at what rank would you consider someone an excellent player

[Scott-Land]

rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

actually it's pretty simple if you know basic math.

generally if you are in the top 10% you are very good. and at this moment if you're captain you're in the top 2.7%
basic math, scott, basic math. if you graduate in the top 2.7% of your university will you say you're average at best? i highly doubt it, in fact i'm certain you'd feel damn proud about it.

PS: there are several ways to get big points by bending/abusing rules. if i do that and get to 4000 points will i be considered a great player? i doubt it.

PPS: if captain is average at best then it means over 97% of players on this site are bellow average?

thats a terrible analogy by the way-- in school .... or college there's a set criteria and curriculum. all the students are in the same age bracket. Comparing that to CC scoreboard where the ages vary from 8- 40.... of those players- how many are under the age of 10 ? or 12? ok buddy , you're a genius above average skilled player that just beat a kid that's 8. WTG

my criteria for saying that 2000 players are of average ability because I can see the mistakes they make during a game...plays that they can't recognize, missed blocks, thin kill shots, inability to see what the 3rd player that acts behind them will do. they can see the moves that are in front of them. all of these factors and many more is what i use to determine how skilled a player is. most players that at or around 2000 simply cannot see it.

[DiM]

rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

actually it's pretty simple if you know basic math.

generally if you are in the top 10% you are very good. and at this moment if you're captain you're in the top 2.7%
basic math, scott, basic math. if you graduate in the top 2.7% of your university will you say you're average at best? i highly doubt it, in fact i'm certain you'd feel damn proud about it.

PS: there are several ways to get big points by bending/abusing rules. if i do that and get to 4000 points will i be considered a great player? i doubt it.

PPS: if captain is average at best then it means over 97% of players on this site are bellow average?

yada yada-- that doesn't mean anything ! that just proves that a player is better.... doesn't mean that he's good. it means those players are worse ......

are you frickin serious? do you have any idea about statistics?
add all the points divide them to the total number of players and that's your average?
then divide the scoreboard in equal shares and name each portion according to performance.
first 20% - very good
21-40% - good
41-60% - average
61-80% - bad
81-100% - very bad

this is how statistics work. you can't just say you think top 3% is average, top 0.4 are great and 97% are crappy.
well actually you can say that but that would just prove you're a cocky arrogant person that has no idea about statistics.

and btw. looking at your games i can see you're the specialized type that sticks to one thing rather than playing anything. and this info plus the fact that you say score is a direct outcome of skill makes me wonder one hing. what if instead of standard classic freestyle escalating you were playing assassin sequential age or realms: magic chained with fog? considering the fact you say points are a direct outcome of skill then in theory you should still keep your rank and points even if you change map and settings. something makes me highly doubt it and i'm sure your score would plummet.

[wcaclimbing]

back to topic: i think if you maintain 3300+ish you're an excellent player...

If you maintain that score by only playing 1v1 games against kids that are so new they don't even know what the autoattack button does, are you still a good player?

[DiM]

thats a terrible analogy by the way-- in school .... or college there's a set criteria and curriculum. all the students are in the same age bracket. Comparing that to CC scoreboard where the ages vary from 8- 40.... of those players- how many are under the age of 10 ? or 12? ok buddy , you're a genius above average skilled player that just beat a kid that's 8. WTG

my criteria for saying that 2000 players are of average ability because I can see the mistakes they make during a game...plays that they can't recognize, missed blocks, thin kill shots, inability to see what the 3rd player that acts behind them will do. they can see the moves that are in front of them. all of these factors and many more is what i use to determine how skilled a player is. most players that at or around 2000 simply cannot see it.

since when age is related to performance in games? a 12 year old can easily beat a 40 year old.
i would trash my father at gran turismo and at the same time an addicted 10 year old would trash me.

same goes for chess for example. i'm an average player and throughout the time i have beaten and have been beaten by people of all ages ranging from 8 (yes an 8year old beat me at chess) to 70.

PS: the 8 year old was playing chess since he was 2 and had more awards than pieces on the board.

[Scott-Land]

i was referring to your analogy.... but whatever.

[redi5e]

you can't just say you think top 3% is average, top 0.4 are great and 97% are crappy.
well actually you can say that but that would just prove you're a cocky arrogant person that has no idea about statistics.

I agree with DiM on this one...

[DiM]

back to topic: i think if you maintain 3300+ish you're an excellent player...

If you maintain that score by only playing 1v1 games against kids that are so new they don't even know what the autoattack button does, are you still a good player?

of course because scottland said points are a direct outcome of skill.

same goes for playing freestyle trips with 3 accounts at the same time or any other abusing method you can find.


btw if a cook wins a battle royale and gets to 5000 points it means in a split second he becomes a genius player form a crappy one.


PS: in the last few days i lost ~400 points. i must be getting dumber by the minute.

[wrestler1ump]

Captain.

[Scott-Land]

rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

actually it's pretty simple if you know basic math.

generally if you are in the top 10% you are very good. and at this moment if you're captain you're in the top 2.7%
basic math, scott, basic math. if you graduate in the top 2.7% of your university will you say you're average at best? i highly doubt it, in fact i'm certain you'd feel damn proud about it.

PS: there are several ways to get big points by bending/abusing rules. if i do that and get to 4000 points will i be considered a great player? i doubt it.

PPS: if captain is average at best then it means over 97% of players on this site are bellow average?

yada yada-- that doesn't mean anything ! that just proves that a player is better.... doesn't mean that he's good. it means those players are worse ......

are you frickin serious? do you have any idea about statistics?
add all the points divide them to the total number of players and that's your average?
then divide the scoreboard in equal shares and name each portion according to performance.
first 20% - very good
21-40% - good
41-60% - average
61-80% - bad
81-100% - very bad

this is how statistics work. you can't just say you think top 3% is average, top 0.4 are great and 97% are crappy.
well actually you can say that but that would just prove you're a cocky arrogant person that has no idea about statistics.

and btw. looking at your games i can see you're the specialized type that sticks to one thing rather than playing anything. and this info plus the fact that you say score is a direct outcome of skill makes me wonder one hing. what if instead of standard classic freestyle escalating you were playing assassin sequential age or realms: magic chained with fog? considering the fact you say points are a direct outcome of skill then in theory you should still keep your rank and points even if you change map and settings. something makes me highly doubt it and i'm sure your score would plummet.

a player can't be skilled at sequential/freestyle escalating? you have to excel at all game types to be an excellent player.... you're grabbing at straws. i remember why i chose not to respond to most of your posts. my mistake for responding to this one.

[hwhrhett]

back to topic: i think if you maintain 3300+ish you're an excellent player...

If you maintain that score by only playing 1v1 games against kids that are so new they don't even know what the autoattack button does, are you still a good player?

if you create a super-complicated series of maps that few people understand at first and jump from seargent to major in a flash, are you still a good player?

[DiM]

i was referring to your analogy.... but whatever.

call it a fortunate coincidence but i was referring to the same thing. too bad you didn't get it.

[wrestler1ump]

Captain so long as they don't abuse the ignore list.

[DiM]

a player can't be skilled at sequential/freestyle escalating?

yes of course he can but he is a skilled specialist that knows how to get points. unfortunately that doesn't make him a great player. it makes him a great specialist.

for example i couldn't play freestyle trips with 3 accounts at the same time. it takes skill coordination and time. he who does this and maintains a high rank is a very skilled abuser. again that doesn't make him a great player. just an abuser. a skilled one though.

[Scott-Land]

you can't just say you think top 3% is average, top 0.4 are great and 97% are crappy.
well actually you can say that but that would just prove you're a cocky arrogant person that has no idea about statistics.

I agree with DiM on this one...

what part dont you get-- i never said that it wasnt an above average score. i simply said that they are in my opinion average in ability.....

[DiM]

you can't just say you think top 3% is average, top 0.4 are great and 97% are crappy.
well actually you can say that but that would just prove you're a cocky arrogant person that has no idea about statistics.

I agree with DiM on this one...

what part dont you get-- i never said that it wasnt an above average score. i simply said that they are in my opinion average in ability.....

wait a minute. earlier you said this:

rank is a direct reflection of ability.

so if rank is a direct reflection of ability how can you have an above average score but only an average ability? this puzzles me.

oh and btw i wouldn't call top 3% just above average. i'd call it very good at least.

one more question. if you need an average ability to get an above average score then what ability do you need to get an average score?

[Scott-Land]

perhaps i shouldnt had used the word [average]-- ffs.....

[owenshooter]

anything above me... even if it is just one point...-0

[codeblue1018]

Bottom line, any player that excels at a certain map with certain settings and maintains a score of captain or above is in my opinion a great player. Most players have their maps of choice and for this reason, they stick to these games. I have no problem if these players limit themselves to games such as scott-land with 8 player games or in my case 3 player games. It is whatever you enjoy as a player.

[detlef]

Bottom line, any player that excels at a certain map with certain settings and maintains a score of captain or above is in my opinion a great player. Most players have their maps of choice and for this reason, they stick to these games. I have no problem if these players limit themselves to games such as scott-land with 8 player games or in my case 3 player games. It is whatever you enjoy as a player.

I wonder if that is actually true. I know that I don't. I certainly avoid certain styles but play tons of different maps, plenty of doubles and singles and all three card styles (well, less no cards but to the point of avoiding them completely).

[Seulessliathan]

lol

Scott? Dim? you have fun?^^

Scott is correct about skill and mistakes. A lot of high rank players don´t plan there moves not so detailed as Scott is doing and so they try bad shots , miss blocks and things like that.
Sometimes it´s just lack of experience, sometimes people take their moves too quick because they have no time, but in many cases people just think less about their moves than really strong players.

e.g. in one of my last games i missed a block ... i was thinking about 10 minutes, in the end i decided that the player i could have blocked would be killed in each case and i only had to chose if i want to be killed in the same move or not ..... i expected game would go on because cash was low ..... well, i have learned from this game and will look more for blocks in further games. In another game i just forgot one country when i took a shot.

As long as i do mistakes like that i would agree that i have "only" average skill ..... even if i´m a Major.

On the other hand, player with 2000+ points are of course good players, compared to the rest.
Scott compares with high rank player and talks about skill, Dim compares with all players and talks about points .... well ..... in fact i believe everyone of you know what the other one is talking about^^

@topic

i agree that points can come from skill or from decisions when you chose your games.

[DiM]

ok, look it's obvious you need some sort of skill in order to get points. BUT the biggest problem is that skill has a much lower influence on the score than the map you choose the settings you play the opponents you face.

so even if you're an average player you ca still make it to the top. there are plenty of ways. for example play only triples games with 2 good team mates.
or play a complicated map over and over again vs people that have no idea what goes on that map.
this will get you big points. but will those big points also mean you have great skill? of course not.

let's take skyt for example. he has skill on what he does and thus he gets lots of points and he's conqueror.
now have him give up his playing style and play only doodle earth assassin freestyle speed games vs low rankers. i'm willing to bet his score will come from 4500 points to bellow 3000 within 100 games. even with all the skill in the world he won't be able to keep his score.

[AAFitz]

The ranks are certainly an indication of skill. Ive simply never seen a player at captain, or even leutenant that did not play the game well.

However, at a certain point, the rank shows skill and dedication to obtaining points.

I messed with my score for a while playing 50 8 person freestyle doodle assassin games, and similar games. I spent thousands of points.

Once i decided to win them back, I did.. took 3 days from maybe 1300ish to jump over 2k again. I timed a bunch of singles wins, with a bunch of team wins. My partners loved me in the first batch of wins. I had 1000 points less in the team score than usual.

At one point it was at 1250. I tend to doubt my skill was any different at that level, than it is now at 2400.. or that my skill will be any better if I get more points. What I learned by playing so many games with so many lower ranks, is the great majority of players in here, really arent trying to gain many points. They are clearly just trying to win as many games as they can, but have no strategy whatsoever for winning points. Its simply obvious with their game choice.

I more or less need to maintain a captains rank at all times, but I had an absolute blast as a sergeant and lower...I had to litterally try to lose points at that level. I wasnt trying to lose games.. just points... and its very easy to do based on game choice... i actually recommend it for anyone who has the stomach to win back the 1400 points or so, which at that level... isnt very hard.

The score cannot point out the truly excelent players on its own in its current state, though anyone thats pushed and gotten 3000 is certainly excellent at winning points, because no matter what the strategy, it isnt easy.

The new scoring system will help isolate where points come from, and point out an individuals talents a little more. Until then, anyone who has played 1000 games or so knows the individual skill of any of the players simply by looking at game choice, and knows the score is highly relative.

[detlef]

As for the Scott v DiM debate, it's hard not to side with DiM. I mean, even if you carved off the bottom half of players, that is still a very small percentage of the remaining above 2000 and, it's near impossible to not get there without at least being "good".

Honestly, I don't think what Scott is describing is a fair criteria for "good". What he is describing is very good to outstanding and the numbers support that.

Scott is describing the sort of player who's on top of every single controllable element of the game and will only lose as a result of poor luck. These players will beat a "good" player because a "good" player is merely basically on top of the situation. However, the same goes for "good" players beating "average" ones.

I mean, the only way you improve your rank is to win. If you win more often than the odds dictate you should and play enough games for luck to even out, you must be good.

Mind you, I'm only talking about people who don't cheat, master some random version of the game, or mine noobs in triples.

[firstholliday]

I just wanna say;


i love you DIM

[jiminski]

rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

actually it's pretty simple if you know basic math.

generally if you are in the top 10% you are very good. and at this moment if you're captain you're in the top 2.7%
basic math, scott, basic math. if you graduate in the top 2.7% of your university will you say you're average at best? i highly doubt it, in fact i'm certain you'd feel damn proud about it.

PS: there are several ways to get big points by bending/abusing rules. if i do that and get to 4000 points will i be considered a great player? i doubt it.

PPS: if captain is average at best then it means over 97% of players on this site are bellow average?

yada yada-- that doesn't mean anything ! that just proves that a player is better.... doesn't mean that he's good. it means those players are worse ......

are you frickin serious? do you have any idea about statistics?
add all the points divide them to the total number of players and that's your average?
then divide the scoreboard in equal shares and name each portion according to performance.
first 20% - very good
21-40% - good
41-60% - average
61-80% - bad
81-100% - very bad

this is how statistics work. you can't just say you think top 3% is average, top 0.4 are great and 97% are crappy.
well actually you can say that but that would just prove you're a cocky arrogant person that has no idea about statistics.

and btw. looking at your games i can see you're the specialized type that sticks to one thing rather than playing anything. and this info plus the fact that you say score is a direct outcome of skill makes me wonder one hing. what if instead of standard classic freestyle escalating you were playing assassin sequential age or realms: magic chained with fog? considering the fact you say points are a direct outcome of skill then in theory you should still keep your rank and points even if you change map and settings. something makes me highly doubt it and i'm sure your score would plummet.

a player can't be skilled at sequential/freestyle escalating? you have to excel at all game types to be an excellent player.... you're grabbing at straws. i remember why i chose not to respond to most of your posts. my mistake for responding to this one.

Crikey Scotty.. you are like a billionaire who never found love! relax baby.