year, 40-50-30-40, as we were fighting by what the "standards" have been. I'll just shut up and wander off now... I wasn't trying to start a flamewar, but apparently that's not the way my comments have been taken.

[Gold Knight]

Goosefraba AS... its the open approach that will get things done around here, so theres no need to get worked up over these kind of things. Thats how things got handled for quite some time in the CLA, and why for awhile there was zero progress...

Kinnison, please do post what you think, the 60 games thing WAS brought up here so there's no need to apologize for your input here. If anything, perhaps you should ask your G1 reps in the CLA for some updates on some of the issues that are discussed so you remain in the loop.

[reptile]

Kennison, dont worry about the politics, your opinions are well put and make a lot of sense.

[AgentSmith88]

I WAS going to be more upset, but I realized that there a lot of pages in this thread and it would have been unwieldy to go back through (which I posted). Sorry if my response sounded pissier than I intended in regards to what kinnison posted. I just know how much work jp puts into making the ladder and trying to make it as fair as possible and all anyone ever does is bitch and whine about how they aren't high enough.

[Incandenza]

I just know how much work jp puts into making the ladder and trying to make it as fair as possible and all anyone ever does is bitch and whine about how they aren't high enough.

I too appreciate how much time jp puts into the ladder, that's why it's in everyone's vested interest to push until the ladder actually reflects some sort of objective reality. And to be fair, a lot of recent discussion about the ladder has been reasonably non-partisan. Well, at least not entirely partisan.

[Bones2484]

I'm not sure where 60 games came from either, the suggested minimum is currently at 40 games and I didn't think that was close to changing.

Perhaps the below comment by GoldKnight is better suited for AgentSmith than Kinnison:

If anything, perhaps you should ask your [AOD] reps in the CLA for some updates on some of the issues that are discussed so you remain in the loop.

Kinnison brought his opinions here because I've been telling G1 exactly what was being discussed in the CLA. And the big topic of at that time was the ever increasing desire to increase the minimum - this time the number 60 was being thrown about.

[Blitzaholic]

Bones is correct here and nothing has been finalized, just some discussions.

[Blitzaholic]

2006

1. Dragoons
2. Bushwackers
3. Stachewackers
4. CWC
5. Bounty Hunters
6. Legionaires of Chaos
7. Scion of Glory (holes)
8. Gridiron Gang
9. Freelancers
10. Elmo's War Legion


2007

1. Thota
2. Dragoons
3. Lod
4. Untouchables
5. Stachewackers
6. Bushwackers
7. Regulators
8. Bounty Hunters
9. Low
10. Koe


2008

1. Thota
2. Low
3. Tsm
4. Dragoons
5. Untouchables
6. Empire
7. Lod
8. ++The Legion++
9. Gen. 1
10. VDLL


2009

1. Thota
2. Tsm
3. Low
4. IA
5. Empire
6. ++The Legion++
7. Dragoons
8. BSS
9. BpB
10. AOD


2010?

Chuuuuck here are all the years since CC existed, of course, they were not all voted on like yours, but, were based from feedback on several veterans, memories and experiences.

I think adding your idea of all clan leaders voting top ranked clans and Jp's ladder, I can use a happy medium to merge them both into the final cut for 2010 in this thread. Perception of votes coupled with the ladder for more accuracy