Organized Clan Matches

[Smokey]

Just to census the current clan leaders/members, would you be willing to participate in matches through an organized system?

A simple yes or no will do.

[Caveman]

Nope, wont do it.
Sorry, if it gets to organized it becomes an obligation.

[MDRIVER]

CAveman has a good point, however it is a good way to get matches without the hassle so
yes
Are we splitting up into divisions for ex NT being in upper division and I love Smileys clan in an intermediate division?

[Smokey]

He's misunderstanding my use of organized. By organized I mean you report results on a site and the clans are actually ranked. Due to the ranking, there would be no devisions, it would be all clans ranked on a ladder, and to move up the ranks you have to beat clans that are above you, thus giving clans a reason to match. I in no way intend for matches to be planned out weeks ahead of time. Admitibly, that is a pain in the ass.

[Bullislander05]

I think it'd be cool, but it shouldn't be tournament based (Which I don't think it is) but ladder based like you say.  Because, one match doesn't determine whether a clan is better or worse than the other.  Maybe you should give teams +1 point for every game they win in a scrim, and -1 for every one they lose in a scrim (Assuming a best of 3 scrim).  That way, the clan that wins in 2 straight gets +2 points, and if they win in 3 they only get +1.  It can measure the dominance of the clan.  Likewise, if a clan loses 2 straight they would lose 2 points off of their total, and if they lose after 3 games they only lose 1.

But, this can't be the only measure of dominance of a clan.  Using the crude +1 for each game won -1 for each lost doesn't take into effect the ladder ranking/point value of the clan faced.  Say the last placed clan lost against the first place clan, they shouldn't lose as many points off of their total because the expectation is that the first place clan would win.  But, on the other hand, if the first place clan lost against the last place clan, they deserve to lose a lot more points.  I don't have an idea for an algorithm though that takes into effect all of these variables and gives a good number back.  Possibly you could take the difference between the two clan ranks / 2 (mean value between ranks) and add/subtract one tenth of a point for every number this gives.  (So, example.  1st place clan fights 5th place clan.  1st place loses game one, so they lose 1.2 points and 5th place clan gains 1.2.  Next game 5th place clan loses, so 1st place clan gains .8 and the 5th place clan loses .8.  So, you could take the rank of the loser - rank of the winner (5 - 1) = 4 / 2 = 2 * 1/10 = .2 and subtract that from the winners points and add it to the losers.  (This still works if the 5th place clan wins, (1 - 5) = -4 / 2 = -2 *1/10 = -.2.  1 - -.2 = 1.2.  -1 + -.2 = -1.2)

Also, maybe you should take into effect how many people played in each game.  If it was a 3v3, it might be more biased for one clan than the other.  4v4's are typically the most balanced, because in 3v3's 3 goons can easily slaughter 3 s1 humans, but in a 4v4, 4 shotguns can take out a goon in 1-2 shots per person assuming good accuracy.

Just a suggestion, you can do it any way you want.  I don't know why I'm rambling about the math here.  It's kinda irrelevant.

Anyways, I endorse the idea (Even though it kills Ass Hunters, ass) and I'd like to see it work.  If you want help, I'm up for it.

-Bull

[Plague]

But, this can't be the only measure of dominance of a clan.  Using the crude +1 for each game won -1 for each lost doesn't take into effect the ladder ranking/point value of the clan faced.  Say the last placed clan lost against the first place clan, they shouldn't lose as many points off of their total because the expectation is that the first place clan would win.  But, on the other hand, if the first place clan lost against the last place clan, they deserve to lose a lot more points. 

Awarding points based on a discriminatory system as quoted, by punishing or rewarding a clan based on its perceived ability, is a bad way to go about it. It would be a lot more simplistic and yet still within reasonable accuracy if a point would be awarded for a win without the loser incurring a loss, such as the way many sports teams are notated.  I'm all for organized clan scrims, but at this point its impossible to create a comprehensive ladder or tournament ranking.

[Annihilation]

That sounds cool but maybe we should have something stopping clans from getting points from the much lower ranked clans.  Like you don't get points from clans more than 3 spots below you or you can't get a point from the same clan more than once a week.  Otherwise I could see some clan taking out a new and easy clan 25 times in one day just to reach spot 1.

[Smokey]

Clans have a score based on WHO they've beat, not how many they beat. Thoretically, each clans starts with a skill of "1".
Clan A beats Clan B, both having a "1". Clan A only gets ".1" skill added, because clan B was only had a skill of "1" to begin with. Once clan A beats a clan with a skill of "5" or so, they will get alot more added to their skill, like "3"

[Eeeew Spiders]

For leagues where activity shouldn't be that decisive for a teams rating (if that is what you want), an ELO based rating
could work well.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system]

Elo was originally invented as an improved chess rating system although it is used in many games today. It is also used as a rating system for competitive multi-player play in a number of computer games, and has been adapted to team sports including international football, American college football and basketball, and Major League Baseball.

Basically, how it works, is this:

Every team starts with 1200 points.
When playing a match, the two teams get/looses points depending on the win/draw/loss status and their ELO rating.
If a weaker team wins vs a stronger team, it gets more points than when a stronger team wins vs a weaker team.
The same for loosing points.
The amount of points a team actually wins or lose is calculated using a statistical approach and is directly dependent on the difference in strength
of the two teams.
So basically, the ELO doesn't calculate a teams performance, but the team's strength index. The amount of points a team has, is their strength index.
And matches are weighted according the difference of the two strength of the involved teams.

That sounds cool but maybe we should have something stopping clans from getting points from the much lower ranked clans.

The ELO rating adresses this. If a 2000 points team wins vs a 1000 points team, it will only get 1 point, if a 1200 points team wins vs a 1200 points team, it will get about
25 points.If a 2000 points team looses vs a 1000 points team however, it may well loose 100 points.
(the actual number of points is dependent on a weighting factor)
For a proper description of the formula used to calculate the points for a game, refer to the wikipedia site mentioned above.

This encourages strong teams to play equally strong or stronger teams, cause that's when they can win the most points.

_________________________________________________ ____________________________

In all, it may be fun to come up with a rating system, but it will be hard to come up with one that works well and fair. So why not use a rating system
that already proofed to work well.

On sourceforge there is a free implementation of a league site based on ELO, called Web-League.
Its made by players of the game BZFlag for BZFlag leagues, but it can easily be modified to work for Tremulous. I have done some coding for web-league too, so
if you need help to get it working....

[Caveman]

I understood you correctly Smokey .)

As soon as you weight clans by wins you get into competition and scrimming will become an obligation.
In order for a clan to keep it place on a ladder the clan must compete against others which will result in mandatory training and wars.
While that might be the way for other players, it's not the way we play trem for fun.
Our clan is based on friendship and not skill. We want to play w/o concerning ourselves about where we would be on a ladder or some such .)

[Shadowgandor]

I understood you correctly Smokey .)

As soon as you weight clans by wins you get into competition and scrimming will become an obligation.
In order for a clan to keep it place on a ladder the clan must compete against others which will result in mandatory training and wars.
While that might be the way for other players, it's not the way we play trem for fun.
Our clan is based on friendship and not skill. We want to play w/o concerning ourselves about where we would be on a ladder or some such .)

+1, so beautiful

[your face]

caveman's rite.... am rite too.... NOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!  xD

i shall remain stupid!  (jk)

[Smokey]

Well, if you don't want to play then your position drops

I just want to see clan matches in this game have some structure, clans don't even know how to match right now.

[your face]

ehehuh>?  it say jus pul it acros the box wher it ruff liek sandpapaer! 

[Caveman]

Well, if you don't want to play then your position drops

I just want to see clan matches in this game have some structure, clans don't even know how to match right now.

They don't??
Strange, I can't see anything that would imply any clan being unable to.

On a sidenote...
What happened to your last attempt several months ago?
IIRC you tried to set up a ladder system then also.
Why did it fail?

[Dracone]

Already talked to you Smokey; I'm up for this, looks fun.

Anyhow...Caveman, I'm assuming you're much more familiar with the competition between Euro clans? Over there, there's still a lot of great clans, but here in the U.S., a few of our clans don't seem to know what they're doing at all and yet they are quite active. Inaki, from psy clan, recently accused NT and our subdivision, Lt, of being jerks, probably because we got back at them harshly to have a little fun after they banned NT from their server, calling us bots. Other clans have had the same issues with them. Most of them, as well as outsiders of their clan that hang around their server, are too dense to realize how good players can be. When we snuck in after they cleaned their bans to allow Lt to scrim them, they ended up banning Lt as well. They accused at least one of them of botting after they got demolished and ended up banning all of them too. Similar situations with other clans.

This is just an example, and I'll have to say an extreme one, of some of the few clans over here that do not seem to know what they're doing. A ladder of organized clan matches would, in my opinion, bring some enlightenment on competition between clans to some of these said clans.

EDIT: The event posted above concerning psy and NT has been resolved. I don't encourage anyone to take things out of that to use against them.

[Caveman]

If some such happens DURING a match, then I concede my point.
Anyways, I am not saying, per se, that a ladder is bad thing. I just gave the reason why my friends will not join in the fray.

I am still curious why Smokey's last ladder-attempt failed tho

[Smokey]

Because I'm lazy and never really finished setting it up.

[Lakitu7]

Clans "not knowing how to match" also applies to these two issues:
1) Clans that camp all match: either because they're weak and are going to lose, or because they are strong but so concerned with their reputation that they will camp until SD begins rather than risk even the small possibility of a loss to their prestine record.
2) Clans that fight only as the sum of their individual members' skills and lack any team skill or communication together.

I can't speak for the Euro clans, but the large, large majority of American matches I've played or witnessed had one or both of these problems on either and often both sides.

I'm all for anything that encourages people to improve their skills in this game. Everyone getting better makes the game more entertaining and dynamic. It gives me skilled foes to fight and mentors to learn from.

Just be careful that the ranking system methods do not encourage everyone to increase their camping because a loss is weighted too heavily. If everyone camps, it's boring and everyone suffers, resulting in the decline of teamplay in this game. This has a lot of potential to do some good, if done right, but be careful that it doesn't undermine its own purpose if executed incorrectly.

[NiTRoX]

Someone has to say something about camping at one point or another..

[BeerBastard]

Camping is part of tremulous, not just clan matches.  If their is no reason to camp than it's useless.  Having a team as mobile as aliens will always mean humans are more likely to camp. 

That being said I would support this as long as its kept a ranking system and not a match scheduling system.  What I mean by that is, you play a clan you post results.  Not someone challenges you on it and you have to show up at a certain time.  People are busy people, refusing a match shouldn't affect score.  With the right points system if a clan always refuses to play a better clan, than they would never pass them on the ladder.

I also think it would encourage matches to hold tournaments where the win/loses doesn't affect your ladder score, but you get recognition for winning the tournament. You could have tournament info under your clan info. Shows which tournament you played in, what position you came, etc.

I also support that at least one player on each team demos. I would say all but I know a few who can't demo because their pcs are old.

Also a sportsmanship rule. I don't think any clan that is being heckled should have to stay and put up with it, or loose that round for leaving. (This could be done by allowing only 1 designated person on each team the ability to speak.)

Just my 2 cents. Even if everything I said is ignored I still hope this gets going.

[Eeeew Spiders]

That being said I would support this as long as its kept a ranking system and not a match scheduling system.

Have you read my post about the ELO system..its all in there.

With the right points system if a clan always refuses to play a better clan, than they would never pass them on the ladder.

If a team is allowed to refuse matches (e.g. bad experience matching them), then you cant add
the rule that you can only surpass a team if you have matched them..cause the better team
could simply refuse to match.
But the ELO system works still nicely in that regards, that you win more points the higher the
likelihood of a loss is, according to the teams strength index.

So the ELO rating gives an incentive to play against better teams.

It is really the best points system if you don't want to require teams to be very active on a
regular basis and if you don't want to add the obligation for a team to match.

As i said..it calculates the strength of a team..independent of the frequency of their matches.

ofcourse the system requires some matches until the teams ELO rating becomes significant, but you can take
a week to do it, or two years, every team in their own pace.

here is the link again :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
and here a link to a GPL licensed implementation of a league site using the ELO rating http://sourceforge.net/projects/web-league

[Yarou]

I'm fully in favor of an organized clan system in Tremulous.
Although a ladder system never really seemed to take off in the past, such a system would be greatly beneficial to all clans.

[Dracone]

I'm seeing a pretty damn fun thing if it kicks off. But also, I'm curious to see how much of an effect it will really have on the enthusiasm of clans for competition.

[Smokey]

Based on what I've read so far, this is what needs to be done:
A system to run the site must be found or developed. I've decided that using joomla for a base site and writing a ladder component for it would be alot simpler than developing a whole system. However, if web-league is deemed sufficient then there is no excuse to not use it.
A group of players knowledgeable on the topic needs to be chosen to help create the rules and the ladder system.

[Eeeew Spiders]

To see web-league in action:

http://gu.bzleague.com
http://my.bzflag.org/league

As you can see, its fairly simple. You log on and you know what to do. I think the old tremleague site was to complicated, i didn't know what
buttons to press and what happens when you press them.

In the two league sites above, you wont see what admin command are available to you. If you want i could set up a testing site for you to test out.
But I wouldn't want to host the real thing.

Its not the pretties site, nor is the coding up there with modern concepts of web programming. Its all php.
But it can be configured, features switched off and on, and also it's appearance can be changed.
One feature that is off by default is a seasonal league thing, where you can define seasons and call a winner each season.
For leagues with low activity, it better remains switched off.
There is also no match scheduling feature, since matches in that game are usually scheduled on the spot ingame.
But from the posts i feel there is no requirement for a match scheduler.

[Shadow-Majestic]

if anyone wants i could try and setup a rankings/leage site for tremulous where the mods/supervisors/serveradmins have access to to update the latest clanstatus
if anyone is interested i'll see what i can accomplish there plenty of possibilities

[Smokey]

I agree that Web-League seems sufficent, but I'd like for more than 1-2 people to be agreement with me.
Developing a system is simply too complicated and time-consuming, so I wouldn't bother.

Thanks for the offer Eeeew Spiders, But I've already got a test site up and working on the tremleague domain.
I'll contact some people to help me develop a theme for it, because design just isn't my thing.