Conquer Club

I think there is a strong argument to say that rank doesn't mean how good a player is. I think what really makes a goodplaying is his win percentage. For example a person can play 100 8-player games and win only 25% of them (25 of them) and have have 2500 points easily.. and thats means you win one out of every 4 games you play? thats is pretty bad. But if you win 40, 50 60 percent of your games.. and maybe have a 1500 points then i think thats the better player. I know that smaller games are different then larger games.. but still.. its how often you can win not how many points you can get from the system that makes you a good player in my opinion.. let me know what you think.

Diamonds.

winning 25% of 8 player games is pretty good.

winning 25% of 2 player games is not.

Both score, and win percentage, tell you something about a player, but neither are the be-all and/or end-all of how good a player is. If you really want to know how good a player someone is, just play them a few times.

Timminz wrote:winning 25% of 8 player games is pretty good.

winning 25% of 2 player games is not.

Both score, and win percentage, tell you something about a player, but neither are the be-all and/or end-all of how good a player is. If you really want to know how good a player someone is, just play them a few times.

That is an excellent point.

Diamonds14 wrote:I think there is a strong argument to say that rank doesn't mean how good a player is. I think what really makes a goodplaying is his win percentage. For example a person can play 100 8-player games and win only 25% of them (25 of them) and have have 2500 points easily.. and thats means you win one out of every 4 games you play? thats is pretty bad. But if you win 40, 50 60 percent of your games.. and maybe have a 1500 points then i think thats the better player. I know that smaller games are different then larger games.. but still.. its how often you can win not how many points you can get from the system that makes you a good player in my opinion.. let me know what you think.

Diamonds.

Are you kidding?

Winning 25% of 8-player games means you're effectively winning twice as much as you statistically should.
Winning 100% of 2-player games would mean you're winning twice as much as you statistically should.

Win% signifies absolutely nothing. Generally to me a high win% means the person plays 1v1, and more often than not it signifies point farming. So I think the opposite of you.

FabledIntegral wrote:

Diamonds14 wrote:I think there is a strong argument to say that rank doesn't mean how good a player is. I think what really makes a goodplaying is his win percentage. For example a person can play 100 8-player games and win only 25% of them (25 of them) and have have 2500 points easily.. and thats means you win one out of every 4 games you play? thats is pretty bad. But if you win 40, 50 60 percent of your games.. and maybe have a 1500 points then i think thats the better player. I know that smaller games are different then larger games.. but still.. its how often you can win not how many points you can get from the system that makes you a good player in my opinion.. let me know what you think.

Diamonds.

Are you kidding?

Winning 25% of 8-player games means you're effectively winning twice as much as you statistically should.
Winning 100% of 2-player games would mean you're winning twice as much as you statistically should.

Win% signifies absolutely nothing. Generally to me a high win% means the person plays 1v1, and more often than not it signifies point farming. So I think the opposite of you.

I really liked the part I bolded...

Play some large games Diamonds14 and see what happens to that win percentage of yours. There is a reason why large games give you more points you know; it is because they are harder, take longer and (I would suggest) require a hell of a lot more skill to win. Anyway, I would take my 35% win record over your 45% win record any day.

Lol. I was going to say something, but the replies pretty much said it all. Your comments don't make much sense diamonds. Now if you want to argue win percentage for a given setting. Like who has a higher win percentage in 8 player games, then that's good. Their competition matters too though.

Georgerx7di wrote:Lol. I was going to say something, but the replies pretty much said it all. Your comments don't make much sense diamonds. Now if you want to argue win percentage for a given setting. Like who has a higher win percentage in 8 player games, then that's good. Their competition matters too though.

That's how the relative ranks came about, George. It's to give you the best apple to apple comparison- at least the best that CC allows at this point. Shout out to Chip- woot woot.

Scott-Land wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:Lol. I was going to say something, but the replies pretty much said it all. Your comments don't make much sense diamonds. Now if you want to argue win percentage for a given setting. Like who has a higher win percentage in 8 player games, then that's good. Their competition matters too though.

That's how the relative ranks came about, George. It's to give you the best apple to apple comparison- at least the best that CC allows at this point. Shout out to Chip- woot woot.

RR is rediculous scott. It's the scoreboard upside down. The only way for it to be high is to keep your rank low. The guy with the highest RR, was a question mark who joined a high rank game and lost it. A guy who never won a game has the highest RR, or did last time I checked. It doesn't make sense getting rewarded for what games you join, even if you loose them.

Georgerx7di wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:Lol. I was going to say something, but the replies pretty much said it all. Your comments don't make much sense diamonds. Now if you want to argue win percentage for a given setting. Like who has a higher win percentage in 8 player games, then that's good. Their competition matters too though.

That's how the relative ranks came about, George. It's to give you the best apple to apple comparison- at least the best that CC allows at this point. Shout out to Chip- woot woot.

RR is rediculous scott. It's the scoreboard upside down. The only way for it to be high is to keep your rank low. The guy with the highest RR, was a question mark who joined a high rank game and lost it. A guy who never won a game has the highest RR, or did last time I checked. It doesn't make sense getting rewarded for what games you join, even if you loose them.

I think you're still comparing apples to oranges. It's more effective if you analyze the data in specific game types. Obviously, one game wouldn't be an accurate assessment for any player.

If win % isn't important, then why does the scorboard still include it? MANY posts have suggested changes, yet it remains....personally, I think opponents eliminated would be a better indicator of skill, in addition to rank.

MajorRT wrote:If win % isn't important, then why does the scorboard still include it? MANY posts have suggested changes, yet it remains....personally, I think opponents eliminated would be a better indicator of skill, in addition to rank.

There's a lot of unimportant shit - that's a very poor argument for why it's important.

A false dilemma. Winning percentage alone is almost worthless as a data; score means much, even alone...

Zemljanin wrote:A false dilemma. Winning percentage alone is almost worthless as a data; score means much, even alone...

Then why do Lack et. al. leave it on the scoreboard?

win percentage...any noob can load on doodle earth assassin freestyle...

It also depends on if you want to consider how well someone is playing right now versus how well someone has played over their entire CC career.

Rank can flucuate pretty quickly, while percentage is going to settle down once you have completed a 100 or so games. A high rank could be winning streak, while a low rank could be a few games of bad dice. Win percentage is a better measure over all ones games.

I am not arguing for straight win percentage, however, as you can play only cooks and 1v1 and have a great win percentage.

How to improve?

Ladders are fairly accurate, as you have to prove you are better than someone to move up a rank. You always know exactly where you stand in regards to everyone else. This site, however, probably has too many players. You start out at rank 1 of 20,000, that is a lot of games to climb to the top, even assuming you win 100% of the time. Also, ladders are difficult to set up for anything other than 1v1 games.

Microsoft's Xbox live uses a system they call TrueSkill. Search on Google for an explanation, and you will see how it works. It incorporates your skill, your opponents skills, plus a random amount to compensate for luck, lag, fatigue, whatever. The issue with this system, however, is that it works best when you only play people closely ranked to you, and it is terribly inaccurate until you have put in a significant amount of games. This is fine if you are playing 5 minute Halo matches, but would cause everyone here to be provisional until 50 or so games had been completed.

Diamonds14 wrote:I think there is a strong argument to say that rank doesn't mean how good a player is. I think what really makes a goodplaying is his win percentage. For example a person can play 100 8-player games and win only 25% of them (25 of them) and have have 2500 points easily.. and thats means you win one out of every 4 games you play? thats is pretty bad. But if you win 40, 50 60 percent of your games.. and maybe have a 1500 points then i think thats the better player. I know that smaller games are different then larger games.. but still.. its how often you can win not how many points you can get from the system that makes you a good player in my opinion.. let me know what you think.

Diamonds.

Your logic is totaly flawed
For a start win percentages mean next to nothing because they do not allow for the calibre of opposition or the size of the games. For example 25% wins in equally matched 6 player games is very good going whilst 75% playing noobs/cooks 1 v1 is pretty poor.

MajorRT wrote:If win % isn't important, then why does the scorboard still include it? MANY posts have suggested changes, yet it remains....personally, I think opponents eliminated would be a better indicator of skill, in addition to rank.

It is there to massage poor players ego, if it keeps some people happy then why should the site drop it ?

MajorRT wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:A false dilemma. Winning percentage alone is almost worthless as a data; score means much, even alone...

Then why do Lack et. al. leave it on the scoreboard?

I really like seeing the win %...

Personally, I look for low win % with high rank...
This makes it easy to see the skilled players who play std multi-player games.

Others may look for high win % to find good partners, or good 1v1 opponents...

By choosing to have just 1 scoreboard, CC has always been a bit lame, but with all the new ways to manipulate scores today it is lamer than ever...

In a perfect world, we would have a seperate scoreboard for Freestyle and Sequential... and even better if we also had Singles vs Teams... So yeah, 4 scoreboards to climb would be cool... but this is not to be...

So please, as long as we have a single scoreboard, don't take away the only way other than score to somewhat see at a glance what type of player's are out there...

Robinette wrote:
I really like seeing the win %...
Personally, I look for low win % with high rank...

Why?

MajorRT wrote:

Zemljanin wrote:A false dilemma. Winning percentage alone is almost worthless as a data; score means much, even alone...

Then why do Lack et. al. leave it on the scoreboard?

Why not? There is a room...

Scott-Land wrote:

Robinette wrote:
I really like seeing the win %...
Personally, I look for low win % with high rank...

Why?

Do you hear that?
That's the sound of me being right!

i use win% in 2 situations...
high ranking players gives an idea of what kind of games they play
obviously ridic high % means they are point farming or 1v1
lowish means most likely 6-8 player games
and med to high team players

with low ranks...it will give a more accurate representation of skill
cause low rankers generally dont stick to one type of game to point gain