Conquer Club

*****

frequent and numerous wars are important

Wrong.

*****

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

*****

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.

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.

We've gone from being among the top 5 to pooof

DYN should be above BOTFM, but other than that, this table looks good. Pros/Cons of both systems.

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

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

IcePack wrote:

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

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.

*****

BGtheBrain wrote:

TheCrown wrote:

IcePack wrote:

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

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.

IcePack wrote:

BGtheBrain wrote:

TheCrown wrote:

IcePack wrote:

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

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???

patrickaa317 wrote:

IcePack wrote:

BGtheBrain wrote:

TheCrown wrote:

IcePack wrote:

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

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.

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?

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