Originally Posted by
DrHax
If what you're trying to measure is a clan's absolute strength, activity really can't play a huge part in the scoring system. You have copious clans (more than 80%) of the top 15 in the official ranks who wouldn't on their best day win a war against the most talented clans in Toribash. In a system that cares about actual strength, you wouldn't have Team Girl Scouts in 120, RelaxAll in 145, Alpha in 152, and NO in 300. Nor would you have other clans, who I won't name out of respect for their hardwork and activity anywhere near the top 10.
Maybe you feel differently, maybe you think the point of the clan ranking system is to encourage constant warring and activity is super duper important. That makes sense too. I'm telling you what I'd enjoy in a system.
I wouldn't say activity shouldn't play a big role, but you're right, it shouldn't be the main determining factor. A win-ratio modifier (based on clan war wins) should play a role, which Cowmeat has included into his algorithim.
(as an aside, total points gained and win ratio should be a visible statistic on the clan rankings/toriclan pages)
The clans you listed haven't put any effort into wars however, and at the end of the day, the rankings are based on war results (which requires wars to be played). From unranked to 32nd, TLDR's only had to do ~35 wars. I wouldn't support a change to the system that gives clan completing <15 wars a high rank.
We can have all the great ideas to change things, but if the implementation sides of things (Fish) doesn't have the will to do it, then that's a major, determining problem that needs to be fixed. Get new devs in.
Last edited by Ele; May 8, 2015 at 02:44 AM.