Ranking Reform

[Footpöp]

I'm not just playing and it's utterly brain racking how having a different opinion than those previously founded is a bad thing and passed off as a joke on these forums due to the circle-jerking that leads to people going,


"oh he doesn't agree.  Hopefully he's playing.  It'd be bad if he isn't playing.  Let's say he is playing and carry on with our perfect opinions to save his/her own face.  Perfect because we all believe it."

[trog]

still salty about your m1 reload thing?

[Footpöp]

What constitutes a ranked match should boil down to that the two clans follow a simple set of rules/procedures, such as and not straying too far away from rules that leave lots of options for the clans.  Simple ones like:
no joke maps
highlander class setupt

etc etc

Having rosters and other things are too constricting on a clan's freedom to be a good clan in and of itself.  In my (vastly superior because I say so) opinion, that should be restricted to tournaments only, not clan v. clan wars/spars.

[Killah Zillah]

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.

No no, I said that ALL the competitive clans would be on this list. Every time a new competitive clan comes up, yes, there would be a new banner to resize and add, but all you'd need to do is cut/paste the appropriate clan into the right spot and change three numbers. I revised the mock-up I made to make it much more clear on how it works! Go check it out and gimme some input if you're still nibbling at this idea!

I'm not just playing and it's utterly brain racking how having a different opinion than those previously founded is a bad thing and passed off as a joke on these forums due to the circle-jerking that leads to people going,


"oh he doesn't agree.  Hopefully he's playing.  It'd be bad if he isn't playing.  Let's say he is playing and carry on with our perfect opinions to save his/her own face.  Perfect because we all believe it."

No Footpop, I'm talking about your "I'm superior because I say so" talk. That's cruel and very self absorbed talk that could get you in trouble if Trog decides to take it seriously. I'm saying you should stop that because you might get in trouble for instigating a flamewar. We're all just trying to improve the clans section, there is no need to lose your cool and start bickering. Calm down, if he doesn't understand what you're saying, drop it and look for some other way to bring him to your point of view. That's what I did, he and I agreed we wouldn't get anywhere debating the effectiveness of his method as a means of showing who's best, so we decided to focus on which method the people would enjoy playing with, and he started taking interest in my side of the debate. There's more than one way to win a debate than flicking insults like peanuts at your opponent, if anything it shows how easily frustrated you are and how lacking of material your side of the arguement has. Try to think of his feelings, he put a lot of work into his ranking system, don't be rude.

[Footpöp]

If you plan on having a list with all clans on it, make a drawn line from where below it are new clans that have not participated in anything yet.  New clan's shouldn't be ruled as rank "bad number here" just for being bad, but instead be in their own "not announced as of yet" group. 

[Tankman]

In the "What is a Ranked Match?" paragraph, it says a ranked match can be a random challenge or a tourney match.

Does that mean that clan vs. randoms and tournament matches where at least one of the teams is representing a clan would count towards these rankings?

[Footpöp]

I believe it means one-off clan v. clan matches and matches that are derived from tournaments where the clan matchups are decided without any direct consent from either clan.

[trog]

Ahh okay I get it now. Looks great. We can do some table magic to get everything lined up perfectly as well.

Also footpop idk why you're talking about rosters and stuff, that's for the other thread. Although I do agree.

And we don't really need a list of clans that aren't ranked yet because we'll just add them as they report a ranked match, like the current thread.

[Killah Zillah]

In the "What is a Ranked Match?" paragraph, it says a ranked match can be a random challenge or a tourney match.

Does that mean that clan vs. randoms and tournament matches where at least one of the teams is representing a clan would count towards these rankings?

Only two ranked clans can have a ranked match, otherwise it would be an easy win (or an extremely one sided failure against some INS members or something). I'll go edit that. Thank you for making me aware of that grey area!

Just finished rewording what constitutes a ranked match, feel free to give it a read-over and brief review if you want to! I'd welcome any suggestions for it, it's still a work in progress.

[Footpöp]

Ahh okay I get it now. Looks great. We can do some table magic to get everything lined up perfectly as well.

Also footpop idk why you're talking about rosters and stuff, that's for the other thread. Although I do agree.

Earlier, I was replying to KZ's mention of "every competitive clan will be listed" and saying what I believe would be the best way to define a competitive clan.  You said that there is no will be no such thing (set in stone) as serious and non serious clans, only ranked and non ranked matches.  I changed my outlook to be centered around what should constitute as a ranked match in compliance with your post.   I guess at this depth it doesn't really matter.

[trog]

[#1]  The Brotherhood

Total Ranked Matches: Total Victories: Win Percentage:

7 4 57.1%

Code:

[size=11pt][u][b] [#1]  The Brotherhood[/u][/size]

[table][tr][td] [/td][td]
Total Ranked Matches:
Total Victories:
Win Percentage:

[spoiler=Match History]+AT | +Fw>, =THA | +Fw>, -DMG, -SOS, +TOA[/spoiler]
[/td][td][center]
7
4
[b]57.1%[/b]
[/center][/td][td]
[right] [img height=88]http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss294/WALTAH/thebrotherhood.png[/img][/right][/td][/tr][/table]
[hr]

Then we could put the a #1 graphic either right next to the banner or as a thin horizontal one under the clan name.

[RedBluYellow]

cruch new clans often; get high win percentage
bess clan

[Killah Zillah]

[#1]  The Brotherhood

Total Ranked Matches: Total Victories: Win Percentage:

7 4 57.1%

Then we could put the a #1 graphic either right next to the banner or as a thin horizontal one under the clan name.

Hmm... it looks good, the enlarged fonts for titles looks much better than my simple boldening!

However, I believe the percentages has a few problems. It's more accurate for determining who's the best team, but it also means that a clan who's just started out and wins one game is automatically moved to the top for having 100% victory percentage. That's unfair, especially since that would mean asking the people who've actually earned their #1 clan prize to give it up to this clan that hasn't truly done anything yet.

However again, making it a percentage would satisfy both sides of the activity/skill debate and it gives newer clans a solid chance at getting among the big leagues with those long standing clans. Maybe a minimum of 10 wars must be fought before you qualify for the top three slots? That might make things too complicated.. but this percentage method is simply too efficient! It's way better than mere victories, since a clan could war every week and lose a ton of matches, but simply by sheer numbers, they'd technically have as many victories as a clan that wins almost every war but hardly has that many wars a month. In my opinion, the potential for accuracy and balance would outweigh any potential (small) headaches from one additional rule. What do you think of the ten war qualify rule? It means that no big changes have to be made to the top three clans, and it still gives the clan a solid chance at being among the big leagues. Satisfies both groups (the newbies and the old timers), once again!

Also, good work on that percentage idea! Smart thinkin', Mr. Troggy! I suck at math though, so someone would need to figure out the percentages for me so I can change the OP accourdingly when that time comes.

[trog]

The text is just a placeholder to show what it would look like, we haven't decided on what exactly we're going to rank on (which we can do now I guess).

Percentage is just games won / games played * 100

[trog]

Okay so rankings based on wins wins. Now to decided on an actual system. So far 2 have been suggested, please suggest more if you have any.

Win ratio
Clans are ranked based on what percentage of their ranked games they win.

Pros:

• Simple -> Could potentially bring in new clans for its simplicity, easier to understand right away, more familiar to newbies interested in clans ~KZ
• Not biased by activity.

Cons:

• Reward is not scaled with the skill level of opponents. Getting 50% wins off of bad teams ranks you just as high as getting 50% wins of the top teams, and allows power leveling.
• Lack of activity bias combined with no scaling with opponents means new clans can get 100% by winning their first match.
• After large amounts of matches it becomes difficult to alter your percent, eventually creating stale rankings where there is barely any movement.
• Punishes losing, which may discourage taking on team who are better than you.
• Trying to solve any of these removes the simpleness of the system which is half the reason why it would be chosen.

Infinite Ladder Tourney
All teams begin with a randomly assigned rank. Beating a team ahead of you means you swap ranks. The random rank wouldn't count towards the rankings until you actually play a ranked match and "claim" it.

Pros:

• No activity bias
• Reward scales with opponent's rank
• Encourages challenging your team by fighting strong teams because it does not punish loss
• Stays dynamic due to it being easy to change ranks
• Simple (although not as simple as win ratio).

Cons:

• Not as simple as win ratio
• Fluke wins can catapult teams (although this is easily reversed by the losing (better) team rematching and taking the rank back).

I am biased towards the la(tt/dd)er system so if you have anything to add I will put it up.