Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:23 am**

When I joined Conquer Club I played Standard games until my points rose to the point where I had to win approximately 50% of my games (I play 4, 5, 6 player games) just to stay even. (I finished 2 games today- lost 25 points, gained 26 points).

So I started playing Triples to build my score.

Now I'm figuring- why should I allow the point system to dictate what type of game I play? So I'm back to playing singles if I feel like it.

There probably isn't any perfect way to measure performance but I'm ignoring points now and paying attention to winning percentage for each type of game play. So, if I win more than 25% of 4 player games, that is above average.

I've developed a weighted average method which measures the degree to which one is above / below average. First, measuring for each type of game and then weighting those numbers according to the percentage of each game type into total games played. (Huh??)

There is an inherent weakness in this method since it does not measure whether you are winning or losing against "good" players or "poorer" players.

But overall I like this approach because it does not penalize those who play random singles games.

So what do you think?

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:26 am**

I agree that the points system isn't perfect....while there is obviously plenty of strategy involved in succeeding at this game, sometimes you see a map that starts seriously skewed to one player or another. So if I'm lucky enough to get that board from a huge player, I'm tearing points out of him, even though he is possibly (even likely) the superior player.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:38 am**

Points aren't that big of a deal, so play the kind of games you enjoy the most. You can't evaluate a player's ability entirely by their rank, win percentage or feedback.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:54 am**

Play with higher ranks. There are plenty of 2000+ and 1800+ games you could get into (or start) where you won't lose more points than you win in a 6 player game.

And you probably should be winning half your games with cooks and cadets. They have few points for a reason.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:52 am**

Points, ranking, or win percentage are unimportant to me, I'm here to play the game.

If there comes a time when the points or win percentage mean more to me than the game, then I'll quit.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:11 am**

I tried to include "I don't care about points" as one of the poll options but it didn't take.

Yeah- the joy of the game is the main reason to play.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:50 am**

I will ...later.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:47 am**

50 % is vastly inflated unless you are playing much lower ranks, I survive by winning 30% 6 player games and you would need less than 25% wins to be ahead if playing with those of a similar score to yourself.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:21 am**

i'm not a stathead. i am obsessed w/ raising my score, but for me the real measure of performance here is the respect of other good players. everyone knows the score system isn't quite rite and there are lots of tricky ways to ascend the ladder.

so earning the respect of top players is totally subjective, but imo the best affirmation i can have here

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:35 am**

i don't care about score i play for fun.

but because i like statistics i have made an excel file to keep track of my score in various game types.

for example you can see my winning percentage in standard 6p games is good or that i have a profit of 216 points in assassin games which is also good but i have a deficit of 90 points in doubles games which is bad or that my singles games represent 83.75% of the total games i played.

at some point i was keeping track of stats for every map and every game type where i could see for example how many points i won in doubles game with unlimited fortif on british isles. but that was a bit too complex so i narrowed it to what you see in the image bellow.

as long as i can keep all those things on OK i'll consider myself a decent player. unfortunately i gave up doubles and triples so i think the doubles bad will stick there forever.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:29 pm**

This is my contribution to the age old discussion about the points and scoring system. My solution is planed to work sidy by side to todays scoreboard. As an extra feature and statistic.

I have tried it my self for 100 games and I think it is a fair way to look for skill.

The first thing I do is to divide every game type. I have made it in 1v1 games for my self since it was the easiest and quickest (I am lazy).

Then I calculated my winnings and losing. ( I have another 50 games with a 90% win rate but I havent done the calcuations)

Wins 82 %
41 Games
Avarage gain: 10.15
Avarage opponent: 1159
Total gain: 416

Losses 18 %
9 Games
Avarage loss: 39
Avarage opponent: 1171
Total loss: 351

Gain over 50 games: 65 or 1.3 points per game.

The score according to my system would be 2487. It is my ""break-even" when if I play i statisticaly wins 0.0 points per game.

Of course this cant be done so quickly. There must be a sufficient amount of games to make this system fair. Perhaps should there be a lower limit of 100 games to make this type of score.

In this way you take into calculation the opponent too.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:42 pm**

juventino wrote:This is my contribution to the age old discussion about the points and scoring system. My solution is planed to work sidy by side to todays scoreboard. As an extra feature and statistic.

I have tried it my self for 100 games and I think it is a fair way to look for skill.

The first thing I do is to divide every game type. I have made it in 1v1 games for my self since it was the easiest and quickest (I am lazy).

Then I calculated my winnings and losing. ( I have another 50 games with a 90% win rate but I havent done the calcuations)

Wins 82 %
41 Games
Avarage gain: 10.15
Avarage opponent: 1159
Total gain: 416

Losses 18 %
9 Games
Avarage loss: 39
Avarage opponent: 1171
Total loss: 351

Gain over 50 games: 65 or 1.3 points per game.

The score according to my system would be 2487. It is my ""break-even" when if I play i statisticaly wins 0.0 points per game.

Of course this cant be done so quickly. There must be a sufficient amount of games to make this system fair. Perhaps should there be a lower limit of 100 games to make this type of score.

But in this way you take into calculation the opponent too.

interesting concept BUT it has a BIG disadvantage. it is too damn specific.

judging by your math you'd be a player worth 2487 point BUT ONLY in 1v1 games on a certain map with the same settings against players averaging 1100-1200 points.

if you play against people averaging 2000 points your winning % will surely drop but your gains would increase and perhaps you'd be worth 2800 points.

then if you switch other data like the number of players, the map and so and play at least 100 games with each setting you'll end up with probably 40-50 thousand games (or even more, don't have time to do the math) and in the end you'll get results that will probably be very very different.

let's say in 1v1 with certain settings and opponents you'll be worth 2800 points.
on 3 p terminator no card adjacent games on doodle with players of 2500 or higher you'll be worth 1600

and in assassin 6p games flat rate freestyle unlimited fog of war on age of merchants you might be just a simple cook.

so you see this is a great way to find out what game type is your best and what would be your value if you played only a certain game type but it's impossible to do this kind of experiment because it involves many thousands of games.

could somebody do the math for all the possible combinations? :shock:

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:49 pm**

I know it is very specific and as I said it is not woth much after 12 games or even 50. This is a flaw of course.

And yes. you can do it with maps, types etc etc and come up with 10000000 combos.

But since most players in the top playes mainly a certain gametype and often plays alot of games it would be fun to see new scoreboards..

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:31 pm**

Nephilim wrote:i'm not a stathead. i am obsessed w/ raising my score, but for me the real measure of performance here is the respect of other good players. everyone knows the score system isn't quite rite and there are lots of tricky ways to ascend the ladder.

so earning the respect of top players is totally subjective, but imo the best affirmation i can have here

no offence but how do you define "top player" or "good player"? the score doesnt mean everything but it is a good way to have a rough idea how a player is.

Conquer Club

My Points- Come and Get Em

My Points- Come and Get Em