WannaBet
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 23607 |
|
|
| 03 Jul 2016 12:51 PM |
the fact that war performance matters more than it does today is part of the reason as to why clans are performing worse than before. to ensure performance accuracy in this rating, the components do not account for any periodic bias people have towards one factor (like war) being worth than it actually does. war just doesn't seem to have much to do with a clan's performance.
war conduct isn't significantly accounted for either (but does drastically affected by overall war score) because it doesn't have major repercussions for groups. it does affect the overall community, but the algorithm is to measure individualistic performance as opposed to the affect it has on the community.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
WannaBet
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 23607 |
|
|
| 03 Jul 2016 12:53 PM |
| for one to propose different weight factors, they must construct the argument of how it more significantly affects individualistic clan performance than the suggested weights here. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2016 12:55 PM |
"the fact that war performance matters more than it does today is part of the reason as to why clans are performing worse than before."
i agree, but i think ranking the individual clans without looking at how they interact, influence, and affect other clans is a mistake. clans such as vak have had good recruitment because of the persona and reputation they have put forwards, yet that reputation (specifically the top or "undefeated") has only been accomplished through dire means that have influenced the clan world at a greater scale than any other clan (in my opinion)
i just cant see how a clan that has advanced the clan attitude that much, and continues to advance it to this day, can be considered higher than other clans that go against it or clans that progress it a lot less
personally, i think their war conduct makes the majority of their other categories void due to the fact that that has been their largest influence on clans (the clan attitude), not any of their other factors |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
WannaBet
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 23607 |
|
|
| 03 Jul 2016 12:59 PM |
while i don't disagree with your outlook (you know this yourself), the rating list focuses on individualistic performance. to measure the affect a group has on the community, whether positive or negative, we will require a separate algorithm that focuses on a clan's level of contribution as opposed to individualistic performance.
war conduct is accounted for - since poor conduct could result in worsening performance as competitors stray away from engaging with the group - but it doesn't have significant weight to it. vak for example has done well for itself despite its isolationist status. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2016 01:21 PM |
yes, but vak has only done well for themselves with their semi-isolationist periods because of their reputation built up by their war performance/conduct
without being seen as the top/the best/undefeated, vak would not have received the benefits that come with it. people want to be the best and join the best, and if their war conduct was honorable, then vak may not have earned that "war prowess" as they have done |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
WannaBet
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 23607 |
|
|
| 03 Jul 2016 01:23 PM |
| vak isn't the only clan. jc had a horrendous reputation, but that too didn't stop it from performing well individually. wij had a bad reputation for how they've approached wars, but that too didn't do much to them. the same with clans such as rat during ct, stealth organization by deop, fear, vs along with many others. there just isn't much of an individualistic connection between conduct and personal performance. there is a significant connection between conduct and community performance though. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
WannaBet
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 23607 |
|
| |
|
Devin5134
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7065 |
|
| |
|
WannaBet
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 23607 |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 03:14 PM |
You haven't really mentioned any solid numbers.
You basically glance at the clan's specs and then subjectively rate them per category you listed
there is no way for me to reproduce your score perfectly due to my own bias or your own bias. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Devin5134
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7065 |
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 06:53 PM |
| i believe we've had this discussion before, hacker, and you admitted you were in the wrong. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Moose_God
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Jun 2013 |
| Total Posts: 10238 |
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 06:57 PM |
tfc i guess? we're relaunching soon so idk if you can judge it
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 06:58 PM |
Devin:
I might've been wrong in terms of validity or the argument I initially gave.
I mean, the following are undeniable truths about this system:
- Numerical expressions are not exemplified - Categories/criteria are subjective - Categories/criteria have a degree of ambiguity (mostly as a result of being subjective) - One Ranking can differ vastly from another - As a result of the former; inconsistency is a likely possibility
If you're going to put criteria make them mean something, that's all I'm saying. Make it so I can reproduce the results with little to no variation from someone else's results. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Devin5134
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7065 |
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 07:04 PM |
first i want to get both of us on the same page here. this is by far the best system for clan evaluations ever proposed on this website. not necessarily because it's so well made, but because people don't put much thought when evaluating groups.
second, clan conduct, gameplay/dev and internal structure are subjective criteria that have to be factored into the equation. dropping these would make the evaluation score very incomplete. if you have an objective way to assess these you can let me know.
third, are you talking about specifying parameters for the objective criteria? (like 100-500 = activity level 2/10?) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 07:25 PM |
So look, I'm not knocking the system lol.
I'm just pointing out the irrefutable fact that your evaluation of a clan and mine can* be VASTLY different
That's like saying we both use a yard stick to measure the same piece of paper, and we end with very different measurements.
I'm not saying this isn't credible, people's opinion on something isn't totally unreliable. That's probably what matters most when rating a clan, really, since people's view on the clan may produce better results than how the clan actually is.
But you can't call it a measurement with the possibilities for variation being the way they are.
As for objective alternatives:
Quantifiable information.
You can quantify the performance of a clan based on their victories. How those victories were obtained is subjective, but the victory itself can be numerically expressed.
As for conduct, I think you can quantify instances that breach sportsmanship. It shouldn't be a positive number that is expressed here.
So for example, 0 means you have no detectable instance of unsportsmanlike conduct. Every instance lowers this score further and further below 0 by a very small number.
The number shouldn't permanently decrease. Every week without an incident we add double the same value we subtracted by.
For example, if 2 incidences occurred and the value was set at -0.05, we would result in -0.1. Over a week's time, that value is doubled and added IF there is no incident.
The result should be 0 given those conditions.
As for gameplay or development, maybe that can be subjective.
I'm not saying there can only be objective values.
But when I can say for certain that your results and my results can vary substantially,
I cannot call that a measurement.
So just to clarify, I'm not knocking the system for being bad or not useful. Just that it isn't objective and the results can vary in large increments. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Devin5134
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7065 |
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 07:35 PM |
alright, i originally felt a vibe from you which suggested that this system shouldn't be used (in favor of the current) because of some of its inconsistencies.
the only subjective criteria, as i mentioned, are conduct, dev/gameplay and internal structure. these criteria all have to be included. i dont think there are objective assessments to them. when i rated several clans (and their hrs/leaders responded) i let them contest any subjective criteria, giving them the chance to boost themselves up if my initial assessment is missing a lot of information.
can't quantify breaches of conduct. unless you propose you try and specify all potential breaches (which would be difficult) since conduct isn't a black or white issue. furthermore keeping track of breaches every week from every assessed clan is too far fetched imo. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 07:50 PM |
Yeah no, I really have wanted to see the creation of a standard of some kind.
The thing for me is just that this standardizes how we organize our opinions (aside from the criteria regarding activity/recruitment/etc those can be deduced very simply and are objective), but doesn't standardize how we arrive to the conclusions we did.
And well, you could be right to some extent.
I just do not like that my results can vary compared to yours.
If we both rated UCR right now, chances are our results would vary dramatically. I have an inclination to take into consideration factors that you probably couldn't see on the surface (complicated way of saying my prejudice).
I just want to see something that standardize how we arrive to a conclusion.
Even then it could* still vary by a smaller margin, but at least I can say it's a measurement and the variation is almost nonexistent. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 07:51 PM |
| My overuse of the word "just" is cancerous. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Devin5134
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7065 |
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 07:57 PM |
| even if the we provide different ranks to ucr for anything that is subjective, the score difference still wont be as wide as you may think it will be |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Jul 2016 08:19 PM |
| I'm down to test it out sometime. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NoAlias
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 8616 |
|
| |
|
NoAlias
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 8616 |
|
| |
|
|
| 17 Dec 2016 11:45 PM |
Please stop posting on my thread. I'm calling the authorities.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NoAlias
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 8616 |
|
| |
|