If it's so quiet

We should now turn our attention to the Clan order of merit
The way the points are awarded for instance needs sorting out
Example in a five game challenge that ends 6 - 4
It is totally wrong for one to receive 10 points and the other minus 10 points

Originally posted by @padger
We should now turn our attention to the Clan order of merit
The way the points are awarded for instance needs sorting out
Example in a five game challenge that ends 6 - 4
It is totally wrong for one to receive 10 points and the other minus 10 points

This is a cut and paste from my original in site ideas. It still to me seems to be the fairest and most logical

"There must be negative points or the winner will just be the clan that issues the most challenges. No skill just overkill

For a 5 man challenge under the current rules no matter what the final result (except a draw) the winner gets 10 points the loser gets negative 10 points. A swing of 20 points.

If the system is changed to (in the event of a 5 man challenge) the winning clan receives 5 points, the losing clan gets negative 5 points but added onto that points allocation is a point for each game won.

If a clan wins a 5 man challenge 6 games to 4 the winning clan receives 5 points for the win plus 6 points for each game won totalling 11 points. The losing clan gets negative 5 points plus 4 points for each game won totalling negative 1 point. This is only a 12 point swing as opposed to the 20 point swing and rewards clans for playing out the challenge and for hard fought close challenges.

In the event of a drawn challenge each clan gets no points for the win/loss but gets a point for each game won.

The only case where there is a twenty point turnaround is when a clan is whipped 10 games to nil.

This should be an easy fix for Russ as points allocated after the completion of a challenge would be 2 tiered. Points for challenge win/loss/draw, and points for games won.

This sounds like the most logical system to me and would encourage clans to play challenges out to the end as points are still on the line for individual wins".

Are there any flaws you can see in this. If so point them out

Originally posted by @padger
We should now turn our attention to the Clan order of merit
The way the points are awarded for instance needs sorting out
Example in a five game challenge that ends 6 - 4
It is totally wrong for one to receive 10 points and the other minus 10 points

Lets look at other sports:

In hockey you have a score of 6 - 4 winning team 2 points losing team 0 points.

In baseball you have a score of 6 - 4 winning team gets the point losing team nothing.

In Soccer if the score is 6 - 4 which would be rare winning team gets the point. loser nothing.....etc., etc., could point out more sports where the loser winds up with no points.

Now personal stats are kept of course in those sports, but it is a team game if we are talking Clan Points here.

-VR

Originally posted by @very-rusty
Lets look at other sports:

In hockey you have a score of 6 - 4 winning team 2 points losing team 0 points.

In baseball you have a score of 6 - 4 winning team gets the point losing team nothing.

In Soccer if the score is 6 - 4 which would be rare winning team gets the point. loser nothing.....etc., etc., could point out more sports where the los ...[text shortened]... kept of course in those sports, but it is a team game if we are talking Clan Points here.

-VR

I notice that in none of those examples were points taken away which is my main complaint
As Radioactive has pointed out the problem with the clan system at the moment is that no two clans play the same amount of challenges
Perhaps an average of wins could work
In which the number of wins in all challenges are divided by the number of challenges
That way an easy going clan has the same chance as an industrious one and all wins are recognised

Originally posted by @padger
I notice that in none of those examples were points taken away which is my main complaint
As Radioactive has pointed out the problem with the clan system at the moment is that no two clans play the same amount of challenges
Perhaps an average of wins could work
In which the number of wins in all challenges are divided by the number of challenges
That way an easy going clan has the same chance as an industrious one and all wins are recognised

With that scenario a clan that say wins it's first 10 challenges could then play no more challenges in the year knowing that it will be crowned champions.

There has to be negative points. Not to the extreme it currently is but without negative points it becomes a bloodbath.

We do not play in a system where each clan has an even number of players that play the same amount of games. That is the domain of the clan league. If you want to play under those conditions why don't you play exclusively in the clan league?

Originally posted by @padger
I notice that in none of those examples were points taken away which is my main complaint
As Radioactive has pointed out the problem with the clan system at the moment is that no two clans play the same amount of challenges
Perhaps an average of wins could work
In which the number of wins in all challenges are divided by the number of challenges
That way an easy going clan has the same chance as an industrious one and all wins are recognised

Good point...

Now I have one in Basketball if a team gets 101 other team gets 100 they don't keep those 100 points they still lost the the game so again 0 points.

I see what you are saying and chess is different than any of the other games mentioned. but if you let the losing team start having the points they got even by losing, what is the sense of even playing? There has to be something to play for and a risk to go along with it.
In sports players the risk is injury! Therefore in Chess players should risk losing points if they don't win, makes it equal for everyone as we are all in the same boat....We've lost by one and lost 20 points probably on more than one occasion, but it is ok because it works the same for everyone.

I truely believe we have a good system as far as the way the points are allotted.

-VR

Originally posted by @very-rusty
Good point...

Now I have one in Basketball if a team gets 101 other team gets 100 they don't keep those 100 points they still lost the the game so again 0 points.

I see what you are saying and chess is different than any of the other games mentioned. but if you let the losing team start having the points they got even by losing, what is the sense o ...[text shortened]... ne.

I truely believe we have a good system as far as the way the points are allotted.

-VR

The trouble with all the examples you have shown is they only get points for winning a game
Not points for getting goals or baskets
As the clan challenge system does not have equal games in each challenge another way forward would be points awarded for every 10 games won in challenges that are won
That would satisfy radioactives worry about a clan playing 10 games and shutting up shop
So a 6 - 4 would mean that the winning clan would have 6 points and the losing clan would have 4 points
If the winning clan won their next challenge 4 - 2 they would have another 4 points to add to the 6 points making 10 so they would get 3 clan points towards their clan position
It would encourage larger challenges because it would take a lot of 1 on 1 s to get the clan points

Originally posted by @padger
The trouble with all the examples you have shown is they only get points for winning a game
Not points for getting goals or baskets
As the clan challenge system does not have equal games in each challenge another way forward would be points awarded for every 10 games won in challenges that are won
That would satisfy radioactives worry about a clan playin ...[text shortened]... would encourage larger challenges because it would take a lot of 1 on 1 s to get the clan points

padger,

We can agree to disagree. I like the way the points are now alloted as I have said.

Perhaps smaller clans should merge?

-VR

Originally posted by @padger
I notice that in none of those examples were points taken away which is my main complaint
As Radioactive has pointed out the problem with the clan system at the moment is that no two clans play the same amount of challenges
Perhaps an average of wins could work
In which the number of wins in all challenges are divided by the number of challenges
That way an easy going clan has the same chance as an industrious one and all wins are recognised

We have discussed options at length in the site ideas forum.
And have come up with some good ideas.

We can revisit those when restarting the discussions.

Before we beat this to death for a 2nd time, I would first suggest that we approach Russ again and see if he has any interest in revisiting the clan feature.

I am sure he has a lot on his plate besides the clan system.

No point in discussing this at any great length if he is just going to say no.

Originally posted by @mghrn55
We have discussed options at length in the site ideas forum.
And have come up with some good ideas.

We can revisit those when restarting the discussions.

Before we beat this to death for a 2nd time, I would first suggest that we approach Russ again and see if he has any interest in revisiting the clan feature.

I am sure he has a lot on his plate ...[text shortened]... e clan system.

No point in discussing this at any great length if he is just going to say no.

Yeah, I'm done with it as well.

The current system isn't perfect but it's better than some suggested.

Originally posted by @radioactive69
Yeah, I'm done with it as well.

The current system isn't perfect but it's better than some suggested.

I am surprised by your attitude
With my suggestion your clan would move from 149th to 13th
Which would reflect it's true Status
Of course I can see why Metallica wouldn't like it they would go from 1st to 5th with the Fast Players leading
The current system does not represent a true picture of a clan's position and is still open to abuse

Originally posted by @padger
I am surprised by your attitude
With my suggestion your clan would move from 149th to 13th
Which would reflect it's true Status
Of course I can see why Metallica wouldn't like it they would go from 1st to 5th with the Fast Players leading
The current system does not represent a true picture of a clan's position and is still open to abuse

Personally I don't care where our clan finishes as long as the system is fair for all.

I'm afraid I'm an advocate of negative points otherwise it is just a matter of the most industrious clan wins.

The model I have outlined above is a midground between your suggestions and the current system and I believe the most fair and accurate model available.

If there are faults lets go through them to see what can be changed to better reflect the clan system. I'm open to suggestions.

If you have a better more comprehensive model post it and we can go through it.

Originally posted by @radioactive69
Personally I don't care where our clan finishes as long as the system is fair for all.

I'm afraid I'm an advocate of negative points otherwise it is just a matter of the most industrious clan wins.

The model I have outlined above is a midground between your suggestions and the current system and I believe the most fair and accurate model availab ...[text shortened]... suggestions.

If you have a better more comprehensive model post it and we can go through it.

Are you not able to see that a clan that wins 10 games 6 - 4 and gets 100 points is counted the same as clan that won 10 games 10 - 0 they still only get 100 points
Equally the losing clan in each example gets -100
And you call that fair !
Absolute rubbish

Originally posted by @padger
Are you not able to see that a clan that wins 10 games 6 - 4 and gets 100 points is counted the same as clan that won 10 games 10 - 0 they still only get 100 points
Equally the losing clan in each example gets -100
And you call that fair !
Absolute rubbish

Refer to my model above. It address this.

Why do I keep getting a vision of the unsinkable ship that just ploughs on into oblivion