F400 Ranking [Updated 07-01-12]

by **freakns** on Wed May 16, 2012 5:28 am

our abbreviation in first CW was Otp, in second was Otpi, and now in third and in CL is OTP(the one we will use from now on)
is this why we are not yet on the list? we finished 2 clan wars(41 and 61 games), shouldnt that be enough to make on the list? or CoF asked for us not to be on so TOFU dont shit their pants before our CW?

by **Keefie** on Wed May 16, 2012 6:17 am

I believe 150 games is the minimum requirement.

by **Keefie** on Wed May 16, 2012 6:21 am

benga wrote:
Keefie wrote:Benga,

I think Chemefreak warned us that it probably wouldn't be entered into the rankings.

So why is then CL in the rankings?

I think the problem is how to enter the data.

Just a guess the input probably goes something like:

Clan 1 Score / Clan 2 Score

So how does a 4 way get entered ?

by **Gunn217** on Wed May 16, 2012 8:54 pm

Keefie wrote:
benga wrote:
Keefie wrote:Benga,

I think Chemefreak warned us that it probably wouldn't be entered into the rankings.

So why is then CL in the rankings?

I think the problem is how to enter the data.

Just a guess the input probably goes something like:

Clan 1 Score / Clan 2 Score

So how does a 4 way get entered ?

This is correct. No way to enter a 4 way.

freakns wrote:our abbreviation in first CW was Otp, in second was Otpi, and now in third and in CL is OTP(the one we will use from now on)
is this why we are not yet on the list? we finished 2 clan wars(41 and 61 games), shouldnt that be enough to make on the list? or CoF asked for us not to be on so TOFU dont shit their pants before our CW?

I posted in the OP to check the Challenge database that I list for the correct abbreviations. I try to make them all the same but I'm sure I make mistakes. If you find something different let me know and I'll correct it.

by **MudPuppy** on Thu May 17, 2012 9:59 am

Gunn217 wrote:I posted in the OP to check the Challenge database that I list for the correct abbreviations. I try to make them all the same but I'm sure I make mistakes. If you find something different let me know and I'll correct it.

I'm not quite sure what program the F400 database is in & I understand you weren't its creator... but, if you are comfortable doing so, perhaps you could consider creating a table of all clans and their approved abbreviation and then put in a data validation check referring to that table which prevents invalid clan codes from being entered into the results. It would still allow for valid miskeys like "ID" vs. "IA" but would help avoid most errors.

by **Leehar** on Thu May 17, 2012 3:56 pm

MudPuppy wrote:
Gunn217 wrote:I posted in the OP to check the Challenge database that I list for the correct abbreviations. I try to make them all the same but I'm sure I make mistakes. If you find something different let me know and I'll correct it.

I'm not quite sure what program the F400 database is in & I understand you weren't its creator... but, if you are comfortable doing so, perhaps you could consider creating a table of all clans and their approved abbreviation and then put in a data validation check referring to that table which prevents invalid clan codes from being entered into the results. It would still allow for valid miskeys like "ID" vs. "IA" but would help avoid most errors.

Would you like to make his life easier and create it for him and send onwards? Since even Idk how to do data validation

by **MudPuppy** on Thu May 17, 2012 11:39 pm

Leehar wrote:
MudPuppy wrote:
Gunn217 wrote:I posted in the OP to check the Challenge database that I list for the correct abbreviations. I try to make them all the same but I'm sure I make mistakes. If you find something different let me know and I'll correct it.

I'm not quite sure what program the F400 database is in & I understand you weren't its creator... but, if you are comfortable doing so, perhaps you could consider creating a table of all clans and their approved abbreviation and then put in a data validation check referring to that table which prevents invalid clan codes from being entered into the results. It would still allow for valid miskeys like "ID" vs. "IA" but would help avoid most errors.

Would you like to make his life easier and create it for him and send onwards? Since even Idk how to do data validation

I'm not exactly a techie :lol:

... but if the data entry is done in an Excel worksheet, I'd be happy to oblige. If that's the case, send me the link and I'll see what I can do.

by **IcePack** on Wed May 30, 2012 4:47 pm

Question:
Should two clans be able to negotiate a clan war with one of the agreements / point of negotiations between them be that the results not be counted towards the F400?

And if that ever took place, would the clan world / F400 organizers respect that agreement between the two clans? Or would they feel compelled to include (by force) the results of thy war.

IcePack

by **jj3044** on Wed May 30, 2012 5:06 pm

I sincerely doubt that would ever be allowed. Think of it. First round of the CC3 the 32nd ranked clan asks the first ranked clan for the standing to not be counted so that when the #2 clan beats #31, they automatically move up.

Not a good idea, and it would set a bad prescient. The point of having a ranking is to gauge clan power... being able to pick and choose would completely invalidate the ranking.

by **IcePack** on Wed May 30, 2012 5:20 pm

I'm not asking whether it's a good idea, I'm asking that IF two clans (for whatever reason) agreed to it would the results be passed / ignored by F400 to coincide the wishes of the clans that negotiated it?

by **WPBRJ** on Wed May 30, 2012 5:25 pm

IcePack wrote:I'm not asking whether it's a good idea, I'm asking that IF two clans (for whatever reason) agreed to it would the results be passed / ignored by F400 to coincide the wishes of the clans that negotiated it?

i really think no one has the right to refuse there war results from fd400. it really comes down to the guy running the fd400 and i highly doubt he would exclude a result if clans asked him too. it really would make the ranking system worthless if he agreed to it and all his work would be for nothing.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Thu May 31, 2012 2:25 am

If two clans want to do that (an unofficial challenge) then they simply set up a bunch of private games and play each other and do not create a thread in the clan challenge forum. Simple!

by **cookie0117** on Thu May 31, 2012 9:33 am

Chariot of Fire wrote:If two clans want to do that (an unofficial challenge) then they simply set up a bunch of private games and play each other and do not create a thread in the clan challenge forum. Simple!

Thats pretty much it, if you want medals its an official challenge and should be counted towards rankings. If you just want to play some games, just play the games.

by **Gunn217** on Thu May 31, 2012 4:29 pm

I agree with CoF and Michael. Set up some private games and do it that way. The way I see it if clans play and they want medals, then they are sanctioning a battle that needs to be recorded.

However, if Bruce wants to allow privileges to be granted and medals will not be issued, I have no problem with it. In fact, why not allow the privileges and the thread, but move it to the archives instead of the completed challenges page. It takes me out of it completely. I kind of like the idea of scrimmages.

by **jj3044** on Thu May 31, 2012 6:33 pm

I'm just curious as to the reason of wanting to play a challenge and it not counting... serious question.

Scrimmage games are one thing, but the question was in playing an actual "war" and not have it counted in the rankings... :?:

by **Gunn217** on Thu May 31, 2012 7:35 pm

We played a tune up challenge with MM back in the day. It was very helpful to us. I remember it was kind of aggravating to try to get someone to make games I wasn't in. Not every clan is a well oiled machine with each member standing by to create games. i think it would be a good thing to be able to do a scrimmage and use new boards or team groupings and have the privileges to create the games myself.

It might even give the top clans a reason to play some lower clans.

by **chapcrap** on Thu May 31, 2012 9:48 pm

jj3044 wrote:I'm just curious as to the reason of wanting to play a challenge and it not counting... serious question.

Scrimmage games are one thing, but the question was in playing an actual "war" and not have it counted in the rankings...

Maybe so a higher ranked clan and lower ranked clan wouldn't be as opposed to playing each other, because it wouldn't effect the ranking? That's probably where he's coming from, but I don't know for sure. I think that scrimmage games are just as good for that myself.

by **IcePack** on Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:12 am

chapcrap wrote:
jj3044 wrote:I'm just curious as to the reason of wanting to play a challenge and it not counting... serious question.

Scrimmage games are one thing, but the question was in playing an actual "war" and not have it counted in the rankings...

Maybe so a higher ranked clan and lower ranked clan wouldn't be as opposed to playing each other, because it wouldn't effect the ranking? That's probably where he's coming from, but I don't know for sure. I think that scrimmage games are just as good for that myself.

That was one of the original reasons for my post (among others). Scrimmage games are fine, but its easier elsewhere. Anyway, I got the answer I was looking for, for now.

Icepack

by **patrickaa317** on Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Gunn217 wrote:I agree with CoF and Michael. Set up some private games and do it that way. The way I see it if clans play and they want medals, then they are sanctioning a battle that needs to be recorded.

However, if Bruce wants to allow privileges to be granted and medals will not be issued, I have no problem with it. In fact, why not allow the privileges and the thread, but move it to the archives instead of the completed challenges page. It takes me out of it completely. I kind of like the idea of scrimmages.

Along with this, I would like to see an indicator in the name of the "tournament". Rather than "2012 [June] ABC vs XYZ" have it be "Scrimmage 2012 [June] ABC vs XYZ"

by **MudPuppy** on Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:44 am

Not that it's a huge deal but I don't like that the F400 is delayed from being posted in the clan forum in order for the newsletter to get an exclusive first showing of it. The results are now 10-days old and appear to have excluded at least 5 wars that were completed in May... presumably in order to meet the newsletter's submission deadline.

I'd prefer the results get posted here first whenever they're ready and that the newsletter then reports on it in their following issue. The newsletter is a great resource for a one-stop summary of various happenings in CC but for most everything else they simply report what's already been announced elsewhere... and I think that's the best approach. The resulting delays and omission of completed wars are more of a downside than any benefit the newsletter might gain for being able to report the results exclusively.

by **IcePack** on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:14 am

I made the same complaint when this arrangement was announced.

by **Dako** on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:59 am

I concur as well. Please have a fixed day of 1st of each month to post F400 here.

by **chapcrap** on Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:35 am

I personally, don't have a problem with waiting for the new rankings in the newsletter, but I think it could be done better. Have the rankings at least up to date with the newsletter and make that release on the first of the month. They could easily coincide.