another point system proposal - weight of wars

i feel that net points system can be better.
it missess some points - like wars with c9 or mom that we dont defend, still affect our net points.
some of you say, that these wars should not be taken.
but in this case we wont have info about activity of those members, who fight them to check their def decks when active war is already finished.

my proposal now is to set weights for wars:
1. stats show net points x1 of wars that
a) we didnt try to win (mostly mom, c9, dragons)
b) for wars that we won with more than 4000 gap (easy wars)
2. other wars (close wins and losses, wars we tried to win) should get x2 multiplier on net points.

summary stats would contain net points column and weighted net points column, weighted net would be used to get rankings and warnings.

tell me what you think about the idea

I'm not crazy about subjective or interpretable variables, but that's just me, I like my clean programming and protocol.

This is not opposition to the idea, I guess I'm just pointing out my tastes and being picky. Anyway if implemented I suggest defining who (probably ksfw, maybe a group) makes the call on war labels when their classification is gray.

there are 2 criteria:
1. most important is points gap (4000 gap as close war). and this is solid, no need to interpret.
2. the 2nd are wars we mark as those we didnt fight back. should be only def wars, and since you wrote about subjective, i will show list of defs to officers and after getting 3 votes or more i will mark it.

kfsw wrote:

there are 2 criteria:
1. most important is points gap (4000 gap as close war). and this is solid, no need to interpret.
2. the 2nd are wars we mark as those we didnt fight back. should be only def wars, and since you wrote about subjective, i will show list of defs to officers and after getting 3 votes or more i will mark it.

I agree with those criterias , #1 is quite obvious and #2 could be some task for the Officers.

I like it