qwert wrote:jrh cardinal,its normal that high ranked clan get less points, now you propose that they get same number of points ,if they play with same opponent?
At the beginning, yes. Every clan would start with the same number of points, then the clans would spread out as challenges finish just like CC's Scoreboard, Farang's, or jp's old scoreboard. You may not think about it because you never saw Farang's or jp's when all clans had the same points, they started their scoreboards and input in data from previous clan wars before they posted the rankings on CC, but in the beginning all clans were judged evenly. Just like how everyone started on CC with a score of 1000.
Basically, I'm not arguing that the higher ranked clan should get fewer points (they should), I'm arguing your definition of a higher ranked clan. Right now, you are not giving points out based on clan rankings. You are giving them out solely based on the scores of the individual players in the clans. Do the individual players scores correlate to how good the clan is? Yes, absolutely. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
For example, bruceswar and Emmdizzle were both colonels before they went their separate ways, we'll just say they were the same score (even that's not fair, bruce is better, but whatever). Now Emm has near 4500 points (has been up to 5000+) and bruce has 1600. That has absolutely nothing to do with their clans skill, or even their individual skill, Emm wanted points, bruce didn't care, so each played game types specific to their wants (Emm points, bruce fun). Emmdizzle is in AFOS, bruce is in KORT, I don't think anyone would give AFOS a chance over KORT, but possibly the best player in KORT has 3000 fewer points than (I don't really know, but I assume) one of the better players in AFOS.
If you used the
clans results, yes, at the beginning the points would be too close together and the scoring would seem unfair, but eventually it would even out over time as clans reached their equilibrium points. The system could still be manipulated just like the CC Scoreboard, but every Scoreboard run by a formula where teams choose their own opponents can be manipulated (Americans, think College Football, qwert, sorry, I don't have a good international example. World Cup Rankings maybe? I don't follow soccer so I don't know).
If you wanted you could start each clans score at their players average score, the one you're using for now. It would start the clans spread out already, so maybe you would get better results quicker? I don't know.
Right now, I'd say you're measuring best is a clans effectiveness relative to their players individual success, or even how well clans mesh as a team. Clans that get upset (by your points) may have more individual skill but lack in other areas (working as a team, communication, leadership, etc.). Clans that win in upsets may lack at individual success but be better at those other "intangible" areas. What you are not measuring is how good a clan is in relation to other clans.
PS- I need to find a better example. Praising KORT