early standings

a closely fought match
decide by a point
yet the distribution of points just doesn't seem right
a one point victory results in a 20 point swing
something is afoul

@lemondrop said
a closely fought match
decide by a point
yet the distribution of points just doesn't seem right
a one point victory results in a 20 point swing
something is afoul

Nothing is afoul.
That's the way the clan system works.

You're just seeing this now ? 🤔

@lemondrop said
a closely fought match
decide by a point
yet the distribution of points just doesn't seem right
a one point victory results in a 20 point swing
something is afoul

My point exactly

@padger said
My point exactly

the Macedonian Lions should revolt
storm the gates of RHP

@lemondrop said
a closely fought match
decide by a point
yet the distribution of points just doesn't seem right
a one point victory results in a 20 point swing
something is afoul

Yep..winners get the glory
Losers get nothing.
Fair and honest system.
Those not happy are not forced to take part.
Happy new year to you.

@lemondrop said
a closely fought match
decide by a point
yet the distribution of points just doesn't seem right
a one point victory results in a 20 point swing
something is afoul

Works the same for both sides so what exactly is unfair?

I believe the Clan Leaders did a Vote on the point system awhile back didn't they!

-VR

@very-rusty said
Works the same for both sides so what exactly is unfair?

I believe the Clan Leaders did a Vote on the point system awhile back didn't they!

-VR

the current system discourages large challenges because to much can ride on a single victory
If I had a large clan I would never take on or issue more than a 3 member challenge
negative points ruin everything

@lemondrop said
the current system discourages large challenges because to much can ride on a single victory
If I had a large clan I would never take on or issue more than a 3 member challenge
negative points ruin everything

We have taken on quite a few large challenges this year out of the Clans that would actually play against us, and it seems to have worked out ok for us, mind you we lost some too. This is the gamble you take with the large challenges, but if you win, big time points.

We have had many smaller Clan Challenges with 3 or 4 members also. They do seem to go quicker so you have a valid point there in my opinion that is. I don't speak for Metallica of course.

-VR

@lemondrop said
a closely fought match
decide by a point
yet the distribution of points just doesn't seem right
a one point victory results in a 20 point swing
something is afoul

You are referring to the challenge below.
Clan challenge 299688
Let's see now ....
Challenge was won 5 games to 4 with 1 draw.

Your proposal is to award points to the losing clan for the games they won ?
That is worse than the gross points system which awards 0 points to the losing clan.

Gross points is flawed because it allows clans to win simply because they play the most challenges.
Awarding points to a losing clan is even worse in this regard.
Gross points only has a chance of working if every clan plays a challenge against every other clan and every clan plays the same number of challenges.
And that is the clan league.

Points are subtracted for losing a challenge because it introduces an element of risk/reward to the challenges.
And it provides a sense of balance between the extremes.
Those being:
1- clans winning with high volume of challenges irregardless of their performance. i.e. won lost ratio
YOU HAVE TO PERFORM TO WIN !!

2- a clan rating system (carrobies ELO proposal) that allows a clan to win playing very few challenges.
YOU HAVE TO PLAY TO WIN !!

The net point system isn't perfect.
But it strikes a reasonable balance between the 2 systems above.

Not everyone will like it.
But it's what we have.

@mghrn55 said
You are referring to the challenge below.
Clan challenge 299688
Let's see now ....
Challenge was won 5 games to 4 with 1 draw.

Your proposal is to award points to the losing clan for the games they won ?
That is worse than the gross points system which awards 0 points to the losing clan.

Gross points is flawed because it allows clans to win simply because they play th ...[text shortened]... easonable balance between the 2 systems above.

Not everyone will like it.
But it's what we have.

I see your argument and your logic
I just have this problem with negative points
losing a challenge by one point and then being blasted with a minus 10 points the same minus 10 if you had not one a single game
a distinction ought to be made

@lemondrop said
I see your argument and your logic
I just have this problem with negative points
losing a challenge by one point and then being blasted with a minus 10 points the same minus 10 if you had not one a single game
a distinction ought to be made

Lets use Hockey if a team wins in regulation time it gets 2 points loser none. Now if it goes to over time the loser will get 1 point, same as in a shoot out.

Lets for argument sake say the team wins 5-4, the winning team will get 2 points the loser 0. Basketball, baseball, etc., etc., they all work the same way the loser doesn't get any points.

Why should chess work any differently? If you go to a chess tournament and win 3 games and other people win 4,5,6 games they will place 1rst 2nd 3rd, you will not place at all, only thing might change is your rating especially if you beat a higher rated opponent. I would say it works pretty much the same way here.

-VR

@very-rusty said
Lets use Hockey if a team wins in regulation time it gets 2 points loser none. Now if it goes to over time the loser will get 1 point, same as in a shoot out.

Lets for argument sake say the team wins 5-4, the winning team will get 2 points the loser 0. Basketball, baseball, etc., etc., they all work the same way the loser doesn't get any points.

Why should chess wor ...[text shortened]... ally if you beat a higher rated opponent. I would say it works pretty much the same way here.

-VR

you are missing the point of my argument
it is negative points that I don't like and not distinguishing between a close match and a blow out

@lemondrop said
you are missing the point of my argument
it is negative points that I don't like and not distinguishing between a close match and a blow out

You may be missing mine...5-4 win in hockey is not considered a blow out.

I don't see your issue with it as it works the same for both sides in the point system we have on this site!!!

The only way it wouldn't be fair is if a Clan Leader played a Clan which it had no chance against. This is where my point of all the qualities it takes in being a Clan Leader. You have to know what you are doing right from the start.

-VR

@very-rusty said
You may be missing mine...5-4 win in hockey is not considered a blow out.

I don't see your issue with it as it works the same for both sides in the point system we have on this site!!!

The only way it wouldn't be fair is if a Clan Leader played a Clan which it had no chance against. This is where my point of all the qualities it takes in being a Clan Leader. You have to know what you are doing right from the start.

-VR

then address my issue with negative points
I never said 5-4 was a blow out
I said that the current scoring system treats a 5-4 loss the same as a 10-0 blow out

@lemondrop said
then address my issue with negative points
I never said 5-4 was a blow out
I said that the current scoring system treats a 5-4 loss the same as a 10-0 blow out

Both parties do know at the start what the risks are as was already explained to you.

Don't play if you can't afford to take the risk.

-VR