I was thinking about some stuff with clanners and came up with a good idea.
Normally, when you play a clan, doesn't matter who plays you will win points depending on their Rank for each scheme.
What if, you could win points for clanners depending on who is playing, and what schemes they have played before and win/lose.
For example, 2 players made alot of points in Roper/TTRR/WxW but little points in Elite/T17/BnG for their clan, 2 other members in this clan have alot of points in Elite/T17/BnG but little points in Roper/TTRR/WxW, and if you take 1 player each who have high points in different schemes, it will average out the points.
I have a list of reasons why this would be nice to have.
1. It would change the amount of points you can win from schemes with different members of a clan and different clans could pick different schemes depending on who plays, make it a little more interesting.
2. This would stop clans from picking a scheme they can win ALOT of points with just because that other clan has players who don't/can't even play that scheme good enough to defend those points. (Yes, it bothers me a bit that other clans keep picking BnG just because I ain't there to defend the points I put my share into earning lol, but, it isn't just me, it happens to other clans too, I mean, I get over it easy, doesn't bother me THAT much I can win em back lol, but it would just make it more worthwhile imo to have to earn your points against the players who actually earned them).
3. If you come across 2 members of a clan who won alot of games in 1 scheme, they will have more points because the other players losses don't count if they have a high win ratio for that scheme, you can try to beat them and gain their points.
4. I think it would be more exciting defending your own points that you helped your clan earn, you still have to work together as a whole clan so it wouldn't affect teamwork or the general idea of clanning.
5. More competitive and unique.
Maybe some players will disagree, but I only posted here because a few friends thought it was a good idea so I thought I would share it, if you don't ask you don't get lol.
3.
Our clan picks Elite against Random00 and SPW. UPS, they have to go, so Unique and I will play, ok? :) Of course that is just an example to show you the only problem with this system. Other than that, I was thinking about this too a long time ago.
How would you analyze? I mean, if there are more than 2 member there from a clan, they will obviously pick the two players for their pick who risk the least points and that doesn't necessarily mean they are not good at the scheme, perhaps there are better ones in the clan and thus they played it so far in clanners.
Quote from: Ray on January 26, 2011, 08:37 AM
Our clan picks Elite against Random00 and SPW. UPS, they have to go, so Unique and I will play, ok? :) Of course that is just an example to show you the only problem with this system. Other than that, I was thinking about this too a long time ago.
How would you analyze? I mean, if there are more than 2 member there from a clan, they will obviously pick the two players for their pick who risk the least points and that doesn't necessarily mean they are not good at the scheme, perhaps there are better ones in the clan and thus they played it so far in clanners.
Well, why would Random and SPW have to go lol, wouldn't they want to play Elite, probably their best scheme? So they have best chance of defending their points.
Agree which 2 members of each clan are playing, then you analyse in clanner with play names put into the boxes, then it would load up the calculated stats.
Or say, for example, Random/SPW/Unique/Ray are on for CF, and Komito/lalo/daina/oldsock are on for cFc, CF could say "We pick BnG against Komito and lalo" and cFc could say "We pick Elite against Random and SPW.
Man that would be so cool...
I like this idea. +1 for you Komo.
But that just doesn't work! Picking against specific players... And my example was to show that clans won't risk losing many points when they have an alternative.
I like the idea.
Ray, going by your example, if Random/SPW really have to go and Unique/Ray play instead, CF wouldn't lose as many points for a loss because your Elite-points for CF aren't as high.
Did I get it right Dave? If so, I had this in mind a while ago but never bothered posting it. :) Would make clanning a lot fairer and we'd get rid of the problem that SPW would never play TTRR because he'd lose us like 60-70 points. xD
So basically, this would probably raise the activity which is well enough reason to try it.
My point was... There could be situations in which players know they would lose a lot of points, because they played most of the Elite clanners for instance.
So they say: "sorry, we have to go, but two others play that pick instead" so they avoid risking many points.
Really, I have nothing against the idea, because as I said, I had this in mind as well, but like René, never bothered posting. :D But I'm just saying, I think that would be one of the consequences.
Yeah I get your point now.. But why risk a loss? If your two good Elite players are there you're likely to win. Wouldn't make sense to me to have two less skilled Elite players play instead - except they got chances to win, then it's a strategically good move to let them play because they would earn the clan more points than the two players with high Elite points.
The idea sounds good but here is the problem :
Imagine you are two cfc and we are 4 roh in the game. You guys usually analyze before picking, who will you analyze if we are 4 in your game?
Will you say we will elite, then there is no point of analyzing since u already chose your scheme
Or will you analyze each possibility?
Because most of the time we make the teams once we know the scheme you pick, we can't make our team if we don't know what scheme you will pick.
There could be some confusing situations or even lame moves from some clans if we have a such point system.
Yeah you got it right Rene.
But if the 2 less skilled Elite players played instead of the 2 best, the points the other clan could win would drop, so they could pick another scheme with more points perhaps.
And if your 2 best Elite players said "Oops, we must go" then it's their loss lol, besides, the other 2 members left, we could pick something against those 2 with the points they have.
darkmaul, yes, we would analyze every possibility, and such a system like I suggested, would stop people basing their pick on if they win or lose the opponents pick and/or what scheme the opponent picks.
Anyway, it's just an idea.
I really don't get what the benefit of this would be. A clan is a unit and you should make sure you have good overall players and get a strong ration in every scheme. And planning clanners like that will also be very difficult as there are usually always situations where people quit the game, other players come, picks get changed and stuff like that so it will only make things more complicated if you have to re-analyze for every player that joins the games... also it would take away much of the clan's rating magic, like i saw last time we would gain 73 points when we pick bng vs. cfc and only lose like 6 points. That might be also a reason why you would want to change this, dunno. :) My opinion is when you worked out a high rating for your clan in one specific scheme which is only due to one player you did something wrong because if that player doesn't play you have a problem.
Quote from: chakkman on January 26, 2011, 01:24 PMlike i saw last time we would gain 73 points when we pick bng vs. cfc and only lose like 6 points. That might be also a reason why you would want to change this, dunno. :) My opinion is when you worked out a high rating for your clan in one specific scheme which is only due to one player you did something wrong because if that player doesn't play you have a problem.
Yes it is a reason, a big reason, and the main reason with that being other clans getting points they don't deserve, by which I mean, in our case some clans play very very very little BnGs, so they have no rank when we know they are much better than what their rank says, so they shouldn't win so many points against us, they should only win around 40-50 instead of 60-75 lol.
Another way to put it would be, most clans only pick BnG against us when me and OutofOrder are not around as they see it as a golden opportunity for BIG points, now, while I accept the fact that this is the current system, and I respect that, I am still within my rights to feel uneasy about it, I can live with it, at least when we lose points I can go out my way on mission to make those points again, which is kinda fun lol, but it would be nice to put a stop to people playing in such a way.
There are some clans, like TaG/dC and GrW for example, I don't care if they pick BnG if I ain't there, cuz they have been playing alot of BnG against all other clans and I respect that, it's the ones that ONLY pick it against us when Auto or myself is not there that bothers me.
But it doesn't just happen with cFc and BnG, it happens to other clans in other schemes too, and I DO get frustrated seeing other clans raping other clans big points when they don't have the teams that earned those points, especially knowing they would not pick this if those members were actually there.
I don't know if any of you will understand this term, it might just be a British thing, but whenever I see other clans doing this I think "lol, what a bunch of chancers"
But hey, theres nothing you can do if people wanna play like that, we're all having fun :P
Even if people weren't picking BnG when I ain't there, or other schemes with other clans in a similar way, i'd still think what I suggested would be a more interesting and competitive way to play, but that's just me lol.
Anyway, the rest of cFc are starting to get very good at BnG, so, in a matter of time, we will kickass no matter who plays xD
We will never have a great enough amount of games for every possible combo in every clan, so this system will never come to a point where it is fair.
Worms is just not active enough for such a system.
Komo, just pick different schemes when playing. You're obviously picking too much bng. Its an overall league and if you pick bng like 5 times more then any other clan and win most of your games its no wonder that your bng rating is imbalanced...
Exactly. And Komo, i find your way of argueing a bit one-way. Your bothered about clans picking bng when you or Auto are not around (of course your opponent clan picks the scheme they get the most points in), but on the other hand you are not bothering about picking bng every time you 2 are around, so the system as it is punishes it with a high bng rating which is exactly what it should do.
Edit: To make it clear, the way it is now cfc's bng rating does not reflect the real bng skills of all cfc members but the one of you and Auto. It's just an example, replace the scheme/clan name with anything else, just can't think of another case that drastic atm. xD For single players, i could think of dibz' and flori's ttrr rating once, they simply totally over played the scheme which is not wise at all...
Quote from: Random00 on January 26, 2011, 02:50 PM
We will never have a great enough amount of games for every possible combo in every clan, so this system will never come to a point where it is fair.
Worms is just not active enough for such a system.
Komo, just pick different schemes when playing. You're obviously picking too much bng. Its an overall league and if you pick bng like 5 times more then any other clan and win most of your games its no wonder that your bng rating is imbalanced...
Exactly.
In my opinion it doesnt help to make tus more active. For example, Random00 and me are online, and our oppenent are picking ttrr. 1. I still have to play that horrible (my opinion!) scheme and 2. because of Random's high rating at ttrr they still would win about 40 pts. Not 70 pts., like now, but still worth to pick. So nothing really change.
I really have the feeling, that you still just focus at your "problem" about other clans picking bng vs cfc if you are not there. And thats just an egoistic move, and not the first try. You always talking about "bng is just for fun and I dont play for points", but in the end, thats just a damn lie. You do care - and it seems more than a normal player do.
At the end: not a bad idea at all, but it wont help worms, tus or any clan. Thats probably the reason, why Ray and DarKz didnt post it years ago. ;d
Ok 1st off i'll start with chakk, I did say I don't care when some clans pick, because they actually pick the scheme against other clans for fun and not points.
Also this bothers me:
Quote from: chakkman on January 26, 2011, 02:59 PMso the system as it is punishes it with a high bng rating which is exactly what it should do.
Because SPW/Random00/franz and ALOT of other players have been complaining about the EXACT same damn thing, and I don't see anyone complain when they do it, the only difference is they complain about TEL and Overall, and I complain about the BnG in TuS Classic, but it is the exact same problem, so why is it a bad thing when I complain, but not when they complain about their ratings? Sorry but that is an unfair biased opinion.
SPW:
Quote from: SPW on January 26, 2011, 08:53 PMYou always talking about "bng is just for fun and I dont play for points", but in the end, thats just a damn lie.
Yeah, because me constantly picking BnG even though we can only win 5-12 points for practically every clan means I care about points lol, funny how you fail to notice that.
And, I pick BnG because it's obviously my favourite scheme and more or less anyone that knows me knows I don't even like to play ANY other scheme more than 2-3 times a month lol, BUT because I HAVE made alot of points for cFc in BnG it IS frustrating when other clans ONLY pick BnG when I am not there, this is a different form of "noob-bashing" and I happen to recall almost everyone in this thread complain about people who noob bash, which I find ridiculously funny and hypocritical considering quite a few people in this thread are actually guilty of doing this very thing, that they say they don't like to see.
Like I said, you complain about TEL system, I am complaining about the Clanner system, why is it ok for you guys to whine and moan about the system because you lose ALOT of points yet I am not allowed to do the same thing with BnG?
Random, I pick BnG always for 1 reason and 1 reason only, I <3 BnG and it's all I want to do on WA, and playing BnG with other cFc members is just the best fun I can have.
So in conclusion, I accept the fact some clans don't want to BnG against me, and they do BnG cFc when I am not there, like I said it keeps me entertained trying to win the points back however I will keep moaning about clans picking BnG when I am not there to defend cFc's points, because you all moan about TEL system and Classic system.
Is this all post because of this?
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-52919/
I don't agree for this idea... If you wanna play like this start to play single league 2v2
Those are clanner games, if you wanna get good clan, get allrounders into...
I guess about this idea care only default players who can't rope... get better skill at rope then instead of complaining
for more, there would be situacions like the clan picks up 2 worse players to don't lose much points, it would pervert a lot of games
This is way for single league, and clan is like a great family, you can't separate your mates because they are worse in some schemes. I could write even more but my english sucks...
JUST NO >:(
Quote from: Krezo on January 27, 2011, 10:31 AM
Is this all post because of this?
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-52919/
No, I said earlier in this thread, when TaG picks BnG against cFc and if they win, it's ok, because they pick BnG against other clans also.
Maciej, if you are suggesting I am a default player, I am not, I am an all-rounder now, I can rope VERY good when I can be bothered, but lol, BnG, need I say more lol?
Oh, and, I WILL be competing in TRL when it starts :)
oh well, maybe I should use there word 'mostly' instead of 'only', I know you are good roper, not that long ago you were better in rr than me ;D
still I don't agree with this idea... clan is clan, and it should mobilize ppl to get better in all league schemes ;) for example I suck in roper or in elite but I still never avoid playing it if anyone wishes to pikck it ;)
and come on, it's really boring to play only one scheme
Quote from: Komito on January 27, 2011, 07:56 AM
Because SPW/Random00/franz and ALOT of other players have been complaining about the EXACT same damn thing, and I don't see anyone complain when they do it, the only difference is they complain about TEL and Overall, and I complain about the BnG in TuS Classic, but it is the exact same problem, so why is it a bad thing when I complain, but not when they complain about their ratings? Sorry but that is an unfair biased opinion.
The difference is that the system should punish "always" picking bng in an overall clanner league, but it shouldn't punish playing Elite in TEL. There's a huge difference.
Your complaint was ok if this was a2b. ;d
Quote from: Random00 on January 27, 2011, 12:29 PM
The difference is that the system should punish "always" picking bng in an overall clanner league, but it shouldn't punish playing Elite in TEL. There's a huge difference.
Your complaint was ok if this was a2b. ;d
That isn't a difference actually because the system is exactly the same, whether I lost the BnG or the other members the fact still stands it's way too many points we lose, TEL TuS and TFL when you get high at those, you lose too many points.
If that's the case then YOU definately deserve to be punished for being over 1000 points ahead in TuS Classic from 2nd place, but, it isn't cuz NONE of us deserve to be "punished" for playing the things we love to play.
You love TEL, I love BnG, please don't be so biased, 2v2 or 1v1 doesn't matter, it's the same system, it's even worse for me when you think about it, someone else losing my points lol, but it's cool I love those guys *and girl* and they try damn hard to defend it, and like i've said a hundred times, they are starting to get much better at BnG xD
I read komo's first post adn really like this idea aswell. You could risk playing players who havent earnt that many points cus of their weak schemes to play in it if u were really trying to gain some points.
Like i could take part in an rr and have a partner like ryan to try and get more points than say lordhound and ryan rr'ing. Cus i suck at it. Same with getting them to gamble and to play in a default if they have more loses in those schemes.
I really need to get more time to read the thread though as there does seem like some arguments against this. But yea, a unique idea none the less. +1
well , obviously this is just an idea and is never gonna happen :p , bcos there are a lot of reasons to make this impossible
i agree when ppl says that u are basing this in ur own bng problem ...
Quote from: Chicken23 on January 28, 2011, 01:48 PM
I read komo's first post adn really like this idea aswell. You could risk playing players who havent earnt that many points cus of their weak schemes to play in it if u were really trying to gain some points.
Like i could take part in an rr and have a partner like ryan to try and get more points than say lordhound and ryan rr'ing. Cus i suck at it. Same with getting them to gamble and to play in a default if they have more loses in those schemes.
I really need to get more time to read the thread though as there does seem like some arguments against this. But yea, a unique idea none the less. +1
Thank you Tom, finally someone who looks at the bigger picture instead of having this 1 mindset about me and BnG lol +1 back for having an open mind :)
well komito, its great u got ideas to make clanners more interesting, but u want to put a point system which is based on individual player skills. imo clans are teams, so the clan should rated, not the player. if a superstar cant play (like u in bng) its bl for the clan. imagin real madrid wins more then 3 points in a league match cause cassilias, ronaldo, ramos, özil and di maria are injured. would be sick:)
kk, its pathetic what i wrote, cause tus is another concept. but i hope u got my point. i understand the problems u told, but makin clanner more based on individual stats would kill the idea of a team.
nah it's not pathetic peja. nice words
both sides have positives, just seems more people are ok with the way it is, and only a few are truly frustrated about specific scheme ranks for their clan.
You have a good point peja, but it isn't based on individual skill, because you still play with 2v2 or 3v3 and those 2-3 players points get averaged out for their individual rank on whatever scheme, so it still requires good teamwork, it just balances out the whole points more accurately, there will be no more lucky wins and losing too many points or winning too many points if you understand what I mean?
2 good players play another 2 good players in 1 scheme, so the points SHOULD be balanced out fair so it's as close to 40-40 as possible, 2 not so good players play against 2 not so good players and it should still be around 40-40, 2 great players play 2 not so great players and the points won should be more accurate to the whole skill level, this also means less pressure on "bad players" being able to play for their clan, as they wouldn't lose as many points, which means they could play more games without as much pressure.
I have seen alot of clans preventing members from playing certain scheme incase they lose too many points and i've seen ALOT of clans and players and friends argue or getting frustrated because they don't want the less skilled players losing the points the better players got, with the system in place, they can play as much as they want and the points will always be fair.
Of course it gets individual when u use the players individual rating (which they earned in tus classic singles) and use that as a factor for points in clanners..
Imo this kills the whole teamfactor in this. Just like maciej said, it gets like a 2vs2 singles game, just from the same clan. I dont like this idea.
Also u have ALOT of strong players who never plays singles and this will just be unfair for those good players who actually are active in singles league. Lets not give players the same troubles for earning little points in singles, into the clanners also. This will just benefit clans with inactive players in singles and clans with active good players in singles will lose from it ( considered they win and increase their rating all the time).
A team isnt stronger than its WEAKEST LINK! Its a well known fact. As for cfc which mostly been a 1-man team in bng. Im not saying that its illegal 2 have it like that, but then deal with the consequences. Either get the average "bng skill" of the players in ur clan better, or just deal with it imo! :)
Alot of other clans have the same problem, just in other schemes. Maybe not as drastical as the cfc bng issue, but still.
p.s Just as a little fotnote: i said this in the ps forum and ill say it here.
WE WIN AS A TEAM AND WE LOSE AS A TEAM.
DOnt remove the teamfactor from tus, will be no team feeling left at all. Its a part of the charm in tus.
This idea is a no-no. I completely agree with Uber and Maciej and others here, a clan is a team. If some of clan's members can't handle certain schemes, then sorry, it's clan's problem.
cFc's bng rating is an extreme case - live with it. If you make say 12-1 streak (which is IMO quite realistic even if komo plays only about half of the games), you'll break about even in points. That's reality for competitors with high ratings. Kasparov had to deal with same stuff.
Uber, nope lol, you have totally misunderstood me.
I did not say use the rating from singles league, I will explain it again:
TuS Classic Clanners (seperate from Classic Singles), 2 players from a clan play a game, THEIR ratings get saved from the result of this game, for example, each player wins 40 points, their rank goes up to 1040, while the rest of the clan would stay at 1000, lets say those same 2 players, play the same scheme, against a different clan, and they win again, they would maybe win say 39 points each this time, their rank goes up to 1079 while the rest of the clan stays the same, now lets say, these 2 players, continue to play this scheme because they really enjoy it.
One has a rating of 1785 the other has a rating of 1699,the rest of the clan is around 1175, if an opposing clan wishes to get the most points from this clan for this scheme, they would have to play the members of that clan, that actually earned the points, they couldn't noob-bash their way to big points, also, if the members with around 1175 play and lose they would lose around 42-44 points, instead of a ridiculous 50-70.
If one player who has 1900 plays with a player who has 1200 and they lose against a clan who has 1200 and 1200, it would be around 48 points (i'm guessing) if the other clan won, which seems really fair for me, instead of them winning 60 and above.
Basically the concept of this idea, means fairer matches, less frustration, the less skilled but still important and loyal members of the clan can relax that they won't lose ALOT of points for the clan with more accurate points.
This still means, (for those using me and bng as their only arguement which just feels silly and biased btw lol) if I lose a BnG, we would still lose ALOT of points, but I could live with it because it was my fault and my points I lost, but for example, NvM and lalo to lose 70+ points for something they rarely play, does that honestly seem fair to you? The same goes for other players and clans, think about it.
This system to me seems logically less flawed, it's more accurate with points deserved to be won and fairer than the one we have installed at the moment.
I don't see any reason for this not to be used except from people who don't like change, and/or people who want to keep it because they like to noob-bash, and if that is the case, it shows the true colours about ALOT of people in this community.
I would play other schemes alot more if the points were fair for players not so good at that scheme.
The only problem I see with this idea, is the points that already exist, but if you think about it, the standings would be closer and more exciting perhaps even more active because people are not afraid to lose too many points to the "good clans" because there are only a select handful who actually do play any clan they can and don't come up with excuses not to play certain clans.
Again, I'm supporting this idea because maybe SPW would actually play a Roper in a clanner by this calculation. :P
When Flori got inactive CF had a RR rating of 1800 or something around that and to be perfectly honest it was a reason for us not to play against strong RR clans as much because we were 95% certain to lose lots of points which Flori (and Unique) earned for us. This is just another example, but with a different system we would've been able to play those stronger RR clans without having to fear losing 70+ points which means - again - more activity.
Now one might say "if a football player gets injured it's bad luck for the team, they gotta try and win without him", but this isn't football, it's Worms and noone is obligated to play anyone, we're free to choose our opponents - which is a good and a bad thing to be honest.
Of course it's got its pros and cons but I just like the idea.
QuoteAgain, I'm supporting this idea because maybe SPW would actually play a Roper in a clanner by this calculation. :P
Like I posted some days ago.
QuoteFor example, Random00 and me are online, and our oppenent are picking ttrr. 1. I still have to play that horrible (my opinion!) scheme and 2. because of Random's high rating at ttrr they still would win about 40 pts. Not 70 pts.,
I dont think that helps in that case with me as an example. ;d
Maybe we'll get some people in between, which could profit with that system. But in my opinion, it wont help Worms, TUS or clans at all.
Clanners are a team game, individual rating we have at singles and 2v2, that's enough for our egoism. ;d
Quote from: SPW on January 29, 2011, 09:57 PM
Clanners are a team game, individual rating we have at singles and 2v2
Its a good idea though.
Quote from: Johnny on January 29, 2011, 10:31 PM
Quote from: SPW on January 29, 2011, 09:57 PM
Clanners are a team game, individual rating we have at singles and 2v2
Its a good idea though.
Thanks for setting me up for a double quote haha.
But, it isn't singles 2v2, singles 2v2 is still individual rating for TuS Classic Singles, with this, it's still 2v2 clanners, it just balances everything out more and makes it more suitable for all skill levels and everyones needs, its a shame when a clan wants to play their favourite scheme, but choose other scheme because of the points for that game, with this system, you can play whatever and be happy because its your points so you can only blame yourself for losing, and when it's your own fault, it's easier to keep the peace with others :)
But Komo, what u basically say is that u want a clanner system based by individuals. A "singles" system inside the clanner system. Really the same as a 2vs2 tus single, just that it keep its own score, and that we all start with 1k in rating in each scheme. It goes beyond my belief of what a team game should be like! :)
Imagine the noob-bashing in the start of this then. every clan are even. every player 2. First 2 play a "noob clan" 10 matches, woho! :)
I get ur point, and i see what ur thinking. i Just dont share ur opinion m8! :)
Quote from: Uber on January 30, 2011, 04:14 AM
But Komo, what u basically say is that u want a clanner system based by individuals. A "singles" system inside the clanner system. Really the same as a 2vs2 tus single, just that it keep its own score, and that we all start with 1k in rating in each scheme. It goes beyond my belief of what a team game should be like! :)
Imagine the noob-bashing in the start of this then. every clan are even. every player 2. First 2 play a "noob clan" 10 matches, woho! :)
I get ur point, and i see what ur thinking. i Just dont share ur opinion m8! :)
No, that isn't it Uber, I try explain again lol:
** IF YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO DO THE MATH HERE, DO NOT REPLY **
When you play 2v2 TuS Classic Singles, it counts as 1 set of points for 2 different players, and both players have different overall score and this player can play 1v1 for HIS score alone.
When you play 2v2 TuS Clanner with my idea of points, it counts as 2 seperate points for both the clan AND the players;
Team 1 - Player A has 1000, Player B has 1000;
Team 2 - Player A has 1000, Player B has 1000;
Team 1 can gain/drop 40 points - Team 2 can gain/drop 40 points;
Team 1 win;
Team 1 wins 40 points for making their Team score 1040, Player A gains 40 points and Player B gains 40 points, making Player A 1040 and player B 1040;
Team 2 lose and drop 40 points making their Team score 960, Player A drops 40 points and Player B drops 40 points making Player A 960 and player B 960;
Team 1 Player C and Player D, both having a score of 1000, and their Team has 1040;
Team 2 Player C and Player D. both having a score of 1000, and their Team has 960;
Team 1 win, their Team wins 38, Each player gains 38;
Team 2 lose, their Team drops 38, Each player drops 38;
So Team 1, both players A and B have 1040, and players C and D have 1038, Team 1 has a score of 1078;
Team 2, both players A and B have 960, and players C and D have 962, Team 2 has a score of 922.
Do you see where this is going, imagine the players from A to D winning losing games with different partners and take note of the results in the future, but give each player a Win ratio for example A: 90% B: 80% C: 50% D: 70% and do the same for the other Team.
Judging by their "skill level" give a fair % of wins and loses for each team and each player in relation to their win percentage, it works out extremely fair for both the players and the teams.
Not only does this seem like a fairer and more accurate system, it also actually makes each individuals part in playing clanners important, while keeping being a clan as a whole just as equally important :)
u know u just wrote down what i meant,do you? :p thats exactly how 2vs2 singles work, altho here the clan also gets the score added 2 it rating! :)
The points u earn from winning games is calculated from the SINGLE players, not the overall at all, so its just what i said! :)
PLAYER A AND B earns 2000 points in ttrr. THen comes C and D and plays ttrr vs a clan with 0 matches so far. 40 poitns for both. Cause its the individual score. So its 2vs2 singles only in a different setting ,cause every player starts with 1000 points + the clan gets the scores added 2 their overall in the scheme.. :)
U take the average points of the 2 players and combine them, just like in 2vs2 singles. BOTH players lose the same/win the same. If not how u gonna find 1 (ONE) set off points 2 win/lose for the clan.. ? :)
p.s Btw if we do this u know all clans gotta reset their ratings and overall in every scheme.. Some which taken "years" 2 build up. Sorry mac, still dont have me on this one! :P g`nite! :)
Quote from: Uber on January 30, 2011, 07:37 AMthats exactly how 2vs2 singles work, altho here the clan also gets the score added 2 it rating!
This is the most important part that makes it completely different from 1v1 Singles.
While 1 player goes from 969 to 990 and the other player goes from 1606 to 1627, the clan as a whole would go from 1179 to 1200 - This is the most important part, you can blindly argue all you want suggesting it's based more on individual status, but EVERY Single game is at least a 2-man(man/woman) Team effort risking the official points of the Clan, as no one will get to see the individuals points, in the analyzer you should only see the analyzed points for 2 different members.
TuS Singles - You play for yourself.
TuS Clanners - You play for your Team.
What you don't mention in your calculations is that the clan rating is determined by the average of all players, regardless of how often a player plays a certain scheme in clanners. And this (to me, at least) does not show how good a clan is at a certain scheme.
cFc for instance benefits highly from your BnG skills, especially considering you play it a lot, but let's simplify what happens if we go through with this.
cFc (as it is now): 1959
Komo: 2455
lalo: 1213
Oky: 1040
daina: 1325
oldsock: 1160
Auto: 1200
Bofo: 1200
carlOx: 1200
Djflow: 1200
Leroy: 1200
msgoff: 1200
NvM: 1200
ownless: 1200
ropa: 1200
shui: 1200
average: 1280
ps: 1168
Rocket: 1241
alcoholico: 970
guaton: 1342
Camperz: 1279
Artharas: 1200
ch4os: 1200
Dulek: 1200
Guaton: 1200
knightz: 1200
LionHeart: 1200
skunk3: 1200
Uber: 1200
average: 1202
The difference in rating all of a sudden drops tremendously and ps gets a new rating approximately the same as a completely new clan.
Yeah, the games are 2v2, but the players are usually picked according to their strengths
Quote from: DarkOne on January 30, 2011, 10:21 AM
Yeah, the games are 2v2, but the players are usually picked according to their strengths
They still will be, when an opponent has their strong players on, at least this way, the "weaker" members can still play against other clans "weaker" members for good points.
And where did you get thos statistics?
I don't have 2455 lol
daina is in the lead with like 5555 or something.
And seeing as the standings as they are now, are the way they are now because of how people have used the current system, i'd personally keep all that, and put the new system in place, the points will average out soon enough.
Quote from: Komito on January 30, 2011, 10:53 AM
And where did you get thos statistics?
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/classic-stats/BnG-stats/?sort=clan-up-1-singles&s=18
Just noticed something went wrong with the clan ratings, so I fixed that.
Quote from: DarkOne on January 30, 2011, 11:06 AM
Quote from: Komito on January 30, 2011, 10:53 AM
And where did you get thos statistics?
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/classic-stats/BnG-stats/?sort=clan-up-1-singles&s=18
Just noticed something went wrong with the clan ratings, so I fixed that.
What am I looking at? That link put me to Singles BnG Standings for Season 18.
And if your example is showing my BnG standings for singles which is 2455 which would be correct, what does that have to do with Clanners? There is no way we would ever reach this score in Clanners because it is much more difficult to win 2v2 BnGs, other players and even myself would lose way more games than my Classic Singles BnG rating, so i'd say that is a bad example.
i always thought the clanner system worked like this, because when u are using the analyzer for clanners, it also asks ur partner and the opponent team's members
Quote from: Husk on January 30, 2011, 12:25 PM
i always thought the clanner system worked like this, because when u are using the analyzer for clanners, it also asks ur partner and the opponent team's members
Yeah but you don't need to put the other member names in, you can leave that part blank.
We only have names there so we can report the games with the correct members and have the statistics there I guess, it's interesting to know who has played who n what not.
But no, it's Clan scheme rating Vs Clan scheme rating, the individual players skills and efforts are not taken into considertation (which is a shame lol).
lmao Komo. Yes of course the difference from 2vs2 singles is 1 little thing. The clan gets the points added 2 its rating, pretty obvious.
Man i played teamsports all my life, i never will support this. Imo a teamgame is a teamgame where THE NAME OF THE TEAM is what matters. Like when PS play CFC it doesnt matter who plays, cause the teams themselves are the main thing.
We have soo many individual leagues here, why make this one teamleague even more individual aswell??
ALso the "keep the current rating" is wrong and will only benefit the clans with most points.. Can u imagine CF with overall close to 6k gtting 40 points for each win vs clans as JEDI? For a long time it will be at least 30 + in all schemes vs all clans. their Overall will be 2 high in the end..
Nah, im with darkone. Ur clan has an extreme bng player (urself). They played alot of bng clanners, won them, got the rating. Now its up 2 the rest 2 prove themselves 2 defend it when ur not around, for their TEAM! :) THe honour! :)
In simple words: when playing singles, TEL bla bla u represent urself. When playing clanners u represent ur team. And the points of ur team.
Lets say dulek/guaton rr as gods, make ps get a sick ttrr rating (2200) and then those 2 newer rr again. Then me and camper plays the rest of the rr ever. We lose and lose. soon clans beaten us enough so when me and camp plays we lose 10 points or less. And still we have like 1800 in rr rating. THATS NOT REFLECTING THE CLANS RR SKILL, its dulek/guaton ONLY, not the 8 others.. The clans rating in every scheme is +- the average of each player, should be atlest. I earn my clan points in hyst, elite and t 17. Some earn most points in rope schemes. Still its the total of all our skill that brings in points and lose points.
Quote from: Uber on January 30, 2011, 04:03 PM
lmao Komo. Yes of course the difference from 2vs2 singles is 1 little thing. The clan gets the points added 2 its rating, pretty obvious.
Man i played teamsports all my life, i never will support this. Imo a teamgame is a teamgame where THE NAME OF THE TEAM is what matters. Like when PS play CFC it doesnt matter who plays, cause the teams themselves are the main thing.
We have soo many individual leagues here, why make this one teamleague even more individual aswell??
ALso the "keep the current rating" is wrong and will only benefit the clans with most points.. Can u imagine CF with overall close to 6k gtting 40 points for each win vs clans as JEDI? For a long time it will be at least 30 + in all schemes vs all clans. their Overall will be 2 high in the end..
Nah, im with darkone. Ur clan has an extreme bng player (urself). They played alot of bng clanners, won them, got the rating. Now its up 2 the rest 2 prove themselves 2 defend it when ur not around, for their TEAM! :) THe honour! :)
In simple words: when playing singles, TEL bla bla u represent urself. When playing clanners u represent ur team. And the points of ur team.
Lets say dulek/guaton rr as gods, make ps get a sick ttrr rating (2200) and then those 2 newer rr again. Then me and camper plays the rest of the rr ever. We lose and lose. soon clans beaten us enough so when me and camp plays we lose 10 points or less. And still we have like 1800 in rr rating. THATS NOT REFLECTING THE CLANS RR SKILL, its dulek/guaton ONLY, not the 8 others.. The clans rating in every scheme is +- the average of each player, should be atlest. I earn my clan points in hyst, elite and t 17. Some earn most points in rope schemes. Still its the total of all our skill that brings in points and lose points.
Very well said.
I've played teamsports before WA also, i've played dominos chess and darts for Scotland at some National thing with my Dad years ago, i've played countless other games online in active clans and guilds, I played alot of sports also before I turned 21, football, rugby, basketball(which I sucked at lol).
Right now I actively play Golf & Pool (outside), and online WA, WoW, Battlefield 2, PangYa, all of which require alot of Teamwork.
I do agree with alot of what you say, but my point still stands, you keep saying it will make this individual, I see no evidence for this, from what I have suggested and explained, I can only see benefits from this being put in place.
Now, either way, anything we have will always be better than having nothing so I will always be happy with it.
But, I get frustrated at all the Players(and Clans) who noob bash and avoid Players/Clans, or wait till certain members are on to ask for Clanners/TuS Singles, and I know for a fact I am not the only one that gets frustrated at this, and most of us know that it does happen.
I stand by my main reason and point for this suggestion, to stop people sneaking around and being as lame as possible when it comes to picking schemes and playing certain players, and to give EVERYONE a fair go.
But, keeping the current rating, I don't see how this would "only" benefit the clans with most points, CF still have a very high rating for every scheme and most of their members have a high % ratio, so either way they would not win alot of points, same goes for most of cFc and ps.
In fact, beating Random and SPW at Elite would possibly win you more points than playing CF right now.
We have different opinions, but the important thing is, it seems both of us just want to play fairly and enjoy it, so thats a good thing :)
I don't think your system will change people avoiding schemes or particular people in particular schemes to be honest :) Most people don't avoid a scheme or pick a scheme because of points, but rather because they like it (exhibit A: your BnGs :))
And that's not a bad thing! Same with football and rugby; people are put in a place where they are at their best in team games and the added bonus is that people can put a lot of effort in one or a few schemes and see their labours rewarded.
Basically, TUS single league forces you to be an allrounder to be able to achieve something, but TUS clanners also give specialists a chance to compete and achieve something.
As for avoiding lameness, you can always not agree to certain terms. This is why clans should agree on the schemes for both games before playing the first game :)
Also, if people are deliberately abusing the current system, you can bet that they'll find a way to abuse any other system as well. I don't see this new system put a stop to noob bashing, for example.
People DO avoid certain people because they don't think they can win, because they don't want to lose points, I have seen alot of players doing this with my own eyes, and others have witnessed it also.
Yes, alot of players pick whatever scheme because they enjoy it most, and respect to those people but too many of the supposed "best players" are guilty of noob bashing and avoiding, the proof is in the recent games and standings.
It still would force you to be an all-rounder, if I won alot of BnG's, I would still get alot of points for BnG and the more I played the less points I would make, so it isn't taking advantage of anything for any individual player, it just honestly puts an end to people deliberately picking a scheme with alot of points because the clan has their weakers players for that scheme.
I see no pride in earning points by continously playing with this method and waiting for clans having their weak players for their high point schemes on.
If no one agrees with this, it says alot lol.
I'm not saying they don't avoid. I'm not saying they aren't noob bashing.
I'm just saying that your method won't stop them from doing so. It definitely brings something new to the table, but it won't change anything about the way people play TUS. If people play for fun, they will continue to play for fun. If they play to get as high as possible and abuse the system for it, they will do the same with your system.
Quote from: DarkOne on January 31, 2011, 09:55 AMbut it won't change anything about the way people play TUS. If people play for fun, they will continue to play for fun. If they play to get as high as possible and abuse the system for it, they will do the same with your system.
Yeah, but, look at it like this, they won't get so many points for noob bashing in clanners ;)
imo i given u more than enough evidence for it, both in maths and examples. anyways om glad we can speak maturly about the matter! +1 :)
less points for noobashing? Its the opposite man! :) Imagine 2 clans; CLAN A pro clan, CLAN B noob clan. 10 players each, totalt of 20. As long as most players from both clans play u have countless of variables that will make the points go muuuch slower down than before. If the 10 players from the proclan all play and same with the noobclan it will take vvlong before the points drops down 2 "current" standards, eventho u wouuld play 50 games in every scheme.
In example ur clan just played 5-6 games in a row vd FD and won like 70 points. :) Cause the rating is what it should be atm.
Anways, im out now. Kinda tired of this discussion! :)
Peace my brothas from another mothas! xD
Quote from: Uber on January 31, 2011, 11:02 AM
imo i given u more than enough evidence for it, both in maths and examples. anyways om glad we can speak maturly about the matter! +1 :)
And I have have you more than enough evidence in both math and examples and advantages, +1 for you too :)
Quote from: Uber on January 31, 2011, 11:02 AMless points for noobashing? Its the opposite man! :) Imagine 2 clans; CLAN A pro clan, CLAN B noob clan. 10 players each, totalt of 20. As long as most players from both clans play u have countless of variables that will make the points go muuuch slower down than before. If the 10 players from the proclan all play and same with the noobclan it will take vvlong before the points drops down 2 "current" standards, eventho u wouuld play 50 games in every scheme.
When giving examples, it's best to use possible example, no clan has over 10 active great players lol.
Most clans play with around 2-6 of the same players, so your example would fail horrible for the real circumstances and situations in everyday WA.
As for noob bashing, if Random and SPW (2 very skilled BnG players) play me and OoO at BnG, they could win around 60 points, if they play lalo and daina, they would only win around 30.
But right now they COULD just decide to play cFc when lalo are daina are there, and pick BnG, knowing they will most definately win it. - This is what I mean by undeserved points and noob bashing, doesn't mean they are noobs, but I think you get the point...
So if they WANT the points, they would have to play the better players for the bigger points, they can still pick BnG, if they wanna play it for fun.
SPW, DONT moan at me for this, I am just using this as example because you guys are very good BnG players, and we've already had our issues out the way a long time ago lol, see it for what it is, an example that makes sense.
The same would be applied to other clans and circumstances.
I just don't understand how you don't get this yet lol.
Quote from: Komito on January 31, 2011, 11:11 AM
I just don't understand how you don't get this yet lol.
He get's it. I get it. We all get it.
It's just that we think it's not the way it should be for various reasons we stated. I hope you understand that. 8)?
Like RoK said Komo, and i said it before; I get ur point.. ! :)
Remember my rr example? So dulek/guaton plays 70 games win em all. Then me and camp plays 50 games and lose em all.
THe clans stats in rr would be 70-50 but our rating would still OWN :) With like 60/40 in win loss and still we would have a rating that doesnt reflect the clan at all.. :) Cause the rating isnt really the clans, its the individuals.. As in every other scheme. U wanna put the persons in the clan in the front line, while i wanna keep putting the clan itself in the front.
Anyways lets take a break from all this shit for a while, im getting dissy from all this! ;D
Quote from: Komito on January 31, 2011, 11:11 AM
As for noob bashing, if Random and SPW (2 very skilled BnG players) play me and OoO at BnG, they could win around 60 points, if they play lalo and daina, they would only win around 30.
I'll take your word for the 60 points :) But that's 60 points for Random and 60 points for SPW, right? So that's 120 points total (cause both ratings go up, up and away :))
But CF has 13 members. CF's rating will therefore go up with 120/13 = 9-ish points.
On the other hand, if for example 5150 wins a BnG (assuming it's still 60 points per player), their BnG rating will go up 60 points.
Basically, the more players a clan has, the more stabile a rating is (and therefore, the less the actual games matter)
Uber, no, you obviously don't get it mate lol:
If you were 70/50, you would not have a great score lol, if dulek/guaton wins 70 games in a row (which they never would, no one would, cuz no DON nowadays) but let's just say they did, by the time they got to the 30th win, they would probably only be getting 10-20 points a win, by the time they get to the 50th win, 10 points and under, the clan would have massive points, now, you and camp play 50 games and lose them all, the 1st game you lost, will be close to 40 points because you both have 1000, while dulek/guaton have like 2000 or something each, and the clan now has about say 2000 for that scheme.
If you lose 50 in a row, the clan rating would probably go down to around 1500, and you both would go to around 600-700, now, if a clan were to NOW beat dulek and guaton, that clan would win like 70 points, because they played the best players, if they played you and campz, they would probably win around 10.
But in reality, if dulek/guaton kept playing clanners and have a win ratio of around 80% they would get a high rank, but everytime they lose a game, the clan loses alot of points, cuz they sure as hell ain't gonna win them all, and if dulek/guaton win 80% and campz/uber lose 80%, the points will still be fair and balanced, because everytime the good players (guaton/dulek) win, they get next to nothing and everytime the bad players (campz/uber) lose, wouldn't lose alot of points, but if the good players lost and the bad players won, it'd still work out fair, you see?
D1, it wouldn't be 60+60 = 120, each player would gain 60 points to THEIR rating, and the clan would also gain 60 as a whole, cFc (komo/OoO) would lose 60 each, and the clan would lose 60.
You would still have to win games to progress, no matter who plays.
In that case, having more players in your clan is advantageous. Poor 5150, no chance for playoffs anymore :(
Quote from: DarkOne on January 31, 2011, 01:20 PM
In that case, having more players in your clan is advantageous. Poor 5150, no chance for playoffs anymore :(
:'(
Quote from: DarkOne on January 31, 2011, 01:20 PM
In that case, having more players in your clan is advantageous. Poor 5150, no chance for playoffs anymore :(
Not really, 5150 won't play the exact same players every single time will they? And it still depends alot on winning as much as you can.
But, I can see your point, 2 man clans could ruin it lol.
Ye ofcourse komo, i get the math in this long time ago! :) Just mentioned that it still would be a sick thing 2 do. lets say camper and me was on 1 k but met a clan with a v good ttrr rating 2. so we could actually have a total of like 1700 in ttrr rank. play a clan with like 800 in rr, but 2 of the players in the clan had won alot rr and rest lost. Then our clan with 1700 ttrr rank could actually win like 50 points if me n camp played, vs a clan with 800 in ttrr rank. Its just not right imo..
TEAMS ARE TEAMS! :) SINGLES ARE SINGLES! PERIOD! :P
And ye, for clans with few members this would mean hell.. :)
I stopped reading this thread. It's just like everytime..Komo must have last word. :-X
Quote from: Uber on January 31, 2011, 04:09 PM
Ye ofcourse komo, i get the math in this long time ago! :) Just mentioned that it still would be a sick thing 2 do. lets say camper and me was on 1 k but met a clan with a v good ttrr rating 2. so we could actually have a total of like 1700 in ttrr rank. play a clan with like 800 in rr, but 2 of the players in the clan had won alot rr and rest lost. Then our clan with 1700 ttrr rank could actually win like 50 points if me n camp played, vs a clan with 800 in ttrr rank. Its just not right imo..
If 2 players of that clan had a very high rating, there is no way the clans rank would be 800, really.
No one continously loses, and no one continously wins anywhere enough to what you are suggesting.
I understand you don't like my idea, but if you are going to use examples to "flaw" my suggestion, at least please use serious examples that have a sense of reality.
SPW, shutup, at least I am trying to suggest ideas to solve the problems that alot of people, including yourself keep complaining about, some people liked this idea, some didn't, what's the big deal that I am trying everything I can to convince people? I am not insulting anyone, me and Uber even complimented each other, yet, you still moan at me...
What would be the point of me suggesting an idea I really believe in, and give up the 1st sign of someone disagreeing?
And as for last word, I am not talking to myself here, there are others that keep replying, anyway, obviously you didn't stop reading this thread and I bet you will read it again, and as usual, thanks for the useful input towards the debate, very intellectual ;)
Quote from: Komito on February 01, 2011, 07:55 AM
what's the big deal that I am trying everything I can to convince people?
Nothing wrong with it in my opinion as long as you're reasonable in your posts (which you are right now) :)
But the point most critics here are trying to make is that they want a clan league and not merely an extension of the singles league :) With the current system, people get to choose their favourite schemes more often than in the singles league, which is part of the charm. You don't seem to be quite ready to acknowledge that in your responses and I guess that's what's causing SPW to respond like that.
Quote from: DarkOne on February 01, 2011, 08:40 AM
But the point most critics here are trying to make is that they want a clan league and not merely an extension of the singles league :) With the current system, people get to choose their favourite schemes more often than in the singles league, which is part of the charm. You don't seem to be quite ready to acknowledge that in your responses and I guess that's what's causing SPW to respond like that.
Yeah I understand that, but I am trying to debate that it is still a clan league, you are still playing for points with members in your clan, Uber said himself, being in a clan is being part of a team, you still are playing as a team with what I suggested, I even feel it's more of a team
You wouldn't see in the Football World Cup for Brazil to turn round and say "Nah, sorry we are busy, can't play, we'll just wait until your best players are injured or something" lol.
I agree with Uber trying to find flaws with my suggestion, no idea or suggestion can be passed without trying to figure out any possible flaws, and if you think someone is wrong when they suggest a flaw, sure as hell you must fight to prove them wrong, but saying it makes it more individual I disagree with 100% and think it's the total opposite, even after I gave example of how it would give the less skilled players in the clan a better chance to play, not fearing to lose alot of points for their clan which actually happens with alot of clans, he still says it is more individual lol.
Basically SPW is just trying to take the piss because I always get involved in alot of things lol, but alot of other members moan just as much, some even more and for less reason than me, and I don't see people going out their way for them, he's just pissy cuz I always use CF as an example, so touche, my own fault I guess :P
Someone PM'd me at the weekend, "lol look at CF recent games, noob bashers xD" I won't say who it was for their sake, I don't mind saying it here cuz I tell it how it is and if I get jumped for it, I don't care cuz I know others agree with me, but they are just too "nice" to admit it but cmon...
CF is like 1st, by a mile, and in the last 2-3 seasons most of your games have been with low rated/skilled clans (excluding Playoffs of course), even when you play good clans you tactically pick the schemes they have weakest members on with, and you even admitted this to me.
You sit there claiming the TuS System is unfair with noob bashing and avoiding and "top players not playing top players enough", and your clan is one of the biggest offenders for not playing the other best clans, and even when people tell CF they do this, you come out with some excuse, Random has done a great thing in the Classics, he's got off his ass and risked alot of points by just playing a big amount of games with as many people as possible, so well done Random !
I never get the chance to play BnG Vs CF, I REALLY want to, SPW and Random are one of the best BnG teams on Wnet and I want that thrill and excitement lol, even if we lose I can stfu and say "Yay ! They done it !"
CF, how about we try and organise a massive match between cFc and CF, Every scheme, in one evening, we are 2 of the best clans, and Wnet NEEDS to see more of the top clans playing each other, getting along with each other, and having a laugh, and not being so damn serious and protective.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I give up with this, not enough people are interested, it's a fun idea for some sure, but, too many dislike it, Uber wins :)
Nobody "wins" here. We both ( + others) had some good points here, and its been like 5 pages without any yelling or namecalling, If anyone, TUS is the winner! :)
"You wouldn't see in the Football World Cup for Brazil to turn round and say "Nah, sorry we are busy, can't play, we'll just wait until your best players are injured or something" lol."
True, but u wouldnt see them losing less points for a loss if their "weaker players" played instead! :) They are ranked as the best team in the world by many, but they cant play with a weaker team and then get easier off the hook.. :) THey are top of the FIFA ranking (at least was, i think its Spain atm), and EVERYTIME they play, no matter own team no matter opponent they still win/lose the same amount points at the FIFA ranking. That statement proves my point more than urs tbh Komo. :)
And the point u just said just says that avoiding is common among some clans. I can partly agree 2 that, but that really is more a attitude problem by single persons than the points themselves. They are not scared 2 lose so much points they are scared of the fact of losing.
Well, been fun! Ill get something 2 eat ! :)
The Brazil thing was just a joke lol
I feel ya, we all know Brazil sux! :D
:(
Quote from: Komito on February 01, 2011, 11:07 AM
The Brazil thing was just a joke lol
As was mine.
Lol nino, stop being emo when i joke! :D
huahuaha was a joke too, brazil sucks indeed not just soccer xDDDD