Ranking Reform

[trog]

Only one team wins the Stanley guy, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Statistics are published for individuals to make their own interpretations if they wish (and there may be recognition/awards based on those statistics) but in the end there is only one official interpretation resulting in one official winner. This thread is to decide which way we will interpret it, because we're not going to give the Stanley to every damn team.

[Footpöp]

No you are wrong.

[trog]

good day sir

[Killah Zillah]

Hm yes layout is great compared to the current dinky table, but the system is measuring activity.

We could pretty much use that but change some words.

I'm VERY glad you like it! But my layout boldens the victories number.. though it's kinda hard to see. Should I bolden the whole line to show which is most important? I listing both numbers, but gave the number of fights top billing merely because it was most aesthetically pleasing to see things go in a-

____
__
_

-pattern. Victories will still be what makes a team the winning team of course, I just gave the match number top billing because it looked better!

[Footpöp]

You are wrong and are now drawing a direct comparison between prizes and rankings.  Tournaments should be used to give a factual #1, for that time and place.  Wars should not, because there are many ways to look at who is "#1".


team which has won most wars:

team which won most wars in the past two months:

team which is the best:


Guess which of the three system sucks balls?


I made that short response because clearly my explanation was going over your head. 

[trog]

@KZ:

Well it depends on what we're going to rank based on. If it's win % we could keep the total matches and total wins, but we'd have the win % in there somewhere as well in bold.

Also it doesn't actually say the rank number in there, I know you could just count but it makes more sense for a ranking to actually have the rank :p

[Killah Zillah]

Well it depends on what we're going to rank based on. If it's win % we could keep the total matches and total wins, but we'd have the win % in there somewhere as well in bold.

Also it doesn't actually say the rank number in there, I know you could just count but it makes more sense for a ranking to actually have the rank :p

I didn't say the rank number because I don't have any fancy banners made yet! The clans will be listed from first to last place in descending order, that'll be apparent just from looking at it. Note how the best team had won every match, but the team in third place only had 5 victories. Don't worry, it'll be very obvious which order they're in just from looking at it if we go with that layout. If it's chosen, I'll make some fancy first place banners that'll go around or next to the winning team's name!

[Footpöp]

Giving a definitive #1 is bad
"definitive #1" is an interpreted opinion

The Dohn Joe system is the future


at the very end you can have a lame section just for peoples opinions on who's who, like john madden or whatever

Code:

trong's monthly shootout
1. trog
2.everyone else

and use that based solely on your opinions and shit
that's good
editorial rankings

Everyone willing to dedicate time each month/week/year/etc should be able to give their opinion as to who is best

[trog]

Footpop, organizers sit down, look at the stats, and decide how they will interpret them to find the best team/player. Only one way. Chess leagues don't publish multiple rankings, each with multiple ELO score formulas, because that's dumb. I'll make sure we have some little stats for you, maybe some shoutouts related to stats, but we're not doing multiple rankings to cover every method under the sun. Right now we're going to sit down, look at the stats, and decide how we will interpret them to find the best team/player. Only one way.


Not taking any more posts about your John Don thing seriously because it's dumb.

[Killah Zillah]

Giving a definitive #1 is bad
"definitive #1" is an interpreted opinion

Giving a definitive #1 is good because it's fun, and that's what the clans section needs. It's not the perfectly descriptive way of choosing who's best, but it's the most FUN way, and that's all that matters in this moment of clan based crisis. If you want to know more, there's two pages of why we chose this method. Even Trog, who put a lot of work into his method and swore he wouldn't even consider going with a new one, at least heard us out and eventually accepted that even if his method is the best, it's not what the majority wants, and we need more majority here! That's why we're going with this poll, to see what the people want and if we should go with a new system.

[trog]

Well it depends on what we're going to rank based on. If it's win % we could keep the total matches and total wins, but we'd have the win % in there somewhere as well in bold.

Also it doesn't actually say the rank number in there, I know you could just count but it makes more sense for a ranking to actually have the rank :p

I didn't say the rank number because I don't have any fancy banners made yet! The clans will be listed from first to last place in descending order, that'll be apparent just from looking at it. Note how the best team had won every match, but the team in third place only had 5 victories. Don't worry, it'll be very obvious which order they're in just from looking at it if we go with that layout. If it's chosen, I'll make some fancy first place banners that'll go around or next to the winning team's name!

Well every clan will be ranked so hopefully it'll get long enough that it would be easier to see a number than count everyone above you.

Unless you mean only the top 3 will be in the expanded form and the rest will be in a simpler list?

[Killah Zillah]

Well every clan will be ranked so hopefully it'll get long enough that it would be easier to see a number than count everyone above you.

Unless you mean only the top 3 will be in the expanded form and the rest will be in a simpler list?

Every competitive clan will be listed, but only the top three clans get a fancy banner next to their name, and only the top one gets something special for their efforts (to be decided at a later time). I say competitive because, as Ultros said in our own private debate on this subject, some people might be intimidated by the ranking system and would rather have things more casual. Clans like [VAL] and [LNWC] would probably want to be unranked for this reason. Anyone who WANTS to be ranked will be allowed in, no questions or rosters asked!

Also, that's a good point. I guess we SHOULD add numbers next to their names for simple convenience. I'll work on that and revise the mock-up I made for it!

[Footpöp]

the difference between competitive and non competitive clans should be defined by whether they are serious about wars and the rules associated with them or not

nothing else

no "rosters"
no "limits"


Sorry trog that I'm too perfectly correct for you.

[Killah Zillah]

the difference between competitive and non competitive clans should be defined by whether they are serious about wars and the rules associated with them or not

nothing else

no "rosters"
no "limits"

Sorry trog that I'm too perfectly correct for you.

I'm sure he knows you're just playing, but a moderator might not, so you might wanna turn down the smack talk!

Also, Nukleus already said he's gonna do away with the roster system, so you don't have to worry about that. A competitive clan, if this goes through, will be a clan that wants to be on this new clan rankings list and nothing else.

[trog]

There's no such thing as competitive or general or whatever, only has played ranked matches and has not. By all clans I meant all clans that have played ranked matches.

And KZ what do you mean by banner? Just the team's banner resized? Because having to make a new banner every time the top 3 changes sounds like a lot of work and would slow down how fast you can update the thread.