Cheme's Leap Ladder - Updated 31/3/17

by **Swifte** on Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:57 pm

lokisgal wrote:Immortal Assassins - (IA) are not listed?

Yeah we are... we're just way way low. Leap ladder just hasn't worked out for us. We will have to make our leap by defeating TSM in cc4

by **PaRKoN** on Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:20 pm

ACE will reach the podium after our winning against AFOS

by **chemefreak** on Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:22 pm

Swifte wrote:
lokisgal wrote:Immortal Assassins - (IA) are not listed?

Yeah we are... we're just way way low. Leap ladder just hasn't worked out for us. We will have to make our leap by defeating TSM in cc4

Yeah, IA is my example of why the Leap isn't the greatest indicator of rank! It is nice to see clans that are newer jump up (this will react much quicker than other systems).

BTW, I will be updating this mid-month-ish for Ice to use.

by **BoganGod** on Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:07 pm

Like this. So after we beat TOFU I will like it even more..... :lol:

by **Leehar** on Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:56 pm

Thanks for the update =D>

And I didn't even have to ask this time!

by **Chariot of Fire** on Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:02 pm

BoganGod wrote:Like this. So after we beat TOFU I will like it even more.....

When will that be then mate?

Interesting format you've adopted cheme, deviating from the usual golf/squash/etc practice of the lower-ranked clan moving half the distance towards the higher-ranked in the event of a victory (e.g. If #32 beat #4 they would move up to #18 yet #4 stays where it is). They both have their merits - yours being more dynamic, whereas the traditional method is more-steeped in reality (in that the #32 ranked clan really isn't better than all those ranked from #4 thru #31 and simply got lucky on one occasion). I think that's why the traditional system is adopted more often, as it rules out the anomalies of freaky victories. Yours is perhaps more fun and appealing though.

by **chemefreak** on Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:51 pm

Chariot of Fire wrote:Interesting format you've adopted cheme, deviating from the usual golf/squash/etc practice of the lower-ranked clan moving half the distance towards the higher-ranked in the event of a victory (e.g. If #32 beat #4 they would move up to #18 yet #4 stays where it is). They both have their merits - yours being more dynamic, whereas the traditional method is more-steeped in reality (in that the #32 ranked clan really isn't better than all those ranked from #4 thru #31 and simply got lucky on one occasion). I think that's why the traditional system is adopted more often, as it rules out the anomalies of freaky victories. Yours is perhaps more fun and appealing though.

I agree this is more dynamic. A few things:

I think it shows pretty accurately how long it has been since some of the top clans have beaten another top clan. IA being the prime example. There is no doubt they are a dominant clan, but it has been a long time since they beat anyone "better" than them (at least for ladder purposes).

Additionally, this system allowed a clan like ACE to jump quickly to where (or about where) they should be. Using the halving formula, I'm not sure they would be anywhere close to where they should be.

Finally, since it only includes clan wars (41+ games) there is less of a "luck" factor as somewhere along the way we determined that 41 games was the true measure of a clan. Right or wrong, there you go! Looking at the ladder, it definitely is not the end all be all of clan ranking systems. But I think it is a fun and interesting exercise, especially when looked at in conjunction with the other systems.

In my opinion, the biggest issue (flaw) that it has is that when a clan stumbles (either because of attrition, defection, or otherwise) the system cannot correct itself. So when 4-5 clans beat a higher ranked clan, after an event that has weakened that clan, you get some odd looking results. Then when you get an odd result and clans beat the clan that had the odd result, it creates even odder results!

by **jpcloet** on Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:00 pm

It's nice to see things where they are now. Great job everyone involved.

by **chemefreak** on Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:45 pm

jpcloet wrote:It's nice to see things where they are now. Great job everyone involved.

This post made my day.

by **Bruceswar** on Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:00 pm

chemefreak wrote:
jpcloet wrote:It's nice to see things where they are now. Great job everyone involved.

This post made my day.

+1 Hi Jp

by **chemefreak** on Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:04 pm

Leap Ladder has been updated. No particular reason, I just had time to do it! During this period, the Leap Ladder predicted the winner around 73% of the time.

by **Keefie** on Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:58 am

Updated.

by **Keefie** on Mon May 11, 2015 12:35 pm

Updated

by **Arama86n** on Mon May 11, 2015 12:41 pm

Your work is appreciated, thank you.

by **betiko** on Tue May 12, 2015 7:05 am

Not sure I'm a big fan of this system. For example, AFOS was still quite high ranked as they hadn't played almost any war lately, and got beaten by a clan or 2 that didn't need to be top teams as AFOS's level has gone down dramatically in the past 2 years, so we got jumped over by a few teams that we have beaten recently just because they won against afos or winners of afos in this updated ranking.
Basically, if an average clan infiltrates above you for winning against a higher ranked clan, it can bring a ton of clans on top of you even if you've beaten them recently. I think this kind of ranking would make sense only if clans strategically chose their wars depending on this ranking's standings, but when you play competitions you don't get to chose who you'll be facing. So the f400 makes much more sense to give an overall picture of the current shape of different clans

by **Donelladan** on Tue May 12, 2015 7:31 am

On the other hand betiko, this ranking put us already at the 5th position more than 1 year ago. That is the interesting part of this ranking, to change very fast.
Also, to climb up you need to defeat higher ranked clan, while in the F400 you can gain points by beating weak opponent.
This ranking show smthg different. Probably less accurate on the strenght of a clan, but that's not the point.

by **Arama86n** on Tue May 12, 2015 7:37 am

@ betiko & Donelladen

I think you both make reasonable points. At the end of the day it's the F400 that "matters" to me. That doesn't stop me from finding other rankings interesting though.

by **betiko** on Tue May 12, 2015 7:46 am

Donelladan wrote:On the other hand betiko, this ranking put us already at the 5th position more than 1 year ago. That is the interesting part of this ranking, to change very fast.
Also, to climb up you need to defeat higher ranked clan, while in the F400 you can gain points by beating weak opponent.
This ranking show smthg different. Probably less accurate on the strenght of a clan, but that's not the point.

yes but LHDD by no means deserved to be 5th over a year ago after defeating atlantis, there were clearly tons of better clans, and atlantis didn't deserve to be 5th in the first place before we beat them and took their spot.
if you want to progress in that ranking, it's easy, just fight clearly over rated clans higher than you in this ranking such as AFOS, in just 1 war you can be 4th and honestly, half of the clans are good enough to have a good chance to beat the 2015 AFOS.
If you beat weak opponents in the F400 you aren't going to progress much and you an't expect much by doing that. No clan has eer done it, but I wonder if it could be possible to "farm" to the first spot just by playing tons of wars against lower tier clans, at some point the progress would be too insignificant.

by **Keefie** on Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:04 pm

Updated for 30/9

by **rockfist** on Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:13 pm

It looks like those are what I would put as the top five clans, in the top five. You can argue over what order they should be in but that looks like the right five to me.