the F41 [Archive]

by **betiko** on Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:26 pm

So there is something I don't understand here...

We're 5th in the f400 behind tsm
We're 4th ahead of tsm in the f41
We're 6th in the leagues ranking while tsm isn't even ranked.

Conclusion; being 6th in the leagues ranking makes you lose points and it's better not to participate in it?

We're having a pretty decent record in league, with 1 tied and 5 wins, how does that make us lose points compared to tsm?

by **Keefie** on Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:37 am

betiko wrote:So there is something I don't understand here...

We're 5th in the f400 behind tsm
We're 4th ahead of tsm in the f41
We're 6th in the leagues ranking while tsm isn't even ranked.

Conclusion; being 6th in the leagues ranking makes you lose points and it's better not to participate in it?

We're having a pretty decent record in league, with 1 tied and 5 wins, how does that make us lose points compared to tsm?

and in Sept 2014 you were 25th in leagues.

This is a 2 year ranking so pre Sept 2014 your league performance wasn't very good.

by **betiko** on Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:39 am

Keefie wrote:
betiko wrote:So there is something I don't understand here...

We're 5th in the f400 behind tsm
We're 4th ahead of tsm in the f41
We're 6th in the leagues ranking while tsm isn't even ranked.

Conclusion; being 6th in the leagues ranking makes you lose points and it's better not to participate in it?

We're having a pretty decent record in league, with 1 tied and 5 wins, how does that make us lose points compared to tsm?

and in Sept 2014 you were 25th in leagues.

This is a 2 year ranking so pre Sept 2014 your league performance wasn't very good.

yes, but results older that 2 years ago have been removed; and what counts is the current ranking... 6th in leagues. I still stand by my point; being ranked 6th in league overall, which in my sense is pretty good, is a prejudice compared to clans that don't participate. I was just very surprised to see us in front of TSM in the F41, and that in league not being ranked makes them win back our position for the f400 global ranking.
Anyway, we're facing TSM in the CC5 so it will be a good opportunity to claim the 4th place in the f400!!!

by **JPlo64** on Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:13 am

betiko wrote:So there is something I don't understand here...

We're 5th in the f400 behind tsm
We're 4th ahead of tsm in the f41
We're 6th in the leagues ranking while tsm isn't even ranked.

If you told me your 4th in wars and 6th in leagues. I might guess ur combined rating might be 5th.

That being said...
When you compare the F41 and the FiceLeague rankings, the difference in the Ranking Values is rather striking.
Nearly uniformly it is the case that a clan's rating is higher in the F41 than the Fice. By an average of about 100-200 pts per clan.
(I wonder why that is. Is it just the case that Leagues are very difficult to put up high points b/c of the small size of each matchup?)
So, it actually does seem that, as far as the F400 is concerned, you're most likely better off not playing in the leagues.
It would be nice to maybe adjust the value given to League matches to correct this discrepancy.

by **betiko** on Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:39 am

JPlo64 wrote:
betiko wrote:So there is something I don't understand here...

We're 5th in the f400 behind tsm
We're 4th ahead of tsm in the f41
We're 6th in the leagues ranking while tsm isn't even ranked.

If you told me your 4th in wars and 6th in leagues. I might guess ur combined rating might be 5th.

That being said...
When you compare the F41 and the FiceLeague rankings, the difference in the Ranking Values is rather striking.
Nearly uniformly it is the case that a clan's rating is higher in the F41 than the Fice. By an average of about 100-200 pts per clan.
(I wonder why that is. Is it just the case that Leagues are very difficult to put up high points b/c of the small size of each matchup?)
So, it actually does seem that, as far as the F400 is concerned, you're most likely better off not playing in the leagues.
It would be nice to maybe adjust the value given to League matches to correct this discrepancy.

I guess it isn't as simple as an approximate average between war rankings and league rankings!

being 6th in leagues brings a negative value to your F400 score, as TSM isn't participating in them and they "overtake us" in the F400 compared to the F41 because of it. I would've logically thought that our good league results would've brought extra points to our war results, but it's the opposite. Maybe it is because most of our wins have a too low win % against lower ranked clans, and therefore some wins give negative points... I don't know. I'm curious to hear icepack's explanation.

by **betiko** on Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:49 am

just had a better look:

F400
TSM 1333
LHDD 1258

F41
LHDD 1346
TSM 1342

Fice
LHDD 1169
TSM unranked

best Fice clan: ACE 1328

I don't know this doesn't seem right. We lose over 90 points because of our league results. Is it because no one manages to get much better results than others (too little games per skirmish); therefore the league rankings always benefit lower ranked clans, even if they do bad, as long as the lose by just a few games?

by **IcePack** on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:32 pm

It's not really as simple as you're making it Betiko. Each ranking is totally independent from the others.

Unfortunately I spent almost 40 hours this past week fixing the database for ranking (only way I was able to do this was because I was off work on injury leave) and go back to work tomorrow. And then leave for a 2 week vacation. So the earliest I would get to this is in march.

by **josko.ri** on Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:05 pm

betiko wrote:just had a better look:

F400
TSM 1333
LHDD 1258

F41
LHDD 1346
TSM 1342

Fice
LHDD 1169
TSM unranked

best Fice clan: ACE 1328

I don't know this doesn't seem right. We lose over 90 points because of our league results. Is it because no one manages to get much better results than others (too little games per skirmish); therefore the league rankings always benefit lower ranked clans, even if they do bad, as long as the lose by just a few games?

This is because your League results are bad. Both IA and FALL beat you in League matches and you are playing in second League. TSM, unlike you, was 1st in their Qualifying League group and even beat ACE in first round of the League, being the only one to beat ACE.

So, to answer your question, playing in Leaguue itself does not make your rank lower. What makes your rank lower is playing in League AND having bad results.

by **willedtowin1** on Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:05 pm

by josko.ri

He just went there!

by **betiko** on Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:54 am

josko.ri wrote:
betiko wrote:just had a better look:

F400
TSM 1333
LHDD 1258

F41
LHDD 1346
TSM 1342

Fice
LHDD 1169
TSM unranked

best Fice clan: ACE 1328

I don't know this doesn't seem right. We lose over 90 points because of our league results. Is it because no one manages to get much better results than others (too little games per skirmish); therefore the league rankings always benefit lower ranked clans, even if they do bad, as long as the lose by just a few games?

This is because your League results are bad. Both IA and FALL beat you in League matches and you are playing in second League. TSM, unlike you, was 1st in their Qualifying League group and even beat ACE in first round of the League, being the only one to beat ACE.

So, to answer your question, playing in Leaguue itself does not make your rank lower. What makes your rank lower is playing in League AND having bad results.

Yes, we ended up in second division because of it. And no, our league results are not that bad.
Sure we lost in qualifyings (1 draw 1 loss) against both IA and FALL, while we got double wins vs AQOH and VVV. That lead us to second division, which somehow was good news cause it gives us a shot at the second division champion title (I'd rather be the second division champion and get a nice shiny medal for it than ending 4th or 5th in first division, right josko?). In second division overall (what counts for rankings) we've tied against ID, but then we beat all our other opponents (OSA, LOW, RGX, G1, GON, AFOS and looking good to beat VVV) and we are leading the league. So basically, since the qualifying stage that makes 9 wins, 1 draw, 2 losses, that's not what I call having bad results.

Doesn't look like you guys did too good against fallen either since they've beat you 6-2 in their home games too.

by **betiko** on Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:06 am

IcePack wrote:It's not really as simple as you're making it Betiko. Each ranking is totally independent from the others.

Unfortunately I spent almost 40 hours this past week fixing the database for ranking (only way I was able to do this was because I was off work on injury leave) and go back to work tomorrow. And then leave for a 2 week vacation. So the earliest I would get to this is in march.

I don't think I was making it simple; in fact I was telling jplo64 that it wasn't as simple as he was describing. If you take the F41 and the Fice, sure, they are completely independent; but the F400 gathers the results from both, so it is obviously correlated to them. I'm just amazed to see how much of a negative impact league skirmishes have towards the global f400 ranking, even if you have more than decent results.
It's probably because we have been winning against lower ranked clans with not enough margin and that it results into negative points.

by **VioIet** on Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:42 am

I don't see RA's name on the list. I don't know if we were forgotten about, or if we haven't participated in enough wars to make it on the list (we've been warring quite a bit this year).

by **IcePack** on Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:44 am

VioIet wrote:I don't see RA's name on the list. I don't know if we were forgotten about, or if we haven't participated in enough wars to make it on the list (we've been warring quite a bit this year).

Yeah, the only reason you wouldn't be on here is for weight requirements. Need more full war results in last 2 years, because none of the league results count here

by **IcePack** on Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:39 pm

Question:

For the situation like above - when clans don't make weight. We all know we want a few results under the belt of a new clan before they show up on the list. However for established clans, do we want them on the list regardless of weight?

In other words, keep the new guys off but once a clan "hits weight" it stays there until disbanded?
IcePack

by **betiko** on Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:45 am

IcePack wrote:Question:

For the situation like above - when clans don't make weight. We all know we want a few results under the belt of a new clan before they show up on the list. However for established clans, do we want them on the list regardless of weight?

In other words, keep the new guys off but once a clan "hits weight" it stays there until disbanded?
IcePack

I really don t mind if they are removed... Maybe you could do a small chart with all the clans still technically existing but that have too little weight.
But basically.. Weight is something that should promote activity... If some clans are deadish... Like pigs.. Not sure it s relevant to keep them in the rankings.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:56 am

betiko wrote:
IcePack wrote:Question:

For the situation like above - when clans don't make weight. We all know we want a few results under the belt of a new clan before they show up on the list. However for established clans, do we want them on the list regardless of weight?

In other words, keep the new guys off but once a clan "hits weight" it stays there until disbanded?
IcePack

I really don t mind if they are removed... Maybe you could do a small chart with all the clans still technically existing but that have too little weight.
But basically.. Weight is something that should promote activity... If some clans are deadish... Like pigs.. Not sure it s relevant to keep them in the rankings.

+1

by **IcePack** on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:48 pm

I guess those are the only two that care or everyone else agrees?

by **JPlo64** on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:51 pm

IcePack wrote:Question:

For the situation like above - when clans don't make weight. We all know we want a few results under the belt of a new clan before they show up on the list. However for established clans, do we want them on the list regardless of weight?

In other words, keep the new guys off but once a clan "hits weight" it stays there until disbanded?
IcePack

Could leave them in their spot, but leave their 2 year rank blank like you do when a clan doesn't meet the 1 year requirements. So that we see that they exist and where they would be, But they are not included in the rankings.

by **IcePack** on Tue May 26, 2015 9:58 pm

Please move this to archives.

the F41 [Archive]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Re: the F41 [Feb 1 Updated!]

Who is online