Conquer Club

I thought 12 was a little high too. Maybe when the win agains AOC comes through but not right now. However, the clans we beat were ranked higher at the time of our wins...if I remember correctly. I think DB was 15 or so. Not that it explains a ranking of 12 but it would help out.

I don't think people give the pigs enough credit. It's an outstanding bunch of players, and they sure are tough to beat.

QoH wrote:I don't think people give the pigs enough credit. It's an outstanding bunch of players, and they sure are tough to beat.

nobody said they were a bad clan i actually said i think they will be a top clan i just dont think any clan not just pigs should enter into the rankings as number 12 unless they beat a top clan lets say 8 or up that would give them bragging rights to a twelve rank but to beat average or below average clans should not vault into the top like that now if there rank was 19 or 20 i really could not say anything they beat every one in front of them

That's why you need to play wars, IMO, clans like ID and DB are too low.

The Regiment beat AKA.

jpcloet wrote:That's why you need to play wars, IMO, clans like ID and DB are too low.

DB and ID are ranked to low is that what you meant?


and if the whole object is to get clans playing more then there should be quell loss of rank as well and there is not

we at dynasty have been extremely busy in wars and turnys and we lost 2 point and our only new stat is a win over aka 25 to 15 in the ACC who is ranked ahead of us and then i see 4 new clans enter and there ranked as high as they are. i think some thing needs tweaking


i am not complaining about DYNASTY's rank i am a firm believer of working your way up thats why you dont see us challenging the top clans we have more fun playing lower ranked clans anyway. i am also not saying there bad clans maybe one or two deserve a decent rank

Everybody does start on 1000 so I guess there can't be any complaint about that, but I think there must be a flaw that all a badly performing clan could theoretically need to do is re-form to jump back up the list...

I think I can explain the difference between clans with little games played and clans with many games played.

Say we, the VDLL (with just enough games to be included into the ranking), play the Legion, who has played many games but has aproximately the same score as we have at this time.
If we win we will add a new score to our list with a far higher relative weight than when the Legion would win. The effect would be that if we would win we would get aproximately 3 times more points added to our current score than the Legion would get for the same win.

Of course this would also mean that we would drop 3 times faster for the same loss as they would.

FH

Leehar wrote:Everybody does start on 1000 so I guess there can't be any complaint about that, but I think there must be a flaw that all a badly performing clan could theoretically need to do is re-form to jump back up the list...

maybe this is the problem maybe we need start new clans a bit lower a 1000 is right around 15 or so that means they are more than half way to the top before even playing a game

maybe start them at 900 or even 850 if there truly a top 15 clan they will get there

Yeah, obviously it will be a bit troublesome tho considering the rest of us did all start at 1k, so it seems weird if other new clans started below that, but it's also seems unfeasible that a clan seemingly pops up into the top 16 automatically upon creation. I assume the weighting system etc is supposed to limit the effects of that, but ...

Leehar wrote:Yeah, obviously it will be a bit troublesome tho considering the rest of us did all start at 1k, so it seems weird if other new clans started below that, but it's also seems unfeasible that a clan seemingly pops up into the top 16 automatically upon creation. I assume the weighting system etc is supposed to limit the effects of that, but ...

i agree when this ranking started maybe all clans established should start with a 1000 makes sense there established and had wars and turnaments under there belts already

but from that point on new clans with no experienced and unestablished should maybe start with 850

dint even think of this 4 new clans in top 20 takes ranks of clans like dynasty 4 spots back that means we have to probably play 2 wars and win to get those spots back. i dam well know we can beat probly 3 out of 4 of them clans we already beat koa in small chalenge (ACC) they also went ahead of some other good solid clans myth,, tffs, g1, leagon, bpb, these are all clans that new clans went ahead of and i do not think one of them had played each other

WPBRJ wrote:

Leehar wrote:Yeah, obviously it will be a bit troublesome tho considering the rest of us did all start at 1k, so it seems weird if other new clans started below that, but it's also seems unfeasible that a clan seemingly pops up into the top 16 automatically upon creation. I assume the weighting system etc is supposed to limit the effects of that, but ...

i agree when this ranking started maybe all clans established should start with a 1000 makes sense there established and had wars and turnaments under there belts already

but from that point on new clans with no experienced and unestablished should maybe start with 850

dint even think of this 4 new clans in top 20 takes ranks of clans like dynasty 4 spots back that means we have to probably play 2 wars and win to get those spots back. i dam well know we can beat probly 3 out of 4 of them clans we already beat koa in small chalenge (ACC) they also went ahead of some other good solid clans myth,, tffs, g1, leagon, bpb, these are all clans that new clans went ahead of and i do not think one of them had played each other

This sounds like it would work, but it wouldn't have the desired effect. Even if I set every new clan to 800 points, it would have no effect on what their score is after they have completed clan wars.
The default starting score is only used until the clan has completed wars. So regardless of how far down we could have started the Pigs, their ranking today would be exactly the same because it is derived 100% from the clans they have played against - the 800 or 1000 they started at is not averaged in to get their current score. Score is determined by wars (and it is the opponent's rank and win % that determines the rating, not the clan's current rating itself), or if there were no wars, then it is the default starting score.

WPBRJ wrote:we at dynasty have been extremely busy in wars and turnys and we lost 2 point and our only new stat is a win over aka 25 to 15 in the ACC who is ranked ahead of us and then i see 4 new clans enter and there ranked as high as they are. i think some thing needs tweaking

i am not complaining about DYNASTY's rank i am a firm believer of working your way up thats why you dont see us challenging the top clans we have more fun playing lower ranked clans anyway. i am also not saying there bad clans maybe one or two deserve a decent rank

I realize it is demoralizing for the bottom half of the scoreboard to drop 4 spots as a result of higher ranked newcomers. One thing I can do would be to also track change in points (in addition to change in rank that I'm currently tracking). That way you can have a measurement of performance that is determined purely by your own clan's performance, and not as a result of other clans entering / disbanding higher up.

Leehar wrote:@FD, I can understand why you didn't want to post the less than 150 ranking, but do you know how we can still find it? (Either a link, or do we just feed your data file into the formula tab you've linked elsewhere?)

Otherwise, this new clan jumping into the top 20 thing still worries me...

Leehar wrote:

jackin_u_up wrote:I can never find AFOS in these rankings ???? Whats up ?

Like with 1rfg, I suspect your weighting is still below 150?

Army of GOD wrote:Is there a reason the Spelunkers of Hell aren't on here...?

Yes, as of Oct 19, AFOS had 139 weight points. So once they finish one more war they should meet the cutoff for the official ranking. Right now they are ahead of PIGs btw. SOH has 122 weight points.

Here is the unofficial ranking. I'll post the link on the OP as well.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6110/6272905579_e6f0f2daa0_b.jpg

I have a lot of respect for the Dynasty clan and the folks who run this. There was a misunderstanding and this post has now been appropriately edited. My bad folks.

Wait! Let's not make this into a bigger issue than it is. RJ was't trying to disrespect any of the clans he mentioned. He was raising legitimate concerns about the ranking. FD has come up with the best system on the site but NOTHING is perfect.

PIG and PACK will continue to rise through the ranks if we continue to win. We did lose to GR but it was one game against a clan that was ranked higher than us at the time. Everything will even out after a year or so. So, to change things just because a couple of clans have hot starts wouldn't solve anything.

Agreed. Newer clans might debut a little higher than they should, but it will sort itself out over time. It might not be perfect, but it is pretty darn good for the most part.

Question... How did you come up with all the up and down numbers. Seems like a ton more down than up. Should those not be even?

Bruceswar wrote:Question... How did you come up with all the up and down numbers. Seems like a ton more down than up. Should those not be even?

No, if someone jumps up there is at least 1 falling down, but in reality there are always more.

Also there are those NEW! that also upset the ranking.

benga wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:Question... How did you come up with all the up and down numbers. Seems like a ton more down than up. Should those not be even?

No, if someone jumps up there is at least 1 falling down, but in reality there are always more.

Also there are those NEW! that also upset the ranking.

Exactly. As soon as a clan gets 150 weight points, they are then counted in the ranking. So if there were 31 clans last month, now there are 34 (+4 - TOFU). Any clan below those new clans will drop unless they gained relative to their peers.

If change in rank is to be based on rank displayed, then this is how it must be done. It does give a false sense of the lower clans having dropped four places this month - in actuality, they were already below those new clans, but those clans had not yet accumulated 150 weight points, and so were not factored in previously.

One thing I could do is make change in rank calculation ignore new clans. So the clan's rank between two moments in time is compared, ignoring any clan that is not present at both times. This would then not result in all lower-ranked clans having negative values for change in rank every time a new clan makes it onto the scoreboard. Their ranks would, however, go down just the same. Because what I'm proposing here is that actual rank displayed is the real rank based on all clans, but change in rank is based only on those clans that were present in the rankings at both times.

Even factoring the new clans and taking TOFU out... that is only 3 spots. Some of these clans lost 6 spots?

btw I see how it works now.. I am slow.. ugh.. lol

Are you including results that are posted here or all results? i read your first post

Data

I'm using data that includes all clan wars, including Clan League sets that consist of relatively fewer challenges.

You can check out the data I'm using with the link below. Please notify me if you find any inaccuracies.

But was wondering if you are also using the All comers cup and every other tourney that will come about that you enter as a clan.

reptile wrote:Are you including results that are posted here or all results? i read your first post

Data

I'm using data that includes all clan wars, including Clan League sets that consist of relatively fewer challenges.

You can check out the data I'm using with the link below. Please notify me if you find any inaccuracies.

But was wondering if you are also using the All comers cup and every other tourney that will come about that you enter as a clan.

I would say yes

lord voldemort wrote:

reptile wrote:Are you including results that are posted here or all results? i read your first post

Data

I'm using data that includes all clan wars, including Clan League sets that consist of relatively fewer challenges.

You can check out the data I'm using with the link below. Please notify me if you find any inaccuracies.

But was wondering if you are also using the All comers cup and every other tourney that will come about that you enter as a clan.

I would say yes

Yes.

My aim is to include every event where one clan goes against another and a score is obtained. I believe we currently have all such events but if you find that we are missing something, please contact Gunn217 and he can add it to his data files.

Farang. Be a star and reinstate TOFU would you? The clan is active/competitive again. Many thanks

Data as of Oct 30 being compiled yet?