Algorithm of 400 Clan Ranking (Sep 30, 2011)

[grifftron]

well then maybe the pack should be ranked with just new clans since we are not worthy to be ranked here unless we have been playing a "few" years like my best friend qwert said above.

-griff

[Great-Ollie]

How about we just get edited down to 11th so the top 10 list can be as it should be and the world of CC clans will not fall into udder chaos!

[John Deere]

I would even be fine with them being a top 10 clan if they lost to number 7-9 by a game or two or handily beat a 11-13 clan, but the fact that the best clan they have played is somewhere in the 15-20 range...doesnt convince me they deserve to be in the top 10.

So where would you rank The Pack since we beat the 18th ( by another CC ranking system) by almost 2-1 games (39-21) ?

Not in the top 10,

No shit? Glad you finally made that obvious! A simple answer would have worked instead of you throwing that at me again.

I think i would rank pack in the 12-15 range based on current results

I was thinking 12-13, 15 is pushing it i think. When you have a big win against a respected 18th rank clan you will gain a few spots. So what this comes down to, is you having a concern about us being perceived as a top ten clan that puts us a couple places higher than you think we should be on a ranking system that has not one thing to do with perception.... Glad i could straighten that out for everybody!

[ljex]

Haha, i patiently await you playing a top 10 clan...my guess you are going to be surprised by the outcome. Oh and beating the 18th clan by such a margin clearly shouldnt mean you are ranked 9 spots ahead of them or empire would be ranked #1 because we beat the 10 ranked clan by a similar margin and somehow i dont see you agreeing with that ranking of us.

[John Deere]

Haha, i patiently await you playing a top 10 clan...my guess you are going to be surprised by the outcome. Oh and beating the 18th clan by such a margin clearly shouldnt mean you are ranked 9 spots ahead of them or empire would be ranked #1 because we beat the 10 ranked clan by a similar margin and somehow i dont see you agreeing with that ranking of us.

Please show me when ANY Pack member has said we should be in the top ten. I dont recall any one of us saying such. So at least argue something we have said.....

[ljex]

Haha, i patiently await you playing a top 10 clan...my guess you are going to be surprised by the outcome. Oh and beating the 18th clan by such a margin clearly shouldnt mean you are ranked 9 spots ahead of them or empire would be ranked #1 because we beat the 10 ranked clan by a similar margin and somehow i dont see you agreeing with that ranking of us.

Please show me when ANY Pack member has said we should be in the top ten. I dont recall any one of us saying such. So at least argue something we have said.....

please explain why you would be arguing with me if you did not perceive yourself as a top 10 clan? Oh and i did pose this same question to one of your clanmates a few posts ago...he ignored me lets see if you do the same

[John Deere]

Haha, i patiently await you playing a top 10 clan...my guess you are going to be surprised by the outcome. Oh and beating the 18th clan by such a margin clearly shouldnt mean you are ranked 9 spots ahead of them or empire would be ranked #1 because we beat the 10 ranked clan by a similar margin and somehow i dont see you agreeing with that ranking of us.

Please show me when ANY Pack member has said we should be in the top ten. I dont recall any one of us saying such. So at least argue something we have said.....

please explain why you would be arguing with me if you did not perceive yourself as a top 10 clan? Oh and i did pose this same question to one of your clanmates a few posts ago...he ignored me lets see if you do the same

That question HAS been answered! You should read and/or comprehended Tecs post better! You are to busy being argumentative over nothing! Please keep reading this post so you can see what Tec wrote about 10 post ago that would have answered the same question you have chosen to ask AGAIN.....

"deserve" has nothing to do with calculations of numbers. I'm sure everyone agrees The PACK isn't top 10 right now. Yes, we have done very well and hope to win more in the future. I'm not arguing about our position on the list, I'm arguing your perception of this list. You are looking at a numbers based list and trying to make it equal another list that is based on votes or a particular persons assessment of their value. Isn't going to happen unless the "Top 10" play, and win, as many wars as everyone else. If you want to discuss a particular clans placement on a "deserve" list, then you are in the wrong thread.

Now please answer my question....

Please show me when ANY Pack member has said we should be in the top ten. I dont recall any one of us saying such. So at least argue something we have said....

[tec805]

please explain why you would be arguing with me if you did not perceive yourself as a top 10 clan? Oh and i did pose this same question to one of your clanmates a few posts ago...he ignored me lets see if you do the same

You told me to ignore you I said previously this list is based on calculations. You continue to seem to care deeply that someone else may like looking at a list like this. Perceive, opinion, feel, deserve, none of these effect numbers. I'll make this real easy for you, Chuuuuck's Power Rankings. You won't have to complain about calculations making your world unfair. Feel free to deprive those of us who like this list your expert opinions on the matter. We shall suffer tremendously without you. Really. I promise. No really, stay away from that Reply button. I let you have the last word before, just like you wanted. Oh jeez, see, now you are hovering over that Reply button! Don't do it! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

[ljex]

Haha, i patiently await you playing a top 10 clan...my guess you are going to be surprised by the outcome. Oh and beating the 18th clan by such a margin clearly shouldnt mean you are ranked 9 spots ahead of them or empire would be ranked #1 because we beat the 10 ranked clan by a similar margin and somehow i dont see you agreeing with that ranking of us.

Please show me when ANY Pack member has said we should be in the top ten. I dont recall any one of us saying such. So at least argue something we have said.....

please explain why you would be arguing with me if you did not perceive yourself as a top 10 clan? Oh and i did pose this same question to one of your clanmates a few posts ago...he ignored me lets see if you do the same

That question HAS been answered! You should read and/or comprehended Tecs post better! You are to busy being argumentative over nothing! Please keep reading this post so you can see what Tec wrote about 10 post ago that would have answered the same question you have chosen to ask AGAIN.....

"deserve" has nothing to do with calculations of numbers. I'm sure everyone agrees The PACK isn't top 10 right now. Yes, we have done very well and hope to win more in the future. I'm not arguing about our position on the list, I'm arguing your perception of this list. You are looking at a numbers based list and trying to make it equal another list that is based on votes or a particular persons assessment of their value. Isn't going to happen unless the "Top 10" play, and win, as many wars as everyone else. If you want to discuss a particular clans placement on a "deserve" list, then you are in the wrong thread.

Now please answer my question....

Please show me when ANY Pack member has said we should be in the top ten. I dont recall any one of us saying such. So at least argue something we have said....

seriously if you think that is a good explanation then this is sad. Just because it is a mathematical list you still have to deserve the spot you are placed. One problem with this list is that it gives too much credit for a bunch of wins vs lower ranked clans. I feel if people are going to view this as an accurate rating system we should work to make it as accurate as possible.

as to the where any pack member said you should be in the top 10...i already know that has not been said in this thread. In fact some of you have even admitted yourself that as of now you dont belong in the top 10, i just dont understand why all of you are arguing with me unless you think that you should be a top 10 clan based on your results. That said what you post can be different than what you are thinking...but i can never know that.

please explain why you would be arguing with me if you did not perceive yourself as a top 10 clan? Oh and i did pose this same question to one of your clanmates a few posts ago...he ignored me lets see if you do the same

You told me to ignore you I said previously this list is based on calculations. You continue to seem to care deeply that someone else may like looking at a list like this. Perceive, opinion, feel, deserve, none of these effect numbers. I'll make this real easy for you, Chuuuuck's Power Rankings. You won't have to complain about calculations making your world unfair. Feel free to deprive those of us who like this list your expert opinions on the matter. We shall suffer tremendously without you. Really. I promise. No really, stay away from that Reply button. I let you have the last word before, just like you wanted. Oh jeez, see, now you are hovering over that Reply button! Don't do it! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Jesus christ it is hard to believe that you just dont see this yet. Even in a mathematical system you need to deserve the rank you are given. Do you think I am the best player on this site? I dont think so and yet for a bit I was the conqueror using a mathematical system. This just proves there can be flaws in mathematical systems, the same flaw i see in this system and one that i would like to see fixed or at least attempted to be fixed. The fact that you can say a mathematical system gives clans a accurate rank, means that you think you deserve the #1 rank and TOFU something like 18.

Oh and i said you were free to ignore me...not that you were required to

[Leehar]

I think i would rank pack in the 12-15 range based on current results

I was thinking 12-13, 15 is pushing it i think. When you have a big win against a respected 18th rank clan you will gain a few spots. So what this comes down to, is you having a concern about us being perceived as a top ten clan that puts us a couple places higher than you think we should be on a ranking system that has not one thing to do with perception.... Glad i could straighten that out for everybody!

Thats pretty faulty reasoning, and no offense to BSS for using them as an example (heck, ljex used us so I'm not going to complain too much), but they've been at the end of similar scorelines before, and I haven't seen any of the others having jumped 10 places before them by virtue of it. Heck, Bofm had that identical scoreline over them in March, and we had a similar score to that last year as well when they were ranked much higher themselves (perhaps even in the top 10). So just by virtue of that, or any of your other comfortable wins, is in our minds (me, com and ljex who have posted here so far) not enough for you to jump into any top 10 group, and we basically feel that a ranking that does do that, could do with some more modifying to be a more accurate reflection of the clan scene.

If you want to use a sports analogy, look at it in how Tennis critics aren't completely satisfied with someone like Wozniaki being at the top of the women's ranking without winning a Grand Slam. I assume that it may have come about by her winning a lot of smaller atp tour titles, but for some of us thats just not enough.

Perhaps it just comes back to that oft-used adage, "to be the best, you have to beat the best" (or at least perform on-par achievements), and I just don't see that in the last 5/7 challenges for the pack. By all accounts you guys have really done an amazing job, but to be based above other clans with such proud histories of their own just by dint of that, seems to be taking it too far...

[FarangDemon]

I appreciate most of you guys for being civil but let's try to avoid this thread descending further into a flame war between ljex and The Pack, as some of the last few days has resembled.

FYI I want to clarify how number of clan wars impacts a clan's rating in this system, as this has been popping up in the discussion. It does not impact a clan's rating. The rating is a weighted average of all basis points. It is not a sum. Each challenge yields basis points, which depends on the opponent's rating at that time and the margin of win/loss. These are all then weight-averaged together. I have imposed a cutoff of 150 total weight points for a clan to be included in my official ranking. That means having completed 150 games yesterday (150 games * 100% decay factor for yesterday = 150) or 300 games 1 year ago (300 games * 50% decay factor for one year ago) for example.

Weighting Wars against Peers more than Wars against Underdogs

I agree with Leehar's quote but Ric Flair said it best:



I like ljex's suggestion to weight wars against peers more than wars against non-peers and this is something I feel comfortable doing. Adjusting the weights like this would prevent a clan that doesn't beat peers very often from rising as much above them due to success against underdogs (provided they ever play against peers. So far, a clan does not have to even play a peer. But in my next scoreboard, for each clan I will display the highest clan they've beaten in the last year, which helps put the ranking into perspective / act as incentive to beat peers). And it does not automatically penalize a clan from beating an underdog which might happen if I have to alter formula for deriving basis points from a challenge - it just weights that clan war less relative to wars against peers. But we need to consider the implications:

If the favored clan wins, then we get the result we want - the win is weighted less than a win against a peer would be. The loss for the underdog is also weighted less.
If the underdog clan wins, do we still want the favored clan's loss and underdog's win to be weighted less? I think the answer is no.

So for lopsided wars, looks like what we want is:

If the favored clan wins, weight it less for both clans.
If the underdog wins, weight it normal.

Does that sound like it would have the desired effect?

[Leehar]

Somewhat, tho I kinda lost the thread a bit near the end

I think also important is to note a loss to a peer or above in the ranking system as that also provides a good indication of where you stand.

If you can apply something like this then I think it will come more in line with other things like the leap ladder etc as an ideal we're looking for, tho obv we still have to see what the final product will look like

[tec805]

So for lopsided wars, looks like what we want is:

If the favored clan wins, weight it less for both clans.
If the underdog wins, weight it normal.

Why would the favored clan get into a war with an underdog if there is very little to gain?

[Leehar]

So for lopsided wars, looks like what we want is:

If the favored clan wins, weight it less for both clans.
If the underdog wins, weight it normal.

Why would the favored clan get into a war with an underdog if there is very little to gain?

It was my initial question posed earlier about what they have to gain if sometimes medals aren't given for such battles, but I think what FD is actually going at here, is that it's weighted less relative to a battle vs a peer. I'm not actually exactly certain about it's numerical effects but basically, as the #10 you are currently, a win over an 11th ranked clan will have a normal weighting to what it does currently (depending on the amount of games, and decay etc), but a win over a lower clan will be weighted less to your overall score.

[FarangDemon]

So for lopsided wars, looks like what we want is:

If the favored clan wins, weight it less for both clans.
If the underdog wins, weight it normal.

Why would the favored clan get into a war with an underdog if there is very little to gain?

It was my initial question posed earlier about what they have to gain if sometimes medals aren't given for such battles, but I think what FD is actually going at here, is that it's weighted less relative to a battle vs a peer. I'm not actually exactly certain about it's numerical effects but basically, as the #10 you are currently, a win over an 11th ranked clan will have a normal weighting to what it does currently (depending on the amount of games, and decay etc), but a win over a lower clan will be weighted less to your overall score.

That's right.

A "regular" average just adds up all the numbers and then divides by how many there are. A weighted average multiplies each number by a weight first, then adds them up, then divides by the sum of all weights. The weights I have been using are the product of number of games in the war * decay factor (a number between 0 and 100% depending on age of war). So what I'm thinking of doing is also multiply this weight by a peer factor which will range perhaps from 50-100% depending on the difference between both clan's ratings at time of conclusion of war.

So giving more weight to peer-to-peer wars (and wars where the underdog beat a peer as I propose) relative to wars where the winner was overwhelmingly favored will either or increase or decrease a clan's rating, depending on which wars the clan got higher ratings from.

I just had another idea, to completely ensure that most of a clan's rating is derived from results against peers, I could fix it so that 75% of a clan's rating is determined by peer wars and 25% is determined by non-peer wars. So no matter how many extreme underdogs a clan beats, this will only count for 25% of their rating - the other 75% will be based on peer wars.

Btw I'm not saying any of this would put The Pack lower or that I even believe they should be lower. I'm just interested in making these changes to ensure that any clan cannot rise too high above their peers without performing well against them, which I think we all agree on.

[tec805]

So for lopsided wars, looks like what we want is:

If the favored clan wins, weight it less for both clans.
If the underdog wins, weight it normal.

Why would the favored clan get into a war with an underdog if there is very little to gain?

It was my initial question posed earlier about what they have to gain if sometimes medals aren't given for such battles, but I think what FD is actually going at here, is that it's weighted less relative to a battle vs a peer. I'm not actually exactly certain about it's numerical effects but basically, as the #10 you are currently, a win over an 11th ranked clan will have a normal weighting to what it does currently (depending on the amount of games, and decay etc), but a win over a lower clan will be weighted less to your overall score.

Which goes back to the original issue of higher ranked clans have little or no reason to played lower ranked clans. I doubt this particular form of "keeping score" will ever become official, or the norm, but clans that aren't on the top of other list yet still play many wars would love to have something to show to the general crowd. A clan could put a ton of effort into winning a dozen wars over a year period and show up very high on this list while some "Top 10" clans play a few wars and will have few points to show for it (even though their wars were against the other toughest clans). Does having a numerical based list somehow detract from other peoples list? Why can't there be a list for something other than which clan has the largest collection of the best players? Make a formula that calculates the numbers evenly and stop trying to compare the results to other list. You are never going to please all of the people with whatever it is you do, so if you are trying to make a list that emulates Chuuuucks instead of giving actual numbers then just put a link on the first post to his list and be done with it.

[ljex]

I appreciate most of you guys for being civil but let's try to avoid this thread descending further into a flame war between ljex and The Pack, as some of the last few days has resembled.

you might want to learn what a flame war is before you go off and characterize something as one. Flames involve personnel insults not just any argument...there were very little if any flames in this thread.

[Dako]

So for lopsided wars, looks like what we want is:

If the favored clan wins, weight it less for both clans.
If the underdog wins, weight it normal.

Why would the favored clan get into a war with an underdog if there is very little to gain?

Because sometimes you are paired so in the tournaments. Because some clans don't want to be elitists by playing top-clans only.

[FarangDemon]

I appreciate most of you guys for being civil but let's try to avoid this thread descending further into a flame war between ljex and The Pack, as some of the last few days has resembled.

you might want to learn what a flame war is before you go off and characterize something as one. Flames involve personnel insults not just any argument...there were very little if any flames in this thread.

Well, call it what you will, I don't like my thread polluted with post after post of "if you agree with me then why are you disagreeing?" nonsense.

[Dako]

I appreciate most of you guys for being civil but let's try to avoid this thread descending further into a flame war between ljex and The Pack, as some of the last few days has resembled.

you might want to learn what a flame war is before you go off and characterize something as one. Flames involve personnel insults not just any argument...there were very little if any flames in this thread.

Well, call it what you will, I don't like my thread polluted with post after post of "if you agree with me then why are you disagreeing?" nonsense.

You can always report their posts as offtopic.

[ljex]

I appreciate most of you guys for being civil but let's try to avoid this thread descending further into a flame war between ljex and The Pack, as some of the last few days has resembled.

you might want to learn what a flame war is before you go off and characterize something as one. Flames involve personnel insults not just any argument...there were very little if any flames in this thread.

Well, call it what you will, I don't like my thread polluted with post after post of "if you agree with me then why are you disagreeing?" nonsense.

You can always report their posts as offtopic.

Or just ask people to discuss it privately. But we have gone way further off topic to discuss how to stop a tread from going of topic when the thread didn't even really go off topic. Sure its not 100% what the OP wanted to be discussed but you can hardly say this is the first time that has happened and that any action could be taken if he were to complain.

[FarangDemon]

Why can't there be a list for something other than which clan has the largest collection of the best players? Make a formula that calculates the numbers evenly and stop trying to compare the results to other list. You are never going to please all of the people with whatever it is you do, so if you are trying to make a list that emulates Chuuuucks instead of giving actual numbers then just put a link on the first post to his list and be done with it.

My goal is not to tweak my formula until the results look exactly like Chuuuuck's.

My goal is to maximize the accuracy of my ranking system.

I measure the accuracy of my system by tallying how often the higher ranked clan actually beats the lower ranked.

If increasing the weight of peer-to-peer wars relative to lopsided wars results in an overall increase in accuracy, then I will probably implement it.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to please all of the people. I agreed with one of ljex's points, not because I want to please him, but because I think the modification could result in higher accuracy.

So the goal of this thread is to improve the accuracy of my system as defined above. I appreciate everybody's help in this regard. Please refrain from non-productive (with regard to the stated goal of the thread), having-the-last-word kind of personal arguments, even if you consider them on-topic. Please continue these discussions privately or in another thread. Use your best judgment.

[Dako]

What does wight mean? And in terms of 2 clans facing each other - how will it affect the probability of the outcome? Which clan is more likely to win?

[FarangDemon]

What does wight mean? And in terms of 2 clans facing each other - how will it affect the probability of the outcome? Which clan is more likely to win?

FYI I want to clarify how number of clan wars impacts a clan's rating in this system, as this has been popping up in the discussion. It does not impact a clan's rating. The rating is a weighted average of all basis points. It is not a sum. Each challenge yields basis points, which depends on the opponent's rating at that time and the margin of win/loss. These are all then weight-averaged together. I have imposed a cutoff of 150 total weight points for a clan to be included in my official ranking. That means having completed 150 games yesterday (150 games * 100% decay factor for yesterday = 150) or 300 games 1 year ago (300 games * 50% decay factor for one year ago) for example.

I left this part out of the explanation above:

Overall rating is computed as a weighted average of all basis points (each challenge yields an amount of basis points, depending on opponent's rating and margin of win/loss). So each challenge must have a weight assigned. I assign weight for each challenge as number of games * decay factor.

I'm not exactly sure about your second question, let me know if this explanation clears it up:

If I change the way I calculate the weights, it will result in clans having different ratings. Since the clans have different ratings there is a chance that the accuracy (defined as % of time the higher ranked clan beat the lower ranked) will increase or decrease.

[Dako]

If clan A has 150 weight and clan B has 200 and the face each other in a war - who will most likely win?