Apart from the so called "sandbaggers", I woundn't have thought anyone deliberately loses games by being timed out.
When a player loses lots of games thro' timeout ,possibly due to "circumstances beyond his control" his rating plummets.
This false current rating makes it difficult for clan leaders to find fair challenges.
One example:-
I am playing a guy whose current rating is 1086.If I were searching for a clan match for one of my 1800 players I wouldn't even consider this chap - but his T.E.R. is 1789!!.
The Idea(eventually):-
If you win or lose a game by timeout your rating is unaffected.
This might also encourage the skull hawks to be a little less enthusiastic.
Ah,.Good point. Thought it sounded a bit too simple!!
I'm really just looking for a way to make my clan leaders life a bit easier!!
However, it does seem unfair that if this player who is historically a better player than me wins ours games, MY rating will suffer more than it should just because he's lost about 2 million games by timeout!!.
Originally posted by vendaA reason why their should be a CCR (Clan Challenge Rating) which should show your highest ever rating minus 100/150 points (this would be closer to your true playing ability as many players experience spikes).
Ah,.Good point. Thought it sounded a bit too simple!!
I'm really just looking for a way to make my clan leaders life a bit easier!!
However, it does seem unfair that if this player who is historically a better player than me wins ours games, MY rating will suffer more than it should just because he's lost about 2 million games by timeout!!.
That way an 1800 rated player with a current rating of 1300 who is included in a Clan challenge against a genuine 1300 rated player will stand out when the Clan Leader decides whether to accept/decline the challenge.
Player A CCR 1800 current 1300 Player B CCR 1345 current 1300
Player C CCR 1650 current 1420 Player D CCR 1710 current 1570
Player E CCR 1420 current 1420 Player F CCR 1690 current 1260
You can then compare both the CCR and their current rating to see those who are playing well below their true ability.
It will also make it more obvious to Clan Leaders who is issuing dodgy challenges with players well below their rating.
Absolutlely!
Or even showing the tournament entry rating would at least give some sort of guide.
Incorporate this with my suggestion of a facility to search for clan players available for challenges by rating (CCR or TER) by entering a range, and matching players would be a lot simpler.
E.g If I want to find a challenge for one of my players rated 1800 , I type in 1790 - 1910 and I get a list of available clan players within that range.
Don't fully undestand your point.
My 1800 player plays a clan game against a player with a current rating of 1400 but with a "realistic" rating of 1800 reflected by Adrams suggestion of a clan challenge rating and my player loses so his rating suffers?
Is that what you mean?.
This goes back to the original point that ratings are not a true reflection because of timeouts.
As no "genuine" clan player would deliberately lose a clan game by timeout, perhaps a dual rating system similar to the club rating and site rating set up would be an idea.
This would also stop the "sandbaggers" dumping non clan games to lower their ratings as their clan rating would be unaffected.
as a clan leader, i find the information we now have to make the ratings is more than sufficient. i'm not arguing against any potential improvements. i just want to point out that with just a click we have a pretty good performance profile in front of us. any sandbaggers, or just plain underrated players for whatever reasons, i think are pretty apparent at a glance.
Originally posted by coquetteI agree there's a lot of information there, but going back to my original example,if I want to find a challenge for my 1800 player, I look for players with similar ratings so the 1086 rated player would not even be considered.The "one click" would never happen.
as a clan leader, i find the information we now have to make the ratings is more than sufficient. i'm not arguing against any potential improvements. i just want to point out that with just a click we have a pretty good performance profile in front of us. any sandbaggers, or just plain underrated players for whatever reasons, i think are pretty apparent at a glance.
But 1086 is a false rating because of his lost games by timeout and in effect a challenge wouldn't be unfair.
As a leader don't you find you spend a lot of time looking for opponents for your team?
How many examples like the one above do you think we as leaders miss?.
If a players tournament entry rating were displayed without having to look at his full profile opprtunities wouldn't be missed.
Originally posted by vendamy own simple answer Dave, is ask the intended opponent if they feel it fair..I always do, send a message saying 'this 'playerx' wants to challenge you, have a look and let me know if you're happy'..you can always throw in your own observations also.
I agree there's a lot of information there, but going back to my original example,if I want to find a challenge for my 1800 player, I look for players with similar ratings so the 1086 rated player would not even be considered.The "one click" would never happen.
But 1086 is a false rating because of his lost games by timeout and in effect a challenge wouldn't were displayed without having to look at his full profile opprtunities wouldn't be missed.
EDIT: display the proposed challenge to the forum and send a multi message to those concerned asking them have a look IF time is short and you can't make observations for each. Members are much happier than waking up finding this or that challenge has hit their inbox...clans that literally load their members with myriad challenges wouldn't be at all interested in this approach mind you. They have high turnover of player also..which suggests what exactly !??
Originally posted by RevRSleekerThink you're missing my point here Dean.
my own simple answer Dave, is ask the intended opponent if they feel it fair..I always do, send a message saying 'this 'playerx' wants to challenge you, have a look and let me know if you're happy'..you can always throw in your own observations also.
EDIT: display the proposed challenge to the forum and send a multi message to those concerned asking the ...[text shortened]... pproach mind you. They have high turnover of player also..which suggests what exactly !??
There is a formula for calculating TER and the most important part of it is the bit which says:-
"Your TER will never be less than 100 points below your highest rating".
This is a more realistic guide to a players actual ability and if it were displayed on the clan home page it would be a lot easier to find fair challenges because players who would apper to be low rated would have their more realistic rating displayed.
Don't know what "EDIT" means in your post -but it wasn't me.
Originally posted by vendaokey cokey 🙂
Think you're missing my point here Dean.
There is a formula for calculating TER and the most important part of it is the bit which says:-
"Your TER will never be less than 100 points below your highest rating".
This is a more realistic guide to a players actual ability and if it were displayed on the clan home page it would be a lot easier to find fair chal ...[text shortened]... alistic rating displayed.
Don't know what "EDIT" means in your post -but it wasn't me.
Originally posted by vendaIf a player having a rating of 1800 loses against a player rated 1800 he loses about 16 rating points. If he loses against a plaer rated 1100 "at the moment" he will lose 32.
Don't fully undestand your point.
My 1800 player plays a clan game against a player with a current rating of 1400 but with a "realistic" rating of 1800 reflected by Adrams suggestion of a clan challenge rating and my player loses so his rating suffers?
Is that what you mean?.
This goes back to the original point that ratings are not a true reflection becau ...[text shortened]... " dumping non clan games to lower their ratings as their clan rating would be unaffected.
A lot of players are stingy with their rating points, so some may complain if you pair them with equal strength players whose rating suffered very much.
Originally posted by PonderableOk.I see your point.
If a player having a rating of 1800 loses against a player rated 1800 he loses about 16 rating points. If he loses against a plaer rated 1100 "at the moment" he will lose 32.
A lot of players are stingy with their rating points, so some may complain if you pair them with equal strength players whose rating suffered very much.
A clan challenge rating as suggested by Adram separate from the overall site rating would probably be the answer.
Your starting clan challenge rating would have to be based on your tournament entry rating, although this number is a bit lopsided because it is based on overall rating.
I would suggest a starting rating using the formula (Highest rating + current rating) /2 but based on the last 90 days performance -not 5 years.