-EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

[Mr Changsha]

Ok...

But if I asked you to predict how much YOUR map rank score will drop if (and when I am sure) you reach say 5,000 - what would you say?

Would a 0.6 at 5,000 be equivalent to a 0.7 at 4,000?

It wasn't clear from your post if you felt that score being discussed was a very useful guide to ability or not.

For example - I would say that percentage win combined with av. number of players played (certainly useful for singles) is a far better guide to ability.

A great point, as I would expect from you Mr C (bowing low as I say this).

In all honesty, I can pretty much predict my relative rank score as I keep records/graphs etc which show trends and keep me aware of various success rates. I have set myself a target of ensuring my RR is between 7.2 and 7.3 when I hit 5000 points. I am slowly expanding my map successes so that I can add some medals on the way up. As you know, and I have made no secret of, my preferred arena is triples, no cards, chained forts. This suits my instincts to err on the side of caution in battle rather than relying on the 'luck' of the assault cube software used here on cc.

I am of the firm opinion, score is but one benchmark of skill. I do not profess to be as good as some of the players who have mastered so many maps in so many styles. They are the true top players, especially if they manage to keep a good RR at the same time. Other factors should, indeed, include number of players beaten along with others. Maybe we should al try to resolve this by looking to refine and distill what is the essence of the truly great player here on cc. I firmly believe the likes of Seul would still appear at the top of those lists, whereas mere mortals such as I would slip somewhat.

A great singles player can play large numbers of players and win a surprising amount of the time. For example, maintaining a 50% win rate on games with 6-8 players would be, in my opinion, top class. So for singles, we need to consider games won to opponents played. I would add that the relative rank of opponents has only become such an issue because of farming. Being able to win through in a game with a variety of skill levels involved is, I think, what it is all about. So taking the 8 man waterloo with seven ?'s for opponents out of it and only considering more 'genuine' singles play, I would suggest games played, games won and av. number of opponents for singles play as the true test.

For team games (and I am thinking of your trips here, Fc) win percentage is surely all and I would combine it with points gained to give a measure of the quality of the opposition...just a measure mind you, not a definitive test at all. Therefore, if fruitcake plays 20 games and (by purest chance of course) the games fill with much lower ranks and (probably therefore) uncoordinated play, fruicake better be able to win 16 or 17 of those. 20 games with similar top teams and Fruicake would be hoping to win at least 10 and maybe a few more. Of course, rank takes care of that issue for a trips player.

Finally, being able to do well in a variety of styles and (to a much lesser extent (IMO) a variety of maps should be another test. For example, I am passing my own test at singles and knew a while ago I would be able to reach colonel much quicker (maybe by 100 games) if I just stuck with that and some 2.1 8 man dubs. However, I realised that a great player must be able to compete in VARIOUS settings and so therefore happily sacrificed faster rank progression to take on a lot of different kinds of games. I feel I am a better player for it. Yet even though I am now probably fairly reasonable at trips and dubs, quads is still a mystery to me. Beyond that, I don't know how to play speed freestyle at all and I have no understanding of escalating either. Could I be considered a top all round player if I had no ability at such a fundamental style as escalating?

Actually, I would say that it wouldn't be key. Being able to play singles in the way mentioned above (whether freestyle or sequential, no cards or escalating) marks out a top singles player to me. Teams I have already covered. If a player can do both to a high level then he is, in my opinion, a top player. Rank takes care of itself looked at in this way and relative rank on map rank fades into the absurdity I have continuously maintained it is, since porkenbeans originally brought the matter up.

[porkenbeans]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

I don't have map rank, and I don't know how map rank works. However, I don't think that your average opponent's score is (your current score) * (your relative rank). Looking at your recent batch of games, there is just no way your opponent's average score is 3332. Just think about it for a second, that sounds ridiculously high...I don't think anyone has an average opponent score of anything close to 3300.

Is relative rank for a game determined when the game starts, when the game ends, or does it constantly change when a player's score changes?

Example: Max has 5000 points, plays a new recruit with 1000 points. Max's RR for that game is 0.2. Now say this new player achieves a score of 2500 six months later.. Is Max's RR for that game now .5? Or is it still 0.2?

Let's take the newb's point of view. His RR for that game was 5. Now, at a score 2500, is his RR for that game only 2?

If it is based on current scores, then it constantly changes. This would mean if Max instantly dropped to 2500, then his RR would instantly double...I don't think this is how RR works.

I'm thinking it's when a game starts or ends. Otherwise these RR's are ridiculous. If this is indeed the case, then it matters WHEN you achieve a high score.

Overexaggerated Example: Say a player plays 5000 games against opponents with an average score of 1500 and hovers around 1000, and then wins a battle royale and has 4000 points. Well guess what, now this guy has a RR of 1.5 and a score of 4000!

(Assuming I'm correct about how map rank works:)
This leads me to believe that the RR to become an "EQ" player is different for everyone, and therefore it is difficult to determine what that number really means. Sure, it tells you how high your opponents were ranked relative to you at the time of those games, but it doesn't tell you what your AVERAGE score* is.


*To determine average score:
Score1 = score at end of game 1, Score2 = score at end of game 2, etc...
Average Score = AS = ( score1 + score2 + ... + score(# of games played) ) / (# of games played)

dang, so after reading this i did a few little checks to my math...
realizing that its not my math, but its the calculations of Map Rank that do not make sense..

now that my rank has just jumped up to 4519 i have a relative rank of .761, which is a difference of -.001
so now the average opponent i play is 3439??? up 100pts eh??

This proves that Relative rank is taken from all opponents current scores, and not there scores at the time of defeat.(because map rank has not been around that long and nobody has kept record of current players conditions at the time of win/loss.)

So unless someone changes Map Rank to check every play and trace back there score to the time of each game you've played them, which would overload the system and crash it, we cannot get an accurate Relative Rank formula up.

your math seems correct and would give an accurate reading, but would crash the site if you wished to do that much data mining at once.

makes sense Velve,

just another flaw in porkies connect the dots theory.
no, you can't just connect any dot you want pork, you have to follow the numbers!!

WOW, are you kidding me ? Are you telling me that a players daily fluctuation on the leaderboard is effecting past games ?
If this is true, The problem may stem from the archive. I wrote about this over a year ago, but received no response to my thread. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42746&p=1101590#p1101590

[BaldAdonis]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

No. That is not how math works.

This proves that Relative rank is taken from all opponents current scores, and not there scores at the time of defeat.(because map rank has not been around that long and nobody has kept record of current players conditions at the time of win/loss.)

The game log has kept a record of current players conditions, by recording how many points were transfered. That tells you the ratio between you and your opponents. Map rank gives you an average ratio of your opponents score to yours, over all of your games, calculated at the time the points change hands. You shouldn't run scripts when you don't know what they're doing.

In order to figure out your average opponents score, you need to figure out your own average score, which is the mean score you have over all of your games. Again, map rank can do this, because it can trace your score from the time you joined up to today. You just need to modify it to integrate the step functions that the graph gives you. Then you will have your average score, and it will not be your current score.

Because you spent most of your time under 2000, and only recently discovered a way to work the system, your average score is 2124. So your opponents average 1618. Sound better?

[Velvecarrots]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

No. That is not how math works.

This proves that Relative rank is taken from all opponents current scores, and not there scores at the time of defeat.(because map rank has not been around that long and nobody has kept record of current players conditions at the time of win/loss.)

The game log has kept a record of current players conditions, by recording how many points were transfered. That tells you the ratio between you and your opponents. Map rank gives you an average ratio of your opponents score to yours, over all of your games, calculated at the time the points change hands. You shouldn't run scripts when you don't know what they're doing.

In order to figure out your average opponents score, you need to figure out your own average score, which is the mean score you have over all of your games. Again, map rank can do this, because it can trace your score from the time you joined up to today. You just need to modify it to integrate the step functions that the graph gives you. Then you will have your average score, and it will not be your current score.

Because you spent most of your time under 2000, and only recently discovered a way to work the system, your average score is 2124. So your opponents average 1618. Sound better?

This is what I meant Pork. I just didn't explain it as well.

[porkenbeans]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

No. That is not how math works.

This proves that Relative rank is taken from all opponents current scores, and not there scores at the time of defeat.(because map rank has not been around that long and nobody has kept record of current players conditions at the time of win/loss.)

The game log has kept a record of current players conditions, by recording how many points were transfered. That tells you the ratio between you and your opponents. Map rank gives you an average ratio of your opponents score to yours, over all of your games, calculated at the time the points change hands. You shouldn't run scripts when you don't know what they're doing.

In order to figure out your average opponents score, you need to figure out your own average score, which is the mean score you have over all of your games. Again, map rank can do this, because it can trace your score from the time you joined up to today. You just need to modify it to integrate the step functions that the graph gives you. Then you will have your average score, and it will not be your current score.

Because you spent most of your time under 2000, and only recently discovered a way to work the system, your average score is 2124. So your opponents average 1618. Sound better?

This is what I meant Pork. I just didn't explain it as well.

I am sad to say that I do not quit follow. What exactly do I need to modify, and how in the hell do I do it.
It seems that chip has more work to do. This IS a great start though. I think that the single best change that he could make is, Make the dipping point for high ranks lower. I think that it should be very low, like somewhere around louie for a Genaral. Just so that they are distinguishable from the real Noob Farmers.

[timmy1]

Ok...

But if I asked you to predict how much YOUR map rank score will drop if (and when I am sure) you reach say 5,000 - what would you say?

Would a 0.6 at 5,000 be equivalent to a 0.7 at 4,000?

It wasn't clear from your post if you felt that score being discussed was a very useful guide to ability or not.

For example - I would say that percentage win combined with av. number of players played (certainly useful for singles) is a far better guide to ability.

A great point, as I would expect from you Mr C (bowing low as I say this).

In all honesty, I can pretty much predict my relative rank score as I keep records/graphs etc which show trends and keep me aware of various success rates. I have set myself a target of ensuring my RR is between 7.2 and 7.3 when I hit 5000 points. I am slowly expanding my map successes so that I can add some medals on the way up. As you know, and I have made no secret of, my preferred arena is triples, no cards, chained forts. This suits my instincts to err on the side of caution in battle rather than relying on the 'luck' of the assault cube software used here on cc.

I am of the firm opinion, score is but one benchmark of skill. I do not profess to be as good as some of the players who have mastered so many maps in so many styles. They are the true top players, especially if they manage to keep a good RR at the same time. Other factors should, indeed, include number of players beaten along with others. Maybe we should al try to resolve this by looking to refine and distill what is the essence of the truly great player here on cc. I firmly believe the likes of Seul would still appear at the top of those lists, whereas mere mortals such as I would slip somewhat.

A great singles player can play large numbers of players and win a surprising amount of the time. For example, maintaining a 50% win rate on games with 6-8 players would be, in my opinion, top class. So for singles, we need to consider games won to opponents played. I would add that the relative rank of opponents has only become such an issue because of farming. Being able to win through in a game with a variety of skill levels involved is, I think, what it is all about. So taking the 8 man waterloo with seven ?'s for opponents out of it and only considering more 'genuine' singles play, I would suggest games played, games won and av. number of opponents for singles play as the true test.

For team games (and I am thinking of your trips here, Fc) win percentage is surely all and I would combine it with points gained to give a measure of the quality of the opposition...just a measure mind you, not a definitive test at all. Therefore, if fruitcake plays 20 games and (by purest chance of course) the games fill with much lower ranks and (probably therefore) uncoordinated play, fruicake better be able to win 16 or 17 of those. 20 games with similar top teams and Fruicake would be hoping to win at least 10 and maybe a few more. Of course, rank takes care of that issue for a trips player.

Finally, being able to do well in a variety of styles and (to a much lesser extent (IMO) a variety of maps should be another test. For example, I am passing my own test at singles and knew a while ago I would be able to reach colonel much quicker (maybe by 100 games) if I just stuck with that and some 2.1 8 man dubs. However, I realised that a great player must be able to compete in VARIOUS settings and so therefore happily sacrificed faster rank progression to take on a lot of different kinds of games. I feel I am a better player for it. Yet even though I am now probably fairly reasonable at trips and dubs, quads is still a mystery to me. Beyond that, I don't know how to play speed freestyle at all and I have no understanding of escalating either. Could I be considered a top all round player if I had no ability at such a fundamental style as escalating?

Actually, I would say that it wouldn't be key. Being able to play singles in the way mentioned above (whether freestyle or sequential, no cards or escalating) marks out a top singles player to me. Teams I have already covered. If a player can do both to a high level then he is, in my opinion, a top player. Rank takes care of itself looked at in this way and relative rank on map rank fades into the absurdity I have continuously maintained it is, since porkenbeans originally brought the matter up.

I agree with Mr. C: Incorporating a win% seems to be appropriate. Perhaps one that weighs win % against those ranked higher and those ranked lower could extend RR into something more meaningful.

[PepperJack]

If you're looking for something that involves win% measured against expected win%, you already have it. Its called Kill Ratio in Map Rank.

This post here very succinctly describes the calculation. But for the lazy...

Yeah, if you win one out of four 4-player games you'll have a % of

opponents defeated /( opponents defeated + losses )
= 3 / (3 + 3)
= 50%

Kill ratio = opponents defeated / (opponents defeated + losses)
50% KR means you are winning as much as you should.

[FarangDemon]

Porkenbeans,

Thanks for maintaining this scoreboard.

This is the most viable method we currently possess to create a scoreboard that excludes farmers.

Could you expand it to a top 40?

I understand the high rankers concerns that it is difficult to maintain EQ status the higher you get. (And there are real issues with RR that we are working to address in the RR thread.) But it should be hard to get to the top.

The whole point is to ensure that someone with a high score can hold their own against their peers so it makes sense that people will have to play their peers quite a lot.

One thing you can do, is to join a number of 3000+ or 3500+ games with private passwords or something like that in order to ensure that your RR's don't drop below a certain amount.

My score is only 2800 but I'm up for playing any of you guys in doubs trips or quads if you need someone with my score to maintain your RR's.

[timmy1]

If you're looking for something that involves win% measured against expected win%, you already have it. Its called Kill Ratio in Map Rank.

This post here very succinctly describes the calculation. But for the lazy...

Yeah, if you win one out of four 4-player games you'll have a % of

opponents defeated /( opponents defeated + losses )
= 3 / (3 + 3)
= 50%

Kill ratio = opponents defeated / (opponents defeated + losses)
50% KR means you are winning as much as you should.

Not exactly the same as I was thinking since this doesn't account for the strength of your opponent. I didn't know about the RR thread, which seems more appropriate for this discussion.

[Jeff Hardy]

A Genaral would have to maintain an R.R. of say Lieut. To keep his E.Q.

you underestimate how hard it is for us to keep a good relative rank
my average opponent is a lot higher than LT but my relative rank is still under 0.8

The exact range can be determined. Hell it just may turn out to be sarge as the dipping point for a General. I dont know. But I am sure that it will be fair. It does not take a genius to know that a top ranks opponents are on average going to be a lot lower than himself.

sorry, but no

if i only play a map once and its against a seargent then map rank calls me a noob farmer on that map

hell, even if i play a captain then map rank calls me a noob farmer

[Jeff Hardy]

Porkenbeans,

Thanks for maintaining this scoreboard.

This is the most viable method we currently possess to create a scoreboard that excludes farmers.

wtf?

anyone who makes PUBLIC games is a farmer?

so, the only way of not being a farmer when you reach a certain level is to only play private game against other high ranks and someone who makes any public games at all is a farmer

if you challenged me to a game and i except , would i be farming?

map rank says "yes"

[FarangDemon]

My praise is in the spirit of the effort, not necessarily in the exact cutoffs being implemented.

Sure there are some drawbacks to using Map Rank's RR. Perhaps the current Equalitarian cutoffs are too limiting as many competitive higher ranked players have stated.

Just to throw out an example scenario, I think that if you keep half your games to your peers and then the other half open to anyone averaging half your score, then you should be acceptable as being competitive enough for consideration on the competitive scoreboard.

A player who does this will have a geometric mean RR of 1/2 with 1 = .71. So if a player like that should still be considered competitive, we can use 0.71 as the RR cutoff for inclusion in the competitive scoreboard.

What say you fine fellows?

PS I asked ChipV in the Map Rank thread about how RR is calculated. It is not calculated exactly as Porkenbeans said. It is not aggregated by map and then averaged across all maps to get the overall average. So it doesn't matter that Map Rank calls you a point hoarder for one map. It won't carry disproportionate weight against all the other maps where you have more games with higher ranked players.

[Jeff Hardy]

or we could just forget map rank seeing as cc has done stuff against farming so now we can see who can maintain their score and who will drop

[Mr Changsha]

My praise is in the spirit of the effort, not necessarily in the exact cutoffs being implemented.

Sure there are some drawbacks to using Map Rank's RR. Perhaps the current Equalitarian cutoffs are too limiting as many competitive higher ranked players have stated.

Just to throw out an example scenario, I think that if you keep half your games to your peers and then the other half open to anyone averaging half your score, then you should be acceptable as being competitive enough for consideration on the competitive scoreboard.

A player who does this will have a geometric mean RR of 1/2 with 1 = .71. So if a player like that should still be considered competitive, we can use 0.71 as the RR cutoff for inclusion in the competitive scoreboard.

What say you fine fellows?

I say absolutely not.

The real skill of risk is being able to manage against opponents with differing levels of abilities. Fabled once (quite wisely) pointed out to me that an 8 man game with ALL good players would have a very high chance of stalemating in a no cards game - which is what I play.

I think the disagreement comes from the kinds of games that you play. 1on1, 2 team dubs, trips and quads are all, effectively, 1on1. The issue of relative rank IS important in these scenarios because, of course, if a top rank quads teams plays a team of privates 20 times (on freestyle or something) and wins 20, then many wise old heads would say "so what?"

So, 'real Risk' is at its best with varying ranks (I like a couple of no-brainers, a few medium ability types and a few top class players). By 'real risk', I mean a bunch of guys sitting around a table and one wins. The idea of limiting top players and forcing them to play within their rank would completely screw up 'real Risk'. Now the styles of games highlighted above might well benefit from the suggestion by FarangDemon and as most of the players involved in the discussion play those kinds of games, then it needs to be discussed seriously. But for those of us (and I would imagine most CC players) who play straight singles (or REAL RISK as I am calling it to annoy you all) the idea would be, to be frank about it, diabolical.

[FarangDemon]

Ok, I think I see what you are getting at.

While it seems that nearly all of the posters on this thread are against farming of new recruits, there seems to be a split between us on what the definition of competitive should be.

One camp thinks that players should prove they can carry their weight by playing their peers a certain percentage of the time. Another camp sees nothing wrong with deriving points from any players, even if none of them are peers, so long as farming of new recruits is banned.

The reason I and perhaps Porkenbeans, though I cannot speak for him, and perhaps the majority of conscientious CC players are in the first camp is because we still consider it farming, and therefore lame, to create triples and quadruples games and play mostly uncoordinated noobs thousands of points below in score, even if they are not new recruits. Then these farmers foe other players who have successfully beaten them in order to hoard their points. To prevent players that do this from being on the competitive scoreboard requires a policy based on some sort of measurement like RR.

[jarrett155]

maxs farming has not changed at all. he farms with just private games which noobs can still join no matter the settings.

[porkenbeans]

A Genaral would have to maintain an R.R. of say Lieut. To keep his E.Q.

you underestimate how hard it is for us to keep a good relative rank
my average opponent is a lot higher than LT but my relative rank is still under 0.8

The exact range can be determined. Hell it just may turn out to be sarge as the dipping point for a General. I dont know. But I am sure that it will be fair. It does not take a genius to know that a top ranks opponents are on average going to be a lot lower than himself.

sorry, but no

if i only play a map once and its against a seargent then map rank calls me a noob farmer on that map

hell, even if i play a captain then map rank calls me a noob farmer

Yes Jeff, it is all up to you how you maintain your rr on each map. If you were smart, you would see that a map with only 1 game would be very easy to raise or lower. I myself have close to 50 maps, and only 2 point hoarders. the rest are all above that. On my doodle map it will be harder, and will take more games to raise because I have played hundreds of games on it. However, I have only played 1 game on Arms race, so it will be very quick and easy to raise it. It is all about how you personally want to manage your own rr map scores.

[porkenbeans]

maxs farming has not changed at all. he farms with just private games which noobs can still join no matter the settings.

How max wants to manage his own map rank scores is up to him. But he should not whine if someone wants to dispute his greatness, and site his rr map scores as evidence. After all it is only true stats. interpreting the facts is all subjective and up for debate.

[porkenbeans]

Ok, I think I see what you are getting at.

While it seems that nearly all of the posters on this thread are against farming of new recruits, there seems to be a split between us on what the definition of competitive should be.

One camp thinks that players should prove they can carry their weight by playing their peers a certain percentage of the time. Another camp sees nothing wrong with deriving points from any players, even if none of them are peers, so long as farming of new recruits is banned.

The reason I and perhaps Porkenbeans, though I cannot speak for him, and perhaps the majority of conscientious CC players are in the first camp is because we still consider it farming, and therefore lame, to create triples and quadruples games and play mostly uncoordinated noobs thousands of points below in score, even if they are not new recruits. Then these farmers foe other players who have successfully beaten them in order to hoard their points. To prevent players that do this from being on the competitive scoreboard requires a policy based on some sort of measurement like RR.

yes I do agree, and am proud to be a member of the first camp. But without auto-matching of games, there will always be this second type of farming. That being the case, I see nothing wrong with it. At least they are not raping them as they get off the bus. The truth is that any sport or competition, requires that you must beat the best to be called the BEST. If CC would follow along these tried and true principles, we would have a much more fair, and accurate leaderboard.

[BaldAdonis]

I am sad to say that I do not quit follow. What exactly do I need to modify, and how in the hell do I do it.

You don't have to modify anything. You've taken the list of players whose average opponents have at least 80% of their score, and listed the top 10 by score. Remember that map rank treats all games equally; it doesn't rank each map, and then average those ratios, so improving your rank on one map won't help any more than playing the same people on a different map.

Players who want to find out exactly what the average score of their opponents is have to change the way they calculate it. They have to find their average score, as Velvecarrots defined it, it's the sum of the scores you had at the end of every game, divided by your number of games (map rank compiles this information to create the timeline graph, you just need to add an extra function that puts it together in this way).

If you want more discussion about the limits on equalitarian-noob farmer-point hoarder-etc, look at the original map rank thread (not the GL one) and the discussion about kill ratios linked above.

[Artimis]

wtf?

anyone who makes PUBLIC games is a farmer?

so, the only way of not being a farmer when you reach a certain level is to only play private game against other high ranks and someone who makes any public games at all is a farmer

if you challenged me to a game and i except , would i be farming?

map rank says "yes"

Exactly, this will further encourage rank snobbery to avoid being labelled a farmer, anything that prevents people or gives them cause to avoid joining public games is bad news. The intentions are good, the result is bad. Personally I don't think this is the answer, it's certainly not the magic bullet that it's portrayed to be.

EDIT: Just read Mr Changsha's post, for me that post hits the nail on the head.

[Mr Changsha]

wtf?

anyone who makes PUBLIC games is a farmer?

so, the only way of not being a farmer when you reach a certain level is to only play private game against other high ranks and someone who makes any public games at all is a farmer

if you challenged me to a game and i except , would i be farming?

map rank says "yes"

Exactly, this will further encourage rank snobbery to avoid being labelled a farmer, anything that prevents people or gives them cause to avoid joining public games is bad news. The intentions are good, the result is bad. Personally I don't think this is the answer, it's certainly not the magic bullet that it's portrayed to be.

EDIT: Just read Mr Changsha's post, for me that post hits the nail on the head.

Yes I think I did, but the unreasonable length of my posts means that many posters will (wisely no doubt) skim them.

So to be concise for a change...

1. Porkenbeans' concept WOULD have value for 1on1, 2 team dubs, triples and quads players (for reasons already outlined).
2. Porkenbeans' concept WOULD NOT have value for singles players or 3 team/4 team dubs (for reasons outlined above).

Just to show I am being objective about this...

Totals Major246 +1254 42 from 103(41%) 148 (4) Serial Killer (68%)51 Equalitarian (0.991)

I had maxatstuy find out my own score and it shows that I would probably be close to the top of this leaderboard. However, I know that if I play 200 more singles games as a major or colonel my own score would drop due to me being invariably the highest rank in an 8 man game. Over a 1,000 games I dread to think...

[FabledIntegral]

Relative Rank is a joke - anyone who can't properly understand why it's flawed to take the number and assume it's accurate shouldn't be trying to discuss it. Second, you need to apply relative rank to the person's score - if you even want to use that number in the first place, which would still be flawed.

A person with score 5000 and a relative rank of .75 is going to be better than a person with score 3000 and relative rank .80. Not too hard to figure out. These are all things this porky kid is dismissing, and merely backs it up with "it's all facts, it's just if you can interpret it correctly." FINE. But if you can interpret it correctly, you wouldn't go around boasting that RR means something because the number itself it useless. And trying to create a scoreboard by it is useless as well.

[FarangDemon]

The reason Porkenbeans is doing this is to create a scoreboard that does not include farmers / point hoarders. It should contain players that are actually good enough to play their peers and win.

My quads teammate has already been foed by a Brigadier-level farmer, without having uttered a word in game chat and after playing just 2 prior games with the farmer, one which we won and one we are winning. This farmer should not be higher than me on any scoreboard. Our strategy beats his, we know it, his team knows it, that's why he foed us and then dropped out before we could all join. But he got ahead by playing noobs and stays ahead by blocking us from accessing his points.

Using a RR cutoff successfully excludes these farmers and point hoarders from the scoreboard. You can't expect us to scrap the whole thing entirely, without an alternative suggestion simply because it excludes a few of you. We WILL listen to you define competitiveness in such a way as to include yourselves. I have already asked you to do this. If you can't do it then that is that, you aren't competitive.

I've even suggested 0.71 because it means half your opponents are peers and the other half are, on average, half your score. Seems lenient to me.

BTW I think RR will soon be computed on a rolling basis, like by last 100 opponents, as I and a few other players have suggested in the map rank thread. I think opposition to using RR will decrease once it starts to get computed on a rolling basis, because it gives people another chance. Max could start to play peers, not just the ones clever enough to join his private games, and be regarded in the competitive scoreboard for all to admire.

[Artimis]

FarangDemon

I'm afraid that no matter how you tweak or adjust it, your system will still generate false positives. It will likely be a matter of time before I'm labelled a farmer as well, because I don't care about who I play or what rank they are. I'm not fussy or proud because I'll happily fight anyone. This system may well identify the hardcore farmers, but it's going to label a lot of other players as farmers, whom aren't necessarily farming to start with. This is not the answer, I applaud your intentions, but the result is far from desirable.