Rank Distribution Chart: updated 9-13-08

by **stringybeany** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:33 pm

I took a snapshot of the first 5 pages of the scorecard on the day that the ranking system changed and the new forum was launched.

It's an interesting gap at the very top end. The data suggests three fan clubs rooting hard to get their guy to the top, and it's a hot race!

I'll post the data from 1800-4000 following this post, and next week I'll drop fresh data into the same spreadsheets and see what kind of changes have occurred in the last month, if any.

by **stringybeany** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:35 pm

1 SkyT 4621
2 sjnap 4404
3 Warsteiner 4213
4 Blitzaholic 3637
5 poo-maker 3582
6 Wwoody123 3504
7 Genghis Khan CA 3459
8 Naato 3429
9 Scott-Land 3419
10 Prankcall 3404

There was your top ten on the 27th of march.

by **stringybeany** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:39 pm

And here is the full chart 1800+

by **gdeangel** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:49 pm

Very interesting... but how are folks pushing up the top 3? Presumably not throwing games... so are you talking about team games? Sorry, but I don't get it...

by **Natewolfman** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:05 pm

yes very interesting

by **poo-maker** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:52 pm

Intresting... I was wondering the other day why there were 3 at the top almost 800 points higher than anyone else. I decided that it was just random...

by **lord voldemort** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:53 pm

gdeangel wrote:Very interesting... but how are folks pushing up the top 3? Presumably not throwing games... so are you talking about team games? Sorry, but I don't get it...

war and sjnap grow quickly playing many games they are goood at usually this is team games. they find a mid ranker...like me and we play many games together and cause the top 3 are so damm good we dont lose. and cause of the lower score he gets 5-10 points a game means growth

by **stringybeany** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:05 pm

poo-maker wrote:I decided that it was just random...

Yah, could be. Histogram anomalies usually correct themselves over time though. If they don't, then they aren't anomalies. Then you have to look elsewhere for reasons. Psychological factors would certainly be worth looking at. Like how the other players on the board react and so forth.

It's been almost a month and there are four above 4k right now. It's still a very long tail.

I'm more interested to see how the whole charts compare over time to see if the rankings change shows up in the charts.

There has been chart creep upwards, as expected. I suppose i should compare to my old charts in the old thread...hang on a min I'll go look and merge em together

by **stringybeany** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:11 pm

here's one from back in september...there has been quite a bit of upwards creep...as expected

by **Zlorfik** on Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:30 pm

There isn't a significant gap between points now compared to last year..

by **MajorRT** on Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:07 am

I disagree, there is a significant gap and it should be examined much more in depth. Who are the opponents in these team games? It would be very suspicious if it was a similar group that was losing to a specific top 3 player's team. VERY SUSPICIOUS.
You know how team members draft eachother in cycling?

by **stringybeany** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:36 am

It's been several moths since I've updated the chart, so here we go!

Point creep continues, as it should, and CC staff should be proud of their diligence in fighting cheating. Other gaming sites that don't have rigorous enforcement either have explosive points growth or no points growth, depending on format. I won't go into the particulars here because it's not important.

We still have a secondary distribution at the top end, which statistically demands "special cause". Those of you up-thread that want to look for conspiracy or cheating are barking up the very wrong trees (or perhaps even being a little paranoid), in my humble opinion. These front-runners are watched very closely by the whole community and if there were any real cause for suspicion it would become evident.

Instead I believe it can all be explained by simple psychology. I'll leave it to the community to figure the whys and hows.

Roll on troops!

by **stringybeany** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:42 am

note to mods: I went back and edited the images sizes to fit the new forum view. 8-)

by **owenshooter** on Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:50 am

MajorRT wrote:I disagree, there is a significant gap and it should be examined much more in depth. Who are the opponents in these team games? It would be very suspicious if it was a similar group that was losing to a specific top 3 player's team. VERY SUSPICIOUS.
You know how team members draft eachother in cycling?

P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D... wow... i know that when i play trips or quads with blitz, we usually all get online at the same time, and pass the game numbers quickly for everyone to join. if we are setting up the games, the same is done, and they start almost instantly. blitz can set up 20 games, have his team join, and have all 20 going within minutes. there is no set team that joins the games counter to us, to lose. and some of my favorite games are the ones we lose!-0