Conquer Club

-EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FarangDemon on Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:30 am

This is a very basic question, guys:

Which kind of ranking system do you prefer?

A) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats player ranked number 2
B) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats other lower ranked players more often than Player ranked number 2 does.

The best way to achieve System A is to have a tournament and see who wins, face to face. But you can create a scoreboard that approaches System A if your players play against their peers to a large extent.

How often do they need to play against each other? Numbers must come in to play in order to automate calculation and in order to treat everyone fairly (can't just arbitrarily say one guy is a farmer and one other guy isn't). In order to use numbers, a policy must be formulated: players whose <opponent rank variable> is less than <constant> have not conclusively shown that they can hold their own against their peers.

What better way to determine the degree to which players play their peers vs noobs than by examining the average relative rank of opponents? It is not necessary to calculate the exact rank of the opponent. The ratio is fine.

A major that usually plays cadets could be an inflated major, just as a colonel that usually plays sergeants could be an inflated colonel or a brigadier that usually plays lieutenants could be an inflated brigadier. Inflated means would tend to lose against a player of the same (or perhaps lesser) rank. I think Maxatstuy is an inflated Field Marshall because there is no evidence that he plays his peers and consistently wins.

There are tons of possibly inflated guys out there. Using RR we can figure out who is less likely to be inflated because they play their peers a great deal.
Last edited by FarangDemon on Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Brigadier FarangDemon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FabledIntegral on Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:38 am

porkenbeans wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:
porkenbeans wrote:
Aradhus wrote:How is a player expected to play against players above them in the scoreboard, when you are telling players not to play anyone below them?

Talk about clueless.

If anything, this equilitarian status reveals to us those snooby players that won't play anybody beneath them on the scoreboard(mostly because it means losing more points when defeated). Elitism at its worst.
I have not told players anything of the sort. Most of my games are started by me in open public games. But when I do enter a game, I do look for the highest ranks. Yes, for the points. Talk about clueless. And also I enjoy playing others that give me a challenge. If I only cared about points however, I would be farming Noobs. But alas, I like to play RISK.


Ok - hypothetical situation - you're now at 3500 points. You still host the exact same public games. You play the exact same competition. You're now a noob farmer instead of an EQ. Thus if you want EQ you can't play public games, they HAVE to be private. Private games keep players in the same pool. Case in point.
By same pool, you mean same rank, dont you. If you are among the best, you SHOULD be wanting to play others of the same caliber as yourself. Or is every sport that I can think of, ...wrong ?


Not if newcomers aren't coming in and out of the rankings. No one wants to see the same 20 people playing each other 20x over and over again. Once again you fail miserably at addressing any points. The only reason you're an EQ anyways pork is because of your low rank. By the people I play, I'd be EQ as well most likely if you took out all the doodle assassins and made me a major. Although you are talking about high ranks - as said - it's a group of 20 people, who WITHOUT A DOUBT in my mind are skilled, but don't cater to the rest of the population. EQ is simply not a way to determine skill because of the way you reach it. Once again - you haven't answered about Jarrett.
Major FabledIntegral
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FarangDemon on Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:05 am

FabledIntegral wrote:No one wants to see the same 20 people playing each other 20x over and over again.


Actually that sounds like a good way to determine which of the top players is the tippity top. Good idea, Fabled.

Unless the best player should be defined as the one that plays the best against less skilled or inexperienced players. Is that what you think it should be defined as? Because that is what it currently is, System B.

System A or System B for you?

It is obvious you prefer System B so you have no business in a discussion about how to formulate a more competitive ranking system because you are fundamentally opposed to it in the first place.

So, again, it's not about RR - it's about your concept of competitiveness where if A has a greater score than B it is ok that A does not tend to beat B if they were to actually play.
User avatar
Brigadier FarangDemon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FabledIntegral on Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:37 am

FarangDemon wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:No one wants to see the same 20 people playing each other 20x over and over again.


Actually that sounds like a good way to determine which of the top players is the tippity top. Good idea, Fabled.

Unless the best player should be defined as the one that plays the best against less skilled or inexperienced players. Is that what you think it should be defined as? Because that is what it currently is, System B.

System A or System B for you?

It is obvious you prefer System B so you have no business in a discussion about how to formulate a more competitive ranking system because you are fundamentally opposed to it in the first place.

So, again, it's not about RR - it's about your concept of competitiveness where if A has a greater score than B it is ok that A does not tend to beat B if they were to actually play.


Notice those people all play different types of games? How is this even plausible unless you take a small pool of players?

You're a fucking idiot for assuming I would prefer "system B." I don't like either. If you want to use my RR in particular, you need to factor in the fact I've deranked on doodle assassin games once before from a score of 3400~ down to 1300. Since doodle assassin usually has 8 players all of rank around 1200 - you can imagine what it did.

I played 8-player freestyle speed games that typically composed 1-2 stripers, 2 majors, 1 colonel, 1 brig, me, and a general. So before you go trying to label ME in particular, you'd best research your facts. Especially because I've been against farming in the suggs topics of the past. Which is exactly why I'm against RR, the stats are so fucking flawed and retarded because it's relative. To even attempt to use it to determine skill is foolish. The premise is good - the criteria is highly flawed.

And go figure - you're another one of hte trips players - the easiest way to play the system to get a high rank. You play the system and are merely arguing for the pros of a system which portrays you better than you are.
Major FabledIntegral
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby Mr Changsha on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:27 am

Inflated rank?

Those that play in dubs, trips and quads as the silent partner - there's a prime example of inflated rank.

(some might say)

Those that only play one map to death.

(others might well say)

Those that play only one style of game

(it has been suggested)

Those that typically play much lower ranks

(many have claimed before)

Those that won a lucky battle royale

(I've seen a few of those on the scoreboard)

Those that play with clicky maps, those that play freestyle dubs, those that don't finish their turns in freestyle, those that start games on circus maximus, waterloo or some other hyper-complex map...

You know in my mere six months of reading these forums I've seem ALL of these brought up as evidence of players who are not as good as their score suggests they are. If my memory was not so blasted by too many substances to count ( ;) ) I could probably think of a few more.

Problem is, it is all subjective. Say the idea suggested here is actually taken up, maybe I'll start a thread saying (in strident tones no doubt) that freestyle dubs players are frauds who use fast internet connections and clicky maps to defeat their opposition and so their score isn't as valid as mine.

I'll follow that up with a campaign to remove all players from the top 250 who haven't played more than 5 maps in their last 100 games, because surely variety is the spice of life and damn it I'm sure I'm right so I'm going to shout about it REALLY LOUDLY.

Fabled can come on next and claim that escalating is the only true form of Risk and so all those no cards players should be removed from the scoreboard as they just sit in games for six month and wait for someone else to 'f*ck up' - to use a fabledism...

You see where this is leading? One of Farangdemon's latest comment was that we should all just shut up if we don't agree, as we obviously LIKE farming. Hell no I don't you sanctimonious twit, but I certainly HATE the kind of envying tripe porkenbeans (and now farangdemon) have been writing on this thread.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby PepperJack on Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:35 am

This is hopefully my last post in this thread but I have a great idea.

If I had started a thread named _Equalitarian Leaderboard_ (underscores to distract from the fact I didn't use all caps) I would actually maintain a leaderboard instead of spouting off my ideologies. I checked around to see if anyone else named their threads what they were and imagine my surprise...

General congratulations
Scores + Medals (Scoreboard)
Glossary of Conquer Club terms ! [Any more?]
THREAD of RECORDS-1ST 5's and TOP 5's
TOP 20 scoreboard WITH MOST DEFEATED UNIQUE OPPONENTS page 1
Who's the highest rank you've beaten?
warp capability for making moves
and thats just the tip of the iceberg! I found that small example in approximately .304 second(s)(!!!!) using the new FORUM RANK script. According to the infallible FORUM RANK THOUGHT TERMINATOR function, that makes me New topic Farmer!

Anyways, I was saying about having a thread named something. I would use the title as a succinct description about my thread. I dunno, seems logical and acceptable as EVERYONE else on the forum is doing it. I FORUM RANKed the forum and .998 threads have topics that are pertinent to their discussions.

So, in conclusion, porkenbeans, maintain your list, but kill your discussion, you're not gaining a whole lot of traction when you argue. Update the list regularly. If people support you they will tell you of their EQ achievements. If they don't care, your thread will fade into the sweet embrace of eternal night. Of course if you FORUM RANK it using the TT you'll see, plain as day, that this thread ranked a .750 meaning it terminated 3/4s of the thoughts that occurred in and around it. Top 5 ways to melt my brain with frustration?
Game 3960030

Going on deployment, be back someday.

Sorry for deadbeating out of games.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class PepperJack
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: In transit.

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby KoE_Sirius on Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:15 am

porkenbeans wrote:1.) GEN. Seulessliathan

2.) GEN. Fruitcake

3.) GEN. Gwaahjo

4.) GEN. timmy

5.) BRIG. joecoolfrog

6.) BRIG. merz

7.) BRIG. jarrett155

8.) BRIG. comic boy

9.) BRIG. mikiesdios

10.) BRIG. forefall



These are the top 10 players that maintain an EQ. status.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the MAP RANK status.
These are not the players with the highest M.R. They are the players on the top of the leaderboard that maintain an E.Q. There are others on the top can easily raise their status to E.Q.
For the serious Noob Farmers, ...not that easy.

Aside from Jarrett most these players maintain a rank by holding private games and only inviting like ranked players.So this ladder you created is nonsense. Its nicely spaced out tho.
Highest Rank 4th.
User avatar
Captain KoE_Sirius
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby Fruitcake on Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:32 pm

KoE_Sirius wrote:
porkenbeans wrote:1.) GEN. Seulessliathan

2.) GEN. Fruitcake

3.) GEN. Gwaahjo

4.) GEN. timmy

5.) BRIG. joecoolfrog

6.) BRIG. merz

7.) BRIG. jarrett155

8.) BRIG. comic boy

9.) BRIG. mikiesdios

10.) BRIG. forefall



These are the top 10 players that maintain an EQ. status.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the MAP RANK status.
These are not the players with the highest M.R. They are the players on the top of the leaderboard that maintain an E.Q. There are others on the top can easily raise their status to E.Q.
For the serious Noob Farmers, ...not that easy.

Aside from Jarrett most these players maintain a rank by holding private games and only inviting like ranked players.So this ladder you created is nonsense. Its nicely spaced out tho.


With respect KoE, I rarely hold private games. I cannot remember the last time I set one up. I have only joined 5 odd private games in the last 100 games I have played.
Image

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
User avatar
Colonel Fruitcake
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby KoE_Sirius on Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:38 pm

Fruitcake wrote:
KoE_Sirius wrote:
porkenbeans wrote:1.) GEN. Seulessliathan

2.) GEN. Fruitcake

3.) GEN. Gwaahjo

4.) GEN. timmy

5.) BRIG. joecoolfrog

6.) BRIG. merz

7.) BRIG. jarrett155

8.) BRIG. comic boy

9.) BRIG. mikiesdios

10.) BRIG. forefall



These are the top 10 players that maintain an EQ. status.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the MAP RANK status.
These are not the players with the highest M.R. They are the players on the top of the leaderboard that maintain an E.Q. There are others on the top can easily raise their status to E.Q.
For the serious Noob Farmers, ...not that easy.

Aside from Jarrett most these players maintain a rank by holding private games and only inviting like ranked players.So this ladder you created is nonsense. Its nicely spaced out tho.


With respect KoE, I rarely hold private games. I cannot remember the last time I set one up. I have only joined 5 odd private games in the last 100 games I have played.

Yeah thats why I said most of those players. :) This thread appears to be bashing farmers,but the risk snobs are safe. =D>
Highest Rank 4th.
User avatar
Captain KoE_Sirius
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby Fruitcake on Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:52 pm

KoE_Sirius wrote:
Fruitcake wrote:
KoE_Sirius wrote:
porkenbeans wrote:1.) GEN. Seulessliathan

2.) GEN. Fruitcake

3.) GEN. Gwaahjo

4.) GEN. timmy

5.) BRIG. joecoolfrog

6.) BRIG. merz

7.) BRIG. jarrett155

8.) BRIG. comic boy

9.) BRIG. mikiesdios

10.) BRIG. forefall



These are the top 10 players that maintain an EQ. status.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the MAP RANK status.
These are not the players with the highest M.R. They are the players on the top of the leaderboard that maintain an E.Q. There are others on the top can easily raise their status to E.Q.
For the serious Noob Farmers, ...not that easy.

Aside from Jarrett most these players maintain a rank by holding private games and only inviting like ranked players.So this ladder you created is nonsense. Its nicely spaced out tho.


With respect KoE, I rarely hold private games. I cannot remember the last time I set one up. I have only joined 5 odd private games in the last 100 games I have played.

Yeah thats why I said most of those players. :) This thread appears to be bashing farmers,but the risk snobs are safe. =D>

Pleased to hear that risk snobs are safe, for as you know, I am the epitome of this ;)
Image

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
User avatar
Colonel Fruitcake
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FarangDemon on Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:40 pm

I didn't realize I had attacked anyone. Sorry for having offended anyone.

I just realized that you all were missing the point entirely so I wanted to figure out where you stood by asking a simple question. I think Fabled you said you don't like the current system but declined to say whether favored a ranking system that if A is above B it actually means that A tends to beat B. So we still don't know where you stand with regard to how to gauge competitivity.

I'm not writing about any individual personally. I haven't looked you guys up. I'm not out to diss you. I believe I have been writing about a method to weed out farmers from the scoreboard. For the third time now I've solicited feedback and received nothing constructive at all. So, you don't have to shut up, but I've given up hope of anything constructive from you two, which makes sense.

Sorry if I offended you by my assumption that you liked the current ranking system, but none of you are offering any constructive ideas on how to objectively weed out farmers, so I figured that was not your desire.

Changsha listed a bunch of ways to describe who is inflated or who is really good. Yeah those were all pretty subjective, like you said. Then you concluded that there is no objective way to define who is better.

So it seems like you have taken the easy way out of a complex problem by saying that it is so hard that there is no way we can even approach to measure player's skill objectively. Thanks for your constructive input, which was essentially "there is no way to objectively gauge if one player is better than another"

I think there is, though. It is if one player beats another one. How can you tell that one player can beat another one? See if that player plays peers on a regular basis. Doesn't matter if you deranked playing doodle assassin. I think RR should be calculated on a rolling basis, so it would always indicate the degree to which you are currently playing your peers. Where you were and who you played a year ago has no bearing on your current competitivity, in my opinion.

Again, if you bothered to read carefully instead of simply shouting to defend your egos and scores, which I haven't even been trying to offend, you would see that I have suggested on several occasions of lowering the RR cutoff to something like 0.71 which does not mean you have to only play peers - just half the time. The other half of the time you can play players that average half your score.

Someone said that would mean that the same 20 players are only playing each other. No.

If you don't have a system LIKE this one that has SOME SORT of cutoff that measures HOW OFTEN YOU PLAY PEERS then that means someone could rise to the top by simply playing noobs.

Sorry if I think too hard for you guys, but I'm a systems engineer, so I like solving problems that have numbers.

This is not really a very hard one, either.
User avatar
Brigadier FarangDemon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FarangDemon on Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:09 pm

KoE_Sirius wrote:
porkenbeans wrote:1.) GEN. Seulessliathan

2.) GEN. Fruitcake

3.) GEN. Gwaahjo

4.) GEN. timmy

5.) BRIG. joecoolfrog

6.) BRIG. merz

7.) BRIG. jarrett155

8.) BRIG. comic boy

9.) BRIG. mikiesdios

10.) BRIG. forefall



These are the top 10 players that maintain an EQ. status.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the MAP RANK status.
These are not the players with the highest M.R. They are the players on the top of the leaderboard that maintain an E.Q. There are others on the top can easily raise their status to E.Q.
For the serious Noob Farmers, ...not that easy.

Aside from Jarrett most these players maintain a rank by holding private games and only inviting like ranked players.So this ladder you created is nonsense. Its nicely spaced out tho.


What would make more sense? Players who maintain rank by playing unskilled players? If that is what you are looking for, you can check out the guys on top of this scoreboard: http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=scoreboard
User avatar
Brigadier FarangDemon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby KoE_Sirius on Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:04 pm

Yeah I missed the point when you listed a lot of players who are restricted to playing amongst friends with a more or less equal rank.Your E.Q needs a lot more thought.
Players I would list up the top are King of Gods. Paddy the Cat .Brigde2far the list goes on and on with fair minded players who will play anyone win,lose or draw.
Soz Fruitloop I wasnt including you in the list..Thats why I said "MOST"
Risk Snobs should be struck off the board and feed to the farmers or Cows. :geek: :P
Highest Rank 4th.
User avatar
Captain KoE_Sirius
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby porkenbeans on Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:20 pm

KoE_Sirius wrote:Yeah I missed the point when you listed a lot of players who are restricted to playing amongst friends with a more or less equal rank.Your E.Q needs a lot more thought.
Players I would list up the top are King of Gods. Paddy the Cat .Brigde2far the list goes on and on with fair minded players who will play anyone win,lose or draw.
Soz Fruitloop I wasnt including you in the list..Thats why I said "MOST"
Risk Snobs should be struck off the board and feed to the farmers or Cows. :geek: :P
What is this "RISK SNOB" term ?
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant porkenbeans
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby Timminz on Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:22 pm

porkenbeans wrote:
KoE_Sirius wrote:Yeah I missed the point when you listed a lot of players who are restricted to playing amongst friends with a more or less equal rank.Your E.Q needs a lot more thought.
Players I would list up the top are King of Gods. Paddy the Cat .Brigde2far the list goes on and on with fair minded players who will play anyone win,lose or draw.
Soz Fruitloop I wasnt including you in the list..Thats why I said "MOST"
Risk Snobs should be struck off the board and feed to the farmers or Cows. :geek: :P
What is this "RISK SNOB" term ?

As I understand it, it's a bit like calling an NFL team "Football Snobs" because they only play other NFL teams, rather than beating your local high school team.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby sully800 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:27 pm

For the relative rank to have better meaning I think it needs to weight the more recent games more heavily. The real scoring system does this because the points you win are based on your current score. So even the players who win a battle royale or get a point reset get back to their "real" sustainable score in not very long.

The RR does not take this into consideration at all though. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly they wouldn't be able to get back to an EQ rank unless they dropped their score severely. Past actions have too much of an effect on the current RR I think.
User avatar
Major sully800
 
Posts: 4978
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby Fruitcake on Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:41 pm

sully800 wrote:For the relative rank to have better meaning I think it needs to weight the more recent games more heavily. The real scoring system does this because the points you win are based on your current score. So even the players who win a battle royale or get a point reset get back to their "real" sustainable score in not very long.

The RR does not take this into consideration at all though. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly they wouldn't be able to get back to an EQ rank unless they dropped their score severely. Past actions have too much of an effect on the current RR I think.


I disagree. It should be reflection on your complete history at cc as a player. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly and had to drop their rank score severely, then so be it, that's the price to be paid. They need only then start playing it by the book and they would recover the EQ rank or close to it.
Image

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
User avatar
Colonel Fruitcake
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby porkenbeans on Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:44 pm

Fruitcake wrote:
sully800 wrote:For the relative rank to have better meaning I think it needs to weight the more recent games more heavily. The real scoring system does this because the points you win are based on your current score. So even the players who win a battle royale or get a point reset get back to their "real" sustainable score in not very long.

The RR does not take this into consideration at all though. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly they wouldn't be able to get back to an EQ rank unless they dropped their score severely. Past actions have too much of an effect on the current RR I think.


I disagree. It should be reflection on your complete history at cc as a player. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly and had to drop their rank score severely, then so be it, that's the price to be paid. They need only then start playing it by the book and they would recover the EQ rank or close to it.
I will add this as well, If you are going to use a point collecting system as CC does now, Then it would be easy for a Person to N.F. his way to the top, and once there with a huge stack of points, simply switch and start playing only his N.F. brothers. This would only reward the Noob Farmer.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant porkenbeans
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FabledIntegral on Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:48 pm

FarangDemon wrote: For the third time now I've solicited feedback and received nothing constructive at all. So, you don't have to shut up, but I've given up hope of anything constructive from you two, which makes sense.

Sorry if I offended you by my assumption that you liked the current ranking system, but none of you are offering any constructive ideas on how to objectively weed out farmers, so I figured that was not your desire.


The entire premise I'm arguing is - yes farming sucks, but you're looking at it from a completely flawed approach. Better to not tackle teh issue at all then have 50% of it wrong. Before trying implement a system, make sure it actually has benefits or shows some validity to it. This does NOT.

Changsha listed a bunch of ways to describe who is inflated or who is really good. Yeah those were all pretty subjective, like you said. Then you concluded that there is no objective way to define who is better.

So it seems like you have taken the easy way out of a complex problem by saying that it is so hard that there is no way we can even approach to measure player's skill objectively. Thanks for your constructive input, which was essentially "there is no way to objectively gauge if one player is better than another"


Why shouldn't we just take someone's rank then? Isn't that an indicator? Oh wait, it's mostly flawed? According to your logic - that's irrelevant. It's doing something isn't it? Aren't some of those top ranks valid? But a lot aren't? Once again - it just shows how dumb it is to use something inaccurate at portraying results.

I think there is, though. It is if one player beats another one. How can you tell that one player can beat another one? See if that player plays peers on a regular basis. Doesn't matter if you deranked playing doodle assassin. I think RR should be calculated on a rolling basis, so it would always indicate the degree to which you are currently playing your peers. Where you were and who you played a year ago has no bearing on your current competitivity, in my opinion.


It DOES. Because RR doesn't take the average score of your opponent, rather the average score of your opponent RELATIVE to your own, and it takes it since the start. Concerning deranking - you state you're good at solving problems, so I'd assume you're good at basic math. With statistics, you know that outliers pull the mean away. So if I was rank 3000 and shooting for a high RR, you'd know by me deranking the outliers on the way down would detract more than on the way back up. Assuming I was rank 3000 and played an average score of 2500, then deranked on rank 1000 score down to score 1200, then played the 2500 back up, it should lower my RR. I haven't actually taken stats since high school (I passed the AP test so I cleared it for college), so it actually might cancel out evenly on my way back up, although I'm not positive.

Either way "who you played a year ago" IS incorporated into RR. So you're saying it's wrong, but you're still using the system anyways. So look what happens... it's the same system as earlier, why take a system that is significantly flawed.

Again, if you bothered to read carefully instead of simply shouting to defend your egos and scores, which I haven't even been trying to offend, you would see that I have suggested on several occasions of lowering the RR cutoff to something like 0.71 which does not mean you have to only play peers - just half the time. The other half of the time you can play players that average half your score.


It has NOTHING to do with the cutoff. It's using a flawed system in teh first place. Idc if the cutoff was .20, it'd be a dumb system.

Someone said that would mean that the same 20 players are only playing each other. No.

If you don't have a system LIKE this one that has SOME SORT of cutoff that measures HOW OFTEN YOU PLAY PEERS then that means someone could rise to the top by simply playing noobs.

Sorry if I think too hard for you guys, but I'm a systems engineer, so I like solving problems that have numbers.

This is not really a very hard one, either.


You didn't solve it, you're advocating using a flawed system rather than wait for a one that works. Just as said - we might as well keep the flawed ranking system as is before implementing a newer just as flawed one, yet simply one that may cater to your preference in criteria rather than someone elses. They are still flawed, they just show certain players in a better light than others. Either way - concerning the games I did play, 8-man with 1 cook, 1 striper, major, 2xcolonel, brig, general and me, the random cook that would inevitably join would also pull away from the mean. Because it's not a 1v1 (or doesn't consist of a 1v1 of teams such as 2 teams of dubs, trips, or quads), that cook is just as apt to suicide the general as the striper. They didn't make it any easier to win... they often suicided and typically vs the higher ranks...

Anyways I obviously don't give a shit about my score, if you look at the latest low ranks I played (I decided to give farming a try), I joined 3 farming games, and lost 2/3, and almost hte third, simply because I missed my turns because I was too lazy to log online. I gave up. I also deadbeated my last game.
Major FabledIntegral
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FabledIntegral on Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:50 pm

porkenbeans wrote:
Fruitcake wrote:
sully800 wrote:For the relative rank to have better meaning I think it needs to weight the more recent games more heavily. The real scoring system does this because the points you win are based on your current score. So even the players who win a battle royale or get a point reset get back to their "real" sustainable score in not very long.

The RR does not take this into consideration at all though. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly they wouldn't be able to get back to an EQ rank unless they dropped their score severely. Past actions have too much of an effect on the current RR I think.


I disagree. It should be reflection on your complete history at cc as a player. If one of the noob farmers ever wanted to start playing fairly and had to drop their rank score severely, then so be it, that's the price to be paid. They need only then start playing it by the book and they would recover the EQ rank or close to it.
I will add this as well, If you are going to use a point collecting system as CC does now, Then it would be easy for a Person to N.F. his way to the top, and once there with a huge stack of points, simply switch and start playing only his N.F. brothers. This would only reward the Noob Farmer.


Then by your logic if he didn't deserve to be at the top, he wouldn't be able to compete with other top players? Then wouldn't his score drop? Terrible logic - absolutely terrible. How can you expect someone to maintain his rank against other top players without winning? And if he did win - shouldn't he deserve his score since he can compete with the rest of the top players?
Major FabledIntegral
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby porkenbeans on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:44 pm

FabledIntegral wrote:
FarangDemon wrote: For the third time now I've solicited feedback and received nothing constructive at all. So, you don't have to shut up, but I've given up hope of anything constructive from you two, which makes sense.

Sorry if I offended you by my assumption that you liked the current ranking system, but none of you are offering any constructive ideas on how to objectively weed out farmers, so I figured that was not your desire.


The entire premise I'm arguing is - yes farming sucks, but you're looking at it from a completely flawed approach. Better to not tackle teh issue at all then have 50% of it wrong. Before trying implement a system, make sure it actually has benefits or shows some validity to it. This does NOT.

Changsha listed a bunch of ways to describe who is inflated or who is really good. Yeah those were all pretty subjective, like you said. Then you concluded that there is no objective way to define who is better.

So it seems like you have taken the easy way out of a complex problem by saying that it is so hard that there is no way we can even approach to measure player's skill objectively. Thanks for your constructive input, which was essentially "there is no way to objectively gauge if one player is better than another"


Why shouldn't we just take someone's rank then? Isn't that an indicator? Oh wait, it's mostly flawed? According to your logic - that's irrelevant. It's doing something isn't it? Aren't some of those top ranks valid? But a lot aren't? Once again - it just shows how dumb it is to use something inaccurate at portraying results.

I think there is, though. It is if one player beats another one. How can you tell that one player can beat another one? See if that player plays peers on a regular basis. Doesn't matter if you deranked playing doodle assassin. I think RR should be calculated on a rolling basis, so it would always indicate the degree to which you are currently playing your peers. Where you were and who you played a year ago has no bearing on your current competitivity, in my opinion.


It DOES. Because RR doesn't take the average score of your opponent, rather the average score of your opponent RELATIVE to your own, and it takes it since the start. Concerning deranking - you state you're good at solving problems, so I'd assume you're good at basic math. With statistics, you know that outliers pull the mean away. So if I was rank 3000 and shooting for a high RR, you'd know by me deranking the outliers on the way down would detract more than on the way back up. Assuming I was rank 3000 and played an average score of 2500, then deranked on rank 1000 score down to score 1200, then played the 2500 back up, it should lower my RR. I haven't actually taken stats since high school (I passed the AP test so I cleared it for college), so it actually might cancel out evenly on my way back up, although I'm not positive.

Either way "who you played a year ago" IS incorporated into RR. So you're saying it's wrong, but you're still using the system anyways. So look what happens... it's the same system as earlier, why take a system that is significantly flawed.

Again, if you bothered to read carefully instead of simply shouting to defend your egos and scores, which I haven't even been trying to offend, you would see that I have suggested on several occasions of lowering the RR cutoff to something like 0.71 which does not mean you have to only play peers - just half the time. The other half of the time you can play players that average half your score.


It has NOTHING to do with the cutoff. It's using a flawed system in teh first place. Idc if the cutoff was .20, it'd be a dumb system.

Someone said that would mean that the same 20 players are only playing each other. No.

If you don't have a system LIKE this one that has SOME SORT of cutoff that measures HOW OFTEN YOU PLAY PEERS then that means someone could rise to the top by simply playing noobs.

Sorry if I think too hard for you guys, but I'm a systems engineer, so I like solving problems that have numbers.

This is not really a very hard one, either.


You didn't solve it, you're advocating using a flawed system rather than wait for a one that works. Just as said - we might as well keep the flawed ranking system as is before implementing a newer just as flawed one, yet simply one that may cater to your preference in criteria rather than someone elses. They are still flawed, they just show certain players in a better light than others. Either way - concerning the games I did play, 8-man with 1 cook, 1 striper, major, 2xcolonel, brig, general and me, the random cook that would inevitably join would also pull away from the mean. Because it's not a 1v1 (or doesn't consist of a 1v1 of teams such as 2 teams of dubs, trips, or quads), that cook is just as apt to suicide the general as the striper. They didn't make it any easier to win... they often suicided and typically vs the higher ranks...

Anyways I obviously don't give a shit about my score, if you look at the latest low ranks I played (I decided to give farming a try), I joined 3 farming games, and lost 2/3, and almost hte third, simply because I missed my turns because I was too lazy to log online. I gave up. I also deadbeated my last game.
I have seen this sort of thing a lot lately. When a person is loosing an argument, they will just throw up a mile long post, that stresses 10 or more separate points. Most, if not every one, is pure gobbledygook. They carry on this conversation with themselves, and supply all the quotes and comebacks. My main problem with these novelistic diatribes, is that It makes it impossible for any one to reply without authoring a novel themselves.
I will try to make this as short as I can. OOOOOps, gotta go. -to be continued...
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant porkenbeans
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby FabledIntegral on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:58 pm

Nice trying to once again not address a single post and prove your incompetence - go reread this thread. Every single post you've given the exact same argument "I'm not going to address a single one of your posts, you just seem flustered you're wrong!"

The definition of a poor debater.
Major FabledIntegral
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby Aradhus on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:04 pm

In other words, that much reading is too taxing on Porks dense little mind.

Seriously, look at every single post from this simpleton in this topic. It doesn't understand what is being said, so it struggles to respond with anything even approaching coherent relevance.

I personally think this porky character is breaking the "being annoying" rule, constantly, and should be booting from the forum... until such time that they master reading, and understand what is being asked of them when they 'participate' in the forum.

Their previous post is just flagrant flame-baiting. How about somebody, you know, enforces the rules of the forum?
User avatar
Major Aradhus
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby porkenbeans on Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:55 pm

porkenbeans wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:
FarangDemon wrote: For the third time now I've solicited feedback and received nothing constructive at all. So, you don't have to shut up, but I've given up hope of anything constructive from you two, which makes sense.

Sorry if I offended you by my assumption that you liked the current ranking system, but none of you are offering any constructive ideas on how to objectively weed out farmers, so I figured that was not your desire.


The entire premise I'm arguing is - yes farming sucks, but you're looking at it from a completely flawed approach. Better to not tackle teh issue at all then have 50% of it wrong. Before trying implement a system, make sure it actually has benefits or shows some validity to it. This does NOT.

Changsha listed a bunch of ways to describe who is inflated or who is really good. Yeah those were all pretty subjective, like you said. Then you concluded that there is no objective way to define who is better.

So it seems like you have taken the easy way out of a complex problem by saying that it is so hard that there is no way we can even approach to measure player's skill objectively. Thanks for your constructive input, which was essentially "there is no way to objectively gauge if one player is better than another"


Why shouldn't we just take someone's rank then? Isn't that an indicator? Oh wait, it's mostly flawed? According to your logic - that's irrelevant. It's doing something isn't it? Aren't some of those top ranks valid? But a lot aren't? Once again - it just shows how dumb it is to use something inaccurate at portraying results.

I think there is, though. It is if one player beats another one. How can you tell that one player can beat another one? See if that player plays peers on a regular basis. Doesn't matter if you deranked playing doodle assassin. I think RR should be calculated on a rolling basis, so it would always indicate the degree to which you are currently playing your peers. Where you were and who you played a year ago has no bearing on your current competitivity, in my opinion.


It DOES. Because RR doesn't take the average score of your opponent, rather the average score of your opponent RELATIVE to your own, and it takes it since the start. Concerning deranking - you state you're good at solving problems, so I'd assume you're good at basic math. With statistics, you know that outliers pull the mean away. So if I was rank 3000 and shooting for a high RR, you'd know by me deranking the outliers on the way down would detract more than on the way back up. Assuming I was rank 3000 and played an average score of 2500, then deranked on rank 1000 score down to score 1200, then played the 2500 back up, it should lower my RR. I haven't actually taken stats since high school (I passed the AP test so I cleared it for college), so it actually might cancel out evenly on my way back up, although I'm not positive.

Either way "who you played a year ago" IS incorporated into RR. So you're saying it's wrong, but you're still using the system anyways. So look what happens... it's the same system as earlier, why take a system that is significantly flawed.

Again, if you bothered to read carefully instead of simply shouting to defend your egos and scores, which I haven't even been trying to offend, you would see that I have suggested on several occasions of lowering the RR cutoff to something like 0.71 which does not mean you have to only play peers - just half the time. The other half of the time you can play players that average half your score.


It has NOTHING to do with the cutoff. It's using a flawed system in teh first place. Idc if the cutoff was .20, it'd be a dumb system.

Someone said that would mean that the same 20 players are only playing each other. No.

If you don't have a system LIKE this one that has SOME SORT of cutoff that measures HOW OFTEN YOU PLAY PEERS then that means someone could rise to the top by simply playing noobs.

Sorry if I think too hard for you guys, but I'm a systems engineer, so I like solving problems that have numbers.

This is not really a very hard one, either.


You didn't solve it, you're advocating using a flawed system rather than wait for a one that works. Just as said - we might as well keep the flawed ranking system as is before implementing a newer just as flawed one, yet simply one that may cater to your preference in criteria rather than someone elses. They are still flawed, they just show certain players in a better light than others. Either way - concerning the games I did play, 8-man with 1 cook, 1 striper, major, 2xcolonel, brig, general and me, the random cook that would inevitably join would also pull away from the mean. Because it's not a 1v1 (or doesn't consist of a 1v1 of teams such as 2 teams of dubs, trips, or quads), that cook is just as apt to suicide the general as the striper. They didn't make it any easier to win... they often suicided and typically vs the higher ranks...

Anyways I obviously don't give a shit about my score, if you look at the latest low ranks I played (I decided to give farming a try), I joined 3 farming games, and lost 2/3, and almost hte third, simply because I missed my turns because I was too lazy to log online. I gave up. I also deadbeated my last game.
I have seen this sort of thing a lot lately. When a person is loosing an argument, they will just throw up a mile long post, that stresses 10 or more separate points. Most, if not every one, is pure gobbledygook. They carry on this conversation with themselves, and supply all the quotes and comebacks. My main problem with these novelistic diatribes, is that It makes it impossible for any one to reply without authoring a novel themselves.
I will try to make this as short as I can. OOOOOps, gotta go. -to be continued...
I am very sorry but I did not want to loose what I had penned, so I hit submit with a continue.
Not that you guys would care, but I have been busy today trying to find my yorkie and lab. they have gotten out, and have been gone since yesterday. This forum is a little less important to me at the present time. As a matter of fact, I am finding it difficult to concentrate on this particular thread at the moment, to give it the thoughtful response, that I wish. Rest assured, I will finish it soon. This is my thread and I dont want it to be brought down to name calling. So please feel free to flame me if that is your desire, but do it in the proper place that CC has provided.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant porkenbeans
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: -EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

Postby porkenbeans on Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:57 pm

OK, heres' the deal. Chips map rank is not perfect. I will agree with you on that. Although I believe that it will get better, as a result of these discussions.
This thread is not meant for that reason though. I do not want to fight that battle here. This thread is merely a place to gather information, if it suits you. The information is specifically, WHO ARE THE TOP EQULITARIANs'. If you want to argue the merits or lack there of, of this stat, This is not the place. There are a few that would like to know this information. What knowledge is gleaned from said info. is up to each individual. If you find no useful information here, move along. No amount of pissing and moaning is going to get it removed. And I will continue to post updates, as I have time for.
thanx for the bump.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant porkenbeans
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron