D400 (Official Clan Ranking) - Oct 2021 ranking

[josko.ri]

Also, look at paradox which new system brings. With the new system, first two ranked are FALL and TOFU who did not win any first class CC competition in last one year. With the current system, higher are ranked S&M, LHDD and A, who won CCup, RL and CL in last one year. Therefore, current system more evaluates perfection, which is actually winning CC events while playing versus the best of the bests. However, thenew system does notevaluate thatbutinstead evaluates high winning margins versus some of lower clans, which is irrelevant in terms of perfection.

This is my the strongest argument against the new proposed system.

You get a trophy for winning a competition.
Rankings brings everything together.
It's purpose is to have a way to rank separate than just looking at who won the competitions.

I want to say that you can propose A and B to be 100 900 or any other number (why 100 900 should be the best?) but if you want to implement it as new ranking system then it should lead to intuitive rankings.

Currently, the 100 900 proposal is highly counterintuitive because it puts on top 2 places two clans who won nothing from major competitions in the last year.

Also, we in S&M play for wins, not for margins. For example, If we have strong lead after set 1 in any war then in set 2 we do not put strong lineup. If we had known that ranking system favors margins over wins then we would not do it.

[IcePack]

Just to throw another option out there which reading IP's post made me think of again.

In regards to pick-up wars vs tournament wars
Intuitively, I think most clans would agree that the tournament wars Mean more and clans put WAY more effort into CCup and the like.

Seems that it would be interesting to give extra weight to Tournament competition vs Pick-up competition.
One could introduce a multiplier coefficient to be added to increase weight of wars.
CCup and CL could be x2, maybe RL and other minor tournaments x1.5 and pick-up wars just x1 ?
Clans could potentially decide if they want their war to be ranked or not before the start making their coefficient 0?
This would in exchange make a fun/casual pick-up war would be less significant on your ranking and then potentially more attractive to some?

This however is not as simple to do, b/c it would require additional info to be added to the data dating back to the beginning of clans (first result is from Jan 2 2007)

Wouldn't that just exasperate the current situation of making the TOFU vs BOB war x2 bigger of a problem?

[IcePack]

Also, look at paradox which new system brings. With the new system, first two ranked are FALL and TOFU who did not win any first class CC competition in last one year. With the current system, higher are ranked S&M, LHDD and A, who won CCup, RL and CL in last one year. Therefore, current system more evaluates perfection, which is actually winning CC events while playing versus the best of the bests. However, thenew system does notevaluate thatbutinstead evaluates high winning margins versus some of lower clans, which is irrelevant in terms of perfection.

This is my the strongest argument against the new proposed system.

You get a trophy for winning a competition.
Rankings brings everything together.
It's purpose is to have a way to rank separate than just looking at who won the competitions.

I want to say that you can propose A and B to be 100 900 or any other number (why 100 900 should be the best?) but if you want to implement it as new ranking system then it should lead to intuitive rankings.

Currently, the 100 900 proposal is highly counterintuitive because it puts on top 2 places two clans who won nothing from major competitions in the last year.

Also, we in S&M play for wins, not for margins. For example, If we have strong lead after set 1 in any war then in set 2 we do not put strong lineup. If we had known that ranking system favors margins over wins then we would not do it.

Might be a bit disengious to say that FALL has won nothing in the last year. FALL won CLX and CLXI, and was second in CLXII. The ranking system (at least, the F400, idk about D400 or the new proposed 100/900) included the past two full years, not just one year. So in theory, FALL has won a major event during that ranking period (at least one, and second in another)

[josko.ri]

Just to throw another option out there which reading IP's post made me think of again.

In regards to pick-up wars vs tournament wars
Intuitively, I think most clans would agree that the tournament wars Mean more and clans put WAY more effort into CCup and the like.

Seems that it would be interesting to give extra weight to Tournament competition vs Pick-up competition.
One could introduce a multiplier coefficient to be added to increase weight of wars.
CCup and CL could be x2, maybe RL and other minor tournaments x1.5 and pick-up wars just x1 ?
Clans could potentially decide if they want their war to be ranked or not before the start making their coefficient 0?
This would in exchange make a fun/casual pick-up war would be less significant on your ranking and then potentially more attractive to some?

This however is not as simple to do, b/c it would require additional info to be added to the data dating back to the beginning of clans (first result is from Jan 2 2007)

I amagainst this. Ccup is already valued enough. I think every time in past 10 ccups the winner of ccup became or remained #1 in F400 rankings at the time of winning the title.should you add coefficient 2 to ccup this wouldbecome even more extreme infavor of ccup winners.

[josko.ri]

Also, look at paradox which new system brings. With the new system, first two ranked are FALL and TOFU who did not win any first class CC competition in last one year. With the current system, higher are ranked S&M, LHDD and A, who won CCup, RL and CL in last one year. Therefore, current system more evaluates perfection, which is actually winning CC events while playing versus the best of the bests. However, thenew system does notevaluate thatbutinstead evaluates high winning margins versus some of lower clans, which is irrelevant in terms of perfection.

This is my the strongest argument against the new proposed system.

You get a trophy for winning a competition.
Rankings brings everything together.
It's purpose is to have a way to rank separate than just looking at who won the competitions.

I want to say that you can propose A and B to be 100 900 or any other number (why 100 900 should be the best?) but if you want to implement it as new ranking system then it should lead to intuitive rankings.

Currently, the 100 900 proposal is highly counterintuitive because it puts on top 2 places two clans who won nothing from major competitions in the last year.

Also, we in S&M play for wins, not for margins. For example, If we have strong lead after set 1 in any war then in set 2 we do not put strong lineup. If we had known that ranking system favors margins over wins then we would not do it.

Might be a bit disengious to say that FALL has won nothing in the last year. FALL won CLX and CLXI, and was second in CLXII. The ranking system (at least, the F400, idk about D400 or the new proposed 100/900) included the past two full years, not just one year. So in theory, FALL has won a major event during that ranking period (at least one, and second in another)

The last match of CLXI ended more than a year ago which is already pretty much decayed in F400 rankongs. Thelast match of CLX ended more than two years ago so it isalready out of rankings.

[IcePack]

Just to throw another option out there which reading IP's post made me think of again.

In regards to pick-up wars vs tournament wars
Intuitively, I think most clans would agree that the tournament wars Mean more and clans put WAY more effort into CCup and the like.

Seems that it would be interesting to give extra weight to Tournament competition vs Pick-up competition.
One could introduce a multiplier coefficient to be added to increase weight of wars.
CCup and CL could be x2, maybe RL and other minor tournaments x1.5 and pick-up wars just x1 ?
Clans could potentially decide if they want their war to be ranked or not before the start making their coefficient 0?
This would in exchange make a fun/casual pick-up war would be less significant on your ranking and then potentially more attractive to some?

This however is not as simple to do, b/c it would require additional info to be added to the data dating back to the beginning of clans (first result is from Jan 2 2007)

I amagainst this. Ccup is already valued enough. I think every time in past 10 ccups the winner of ccup became or remained #1 in F400 rankings at the time of winning the title.should you add coefficient 2 to ccup this wouldbecome even more extreme infavor of ccup winners.

I tend to agree, as posted previously I also think it might just worsen already existing "issues". Also highly deincentivizes putting efforts into pick up wars, if events are going to be x2 worth. The pick up wars already have a method for removing non competitive wars from being an issue, its the event ones where you dont pick opponents thats caused the fuss. This doesn't do anything to address it, and makes the already existing "the only thing happening around here is main clan events" problem more extreme by emphasizing them even more.

I'm pretty sure josko is right, IDK of a single instance where the Cup winner didn't overtake Rank 1. FALL probably came from furthest back, and still managed to get rank 1 and hold onto it for almost a year.

[IcePack]

The last match of CLXI ended more than a year ago which is already pretty much decayed in F400 rankongs. Thelast match of CLX ended more than two years ago so it isalready out of rankings.

Yep, I know. But the CLXI while decayed still is worth 50% iirc @ 1 year, so its still included / impacted into the rankings.

[JPlo64]

Just to throw another option out there which reading IP's post made me think of again.

In regards to pick-up wars vs tournament wars
Intuitively, I think most clans would agree that the tournament wars Mean more and clans put WAY more effort into CCup and the like.

Seems that it would be interesting to give extra weight to Tournament competition vs Pick-up competition.
One could introduce a multiplier coefficient to be added to increase weight of wars.
CCup and CL could be x2, maybe RL and other minor tournaments x1.5 and pick-up wars just x1 ?
Clans could potentially decide if they want their war to be ranked or not before the start making their coefficient 0?
This would in exchange make a fun/casual pick-up war would be less significant on your ranking and then potentially more attractive to some?

This however is not as simple to do, b/c it would require additional info to be added to the data dating back to the beginning of clans (first result is from Jan 2 2007)

Wouldn't that just exasperate the current situation of making the TOFU vs BOB war x2 bigger of a problem?

Yeah, in the scenario where the spread like that is greater than a+b, it would.
I admit that honestly that's not the main issue I have addressed even though that's what started the conversation.
Although lowering a/b does seem to make that scenario much less likely.
If you go back and look in the [100,900] rankings(max=+1000), the first to last spread is just under 1000 with 1st to 3rd to last at under 800.
In D400(max=+600), 1st to last is about 780 and 1st to 3rd to last is still 610.

[Shannon Apple]

Yeah, you know on reading some of the comments here, I can see why the F400 was set up in the way that it was. It simply discourages clans who are top of the ladder from taking on wars with clans at the bottom of the ladder, especially those outside of major clan tournaments. A win against these clans shouldn't carry a negative score though. It should probably bottom out at 0 to be fair, if the weights are THAT different. Let's face it, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that BOB would have beaten TOFU.

The winning clan still gets their medal and no harm is done.

[JPlo64]

Might be a bit disengious to say that FALL has won nothing in the last year. FALL won CLX and CLXI, and was second in CLXII. The ranking system (at least, the F400, idk about D400 or the new proposed 100/900) included the past two full years, not just one year. So in theory, FALL has won a major event during that ranking period (at least one, and second in another)

All are using 2 year.
D400 is copy of F400 formula based on all info that was posted in the threads during F400's original development.

[IcePack]

Might be a bit disengious to say that FALL has won nothing in the last year. FALL won CLX and CLXI, and was second in CLXII. The ranking system (at least, the F400, idk about D400 or the new proposed 100/900) included the past two full years, not just one year. So in theory, FALL has won a major event during that ranking period (at least one, and second in another)

All are using 2 year.
D400 is copy of F400 formula based on all info that was posted in the threads during F400's original development.

I assumed as much but I didn't want to speak out of turn like I "knew" when I hadn't read enough about the D400 to know for sure.

[josko.ri]

Just to throw another option out there which reading IP's post made me think of again.

In regards to pick-up wars vs tournament wars
Intuitively, I think most clans would agree that the tournament wars Mean more and clans put WAY more effort into CCup and the like.

Seems that it would be interesting to give extra weight to Tournament competition vs Pick-up competition.
One could introduce a multiplier coefficient to be added to increase weight of wars.
CCup and CL could be x2, maybe RL and other minor tournaments x1.5 and pick-up wars just x1 ?
Clans could potentially decide if they want their war to be ranked or not before the start making their coefficient 0?
This would in exchange make a fun/casual pick-up war would be less significant on your ranking and then potentially more attractive to some?

This however is not as simple to do, b/c it would require additional info to be added to the data dating back to the beginning of clans (first result is from Jan 2 2007)

I amagainst this. Ccup is already valued enough. I think every time in past 10 ccups the winner of ccup became or remained #1 in F400 rankings at the time of winning the title.should you add coefficient 2 to ccup this wouldbecome even more extreme infavor of ccup winners.

I tend to agree, as posted previously I also think it might just worsen already existing "issues". Also highly deincentivizes putting efforts into pick up wars, if events are going to be x2 worth. The pick up wars already have a method for removing non competitive wars from being an issue, its the event ones where you dont pick opponents thats caused the fuss. This doesn't do anything to address it, and makes the already existing "the only thing happening around here is main clan events" problem more extreme by emphasizing them even more.

I'm pretty sure josko is right, IDK of a single instance where the Cup winner didn't overtake Rank 1. FALL probably came from furthest back, and still managed to get rank 1 and hold onto it for almost a year.

I am not sure that FALL came from the furthest back on rankings. Last year S&M started on 6th place in D400 and afterwards managed to win CCup and become #1 ranked.

[IcePack]

That sounds pretty close to what I remember, I’d have to go check our run in 2015 to confirm. Either way the point was even from further back if you win the cup it’s still likely to get your #1.

[rockfist]

When I've looked closely at the rankings, the thing I see is they tend to reflect who was the best in the past six months or so, they lag current performance since you could be #3 and have lost a war against #7 but there are one or two games that are hanging out there incomplete. I do not know that there is or should be a solution to this, its just an observation.

[JPlo64]

When I've looked closely at the rankings, the thing I see is they tend to reflect who was the best in the past six months or so, they lag current performance since you could be #3 and have lost a war against #7 but there are one or two games that are hanging out there incomplete. I do not know that there is or should be a solution to this, its just an observation.

Yes, in terms of date, It's all about when the final game ends, even if 98% of those games ended 1+ months previously.
Would be nice to do game by game, but that is not feasible without it being somehow integrated into the website database.

[Swimmerdude99]

Yeah, you know on reading some of the comments here, I can see why the F400 was set up in the way that it was. It simply discourages clans who are top of the ladder from taking on wars with clans at the bottom of the ladder, especially those outside of major clan tournaments. A win against these clans shouldn't carry a negative score though. It should probably bottom out at 0 to be fair, if the weights are THAT different. Let's face it, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that BOB would have beaten TOFU.

The winning clan still gets their medal and no harm is done.

I do somewhat feel like the current state of affairs discourages casual wars though. I had always assumed that was just the nature of the clans themselves at the top not wanting to spend time playing other wars, but after reading some things here, I can't help but wonder if some of it is due to not being able to gain much from a casual war and instead having much to lose.

The intention seems to be to avoid having wars that are heavily in the favor of one group, which also seems good, however with such a small clan scene I'm starting to see why we see so little activity, there are really only I guess 3 or 4 clans above and below you worth facing, for people at the top that means only a few below you. And in that scenario finding one with time, not already engaged etc is much more difficult than its likely worth.

[Extreme Ways]

With all respect to the clans at the lower end of the spectrum, wars are most fun when you are evenly matched imo. If TOFU-BOB, the war which sparked this discussion, had been an actual casual war, I would think neither really enjoyed the games.

[IcePack]

Yeah, you know on reading some of the comments here, I can see why the F400 was set up in the way that it was. It simply discourages clans who are top of the ladder from taking on wars with clans at the bottom of the ladder, especially those outside of major clan tournaments. A win against these clans shouldn't carry a negative score though. It should probably bottom out at 0 to be fair, if the weights are THAT different. Let's face it, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that BOB would have beaten TOFU.

The winning clan still gets their medal and no harm is done.

I do somewhat feel like the current state of affairs discourages casual wars though. I had always assumed that was just the nature of the clans themselves at the top not wanting to spend time playing other wars, but after reading some things here, I can't help but wonder if some of it is due to not being able to gain much from a casual war and instead having much to lose.

The intention seems to be to avoid having wars that are heavily in the favor of one group, which also seems good, however with such a small clan scene I'm starting to see why we see so little activity, there are really only I guess 3 or 4 clans above and below you worth facing, for people at the top that means only a few below you. And in that scenario finding one with time, not already engaged etc is much more difficult than its likely worth.

With all respect to the clans at the lower end of the spectrum, wars are most fun when you are evenly matched imo. If TOFU-BOB, the war which sparked this discussion, had been an actual casual war, I would think neither really enjoyed the games.

Yeah, I'm not sure its ever dissuaded me / my clan from doing a war - it might have altered who we selected, but when we wanted a war we always warred. So there was only room for one war, and we selected someone specific to it. We wouldn't have asked a few and shrugged and went "ok well guess we aren't warring". For the top clans, many of them choose to focus solely on the main events, so whether there was ranking implications or not I'm not sure any alterations would suddenly make them reconsider and start playing a bunch of extra pick up games vs lower clans outside the main competitions.

[Shannon Apple]

I do somewhat feel like the current state of affairs discourages casual wars though. I had always assumed that was just the nature of the clans themselves at the top not wanting to spend time playing other wars, but after reading some things here, I can't help but wonder if some of it is due to not being able to gain much from a casual war and instead having much to lose.

The intention seems to be to avoid having wars that are heavily in the favor of one group, which also seems good, however with such a small clan scene I'm starting to see why we see so little activity, there are really only I guess 3 or 4 clans above and below you worth facing, for people at the top that means only a few below you. And in that scenario finding one with time, not already engaged etc is much more difficult than its likely worth.

Nah, you're reading too much into it. It is true that some of us don't take on casual wars because players are focused on the competition games. There are just not enough active players to take on more wars and keep the focus. We've taken on RL, CL and CC. I think that's enough haha.

And as EW said, even if there was time, it would be no fun at all for either side if the teams are not somewhat evenly matched.

[Leehar]

Hi JP,

I just wanted to thank you from my side for taking all the feedback in a positive light.
It's great to see the interaction.

I don't have much to add on the discussion as I think it's been a well trodden path. I expected Josko's comments (even if I didn't expect him to comment 3 times in a row); but it just comes down to the 'feeling', and how if S&M are not number 1 right now de facto from the Cup, then the ranking just doesn't feel right

I did think similar to you on boosting the Cup ratings, but I see there are contrasting views. I think there's no reason to change the official ranking, but if you do have the time and inclination to test it out and see the outcome looks like, I think it would still be an interesting project and spark some good debate.

My one disclaimer with the league that it still isn't a big enough spread, so it's hard to rate it above casual wars (if against the same level of opposition); since luck has a much bigger impact on a smaller size meeting between 2 clans.

Just to throw another option out there which reading IP's post made me think of again.

In regards to pick-up wars vs tournament wars
Intuitively, I think most clans would agree that the tournament wars Mean more and clans put WAY more effort into CCup and the like.

Seems that it would be interesting to give extra weight to Tournament competition vs Pick-up competition.
One could introduce a multiplier coefficient to be added to increase weight of wars.
CCup and CL could be x2, maybe RL and other minor tournaments x1.5 and pick-up wars just x1 ?
Clans could potentially decide if they want their war to be ranked or not before the start making their coefficient 0?
This would in exchange make a fun/casual pick-up war would be less significant on your ranking and then potentially more attractive to some?

This however is not as simple to do, b/c it would require additional info to be added to the data dating back to the beginning of clans (first result is from Jan 2 2007)

[benga]

Apart from CCup seeding why is clan rank important?
For me it's all about winning trophies.

Pick-up wars will not be a thing unless there are more clans.
Pick-up wars are great when you want to meet new clans outside the regular competitions.
It becomes boring following the same path each year in CCup.
We mostly faced FOED/S&M.

As goes for RL and possible mltipliers, RL recently is as strong or stronger than CL PD.

[rockfist]

Bragging rights I guess? To me it’s about trophies but because someone won six months ago doesn’t mean they are he best now. I think it’s been a decade since S&M repeated in Cup. No one else has.

[benga]

Bragging rights I guess? To me it’s about trophies but because someone won six months ago doesn’t mean they are he best now. I think it’s been a decade since S&M repeated in Cup. No one else has.

I would say that in best form atm is A^ but they are 4th now.
S&M is the last Cup winner and have consistently proven they belong there.
But I also expect for the A^ to finish top by the end of year.

It would be more useful to have ranking for Cup only, not the mix of all.
After 10 instalments there should be enough data to make it significant.
CL uses promotion/relegation system.
RL is open to all anyway.
So to have seeding for Cup other than Cup ranking is useless.
You can still have D400 or any other for bragging rights, but it should not be used competitively for any competition.

[IcePack]

Our Rating Stonks are going up! Diamond Hands!

[iAmCaffeine]

have you even beaten any clans yet?