Moderator: Community Team
porkenbeans wrote: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 ?FabledIntegral wrote:porkenbeans wrote: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.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.
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.
FabledIntegral wrote:No one wants to see the same 20 people playing each other 20x over and over again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 is this "RISK SNOB" term ?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.![]()
porkenbeans wrote:What is this "RISK SNOB" term ?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.![]()
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 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.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.
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.
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.
porkenbeans wrote: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.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 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.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 am very sorry but I did not want to loose what I had penned, so I hit submit with a continue.porkenbeans wrote: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.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 will try to make this as short as I can. OOOOOps, gotta go. -to be continued...
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users