at what rank would you consider someone an excellent player

[poo-maker]

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.

I think what tripped Scott up was him using the word 'average'. Because honestly, the average player is crap. Also, rank is an ok judge of skill. But if you really want to know how good a player is, you have to take a look at their games and you also have to play them. I think that anyone who takes the time to check out a players games and/or plays them knows who the people with skill are. There are plenty of players in the top 250 that play gimmicky settings, take advantage of the system and are just lucky for a couple weeks- I think we all know who they are. So, with a 3000 baseline and a little knowledge on the players that have reached that mark, you can pretty much 'weed-out' any players from the lists that are... average

[owenshooter]

poo, don't bother weeding me out!!! i know i'm average, and i'm proud of it!!!-0

[0ojakeo0]

1200+

[Ditocoaf]

Really, any definition of "average" would have to be 1000 points. There are 1000 points per player to go around, and even if everyone on this website was an amazing, expert player, there would still be two privates for every Colonel, far more cooks than sergeants.

I think this is a broken system, in fact-- maybe right now, only bad players like myself are stuck as cadets, but no matter how good people are, half the game's population will be in the bottom three ranks. Even if 80 percent of players were as good as SkyT, and all equal, and the other 20 percent were as bad as the current CC Chef, the point distribution would be the same as it is now.

[RobinJ]

Really, any definition of "average" would have to be 1000 points. There are 1000 points per player to go around, and even if everyone on this website was an amazing, expert player, there would still be two privates for every Colonel, far more cooks than sergeants.

I think this is a broken system, in fact-- maybe right now, only bad players like myself are stuck as cadets, but no matter how good people are, half the game's population will be in the bottom three ranks. Even if 80 percent of players were as good as SkyT, and all equal, and the other 20 percent were as bad as the current CC Chef, the point distribution would be the same as it is now.

Probably not the case actually. If 80% were top players you'd see Skyt and company drop about 2000 points until you had a lot of players at a low top score, a few unlucky go betweens and then a few cooks with next to nothing. Of course whenever they fluke a win against better players their score will shoot up but let's not get into the nitty gritty mathematics just now

[Genghis Khan CA]

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.

Hang on... isn't that AAFitz character a captain? I can write tiny that I'm joking...

Back on topic (sort of) I think rank is a direct indicator of luck level. I win a fair share of games, but it's only because I always get 3 card sets and my opponents always get 2 pair, plus I roll 6's 50% of the time.

A month ago I was only getting 4 card sets and my score dropped by about 700 points

[RobinJ]

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.

Hang on... isn't that AAFitz character a captain? I can write tiny that I'm joking...

Back on topic (sort of) I think rank is a direct indicator of luck level. I win a fair share of games, but it's only because I always get 3 card sets and my opponents always get 2 pair, plus I roll 6's 50% of the time.

A month ago I was only getting 4 card sets and my score dropped by about 700 points

I knew you top guns were fixing the cards and dice all along. I'm no worse than you really. The fact that I lack the vision in games has nothing to do with my being 2400 (damn that's a scary number - we captains etc really do have a long way to go) points of top score

[Genghis Khan CA]

I knew you top guns were fixing the cards and dice all along. I'm no worse than you really. The fact that I lack the vision in games has nothing to do with my being 2400 (damn that's a scary number - we captains etc really do have a long way to go) points of top score

Haha - there is an incredible spread at the top though... 10th spot is 1300 points behind 1st!

[Ditocoaf]

Really, any definition of "average" would have to be 1000 points. There are 1000 points per player to go around, and even if everyone on this website was an amazing, expert player, there would still be two privates for every Colonel, far more cooks than sergeants.

I think this is a broken system, in fact-- maybe right now, only bad players like myself are stuck as cadets, but no matter how good people are, half the game's population will be in the bottom three ranks. Even if 80 percent of players were as good as SkyT, and all equal, and the other 20 percent were as bad as the current CC Chef, the point distribution would be the same as it is now.

Probably not the case actually. If 80% were top players you'd see Skyt and company drop about 2000 points until you had a lot of players at a low top score, a few unlucky go betweens and then a few cooks with next to nothing. Of course whenever they fluke a win against better players their score will shoot up but let's not get into the nitty gritty mathematics just now

Maybe the situation you describe would be correct... But the point is, that 50% of players would still be under 1000 points, even though the big skill gap is at the 20% players. Or put it another way: 30% of players would be experts stuck at the cadet or private rank.

[jiminski]

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.

Hang on... isn't that AAFitz character a captain? I can write tiny that I'm joking...

Back on topic (sort of) I think rank is a direct indicator of luck level. I win a fair share of games, but it's only because I always get 3 card sets and my opponents always get 2 pair, plus I roll 6's 50% of the time.

A month ago I was only getting 4 card sets and my score dropped by about 700 points

I hear you brother... hehe well that is my story and i'm sticking too it!

[austex]

I'd agree that the average player is crap. I don't have any idea, but my guess is that the average player plays less than 20 games and then quits. If so, saying that being above 2000 points puts you in the top 2.7% of the total number of players is meaningless.

I think that Scott is right when he says that rank is a direct reflection of ability, but only your ability of the types of games you play, not overall. So those that reach 3000 points from playing one map, playing only triples, etc are excellent players, but only with those settings.

IMO, the truly exceptional players are good at all styles. And that definitely does not include me.

[Joodoo]

I wouldn't really consider how good someone is by their rank, but rather their win percentage. The higher it is, the more pro he/she is(and some luck). But I also have to look at how many games he/she has played because if you win 1 game and you've only played 1 game before then saying that person is pro may be biased.

[BADPAT]

Very intresting topic.

I do not wish to be negative about CC cause i love playing this game but with CC's current ranking system i doubt that we can ever find out who is really good and who really sucks in this game.

Off course there are players with better skills then others wich make them win more games then but i think that the dropps and dice have more influence in winning a game then just skill.

You can have lots of skill but if the dice work against you whats skill worth you can ask yourself.

Besides the above there are numerous reasons why the current ranking system is a joke.

So many diffrent types of maps and game settings and just one rank system wich is not cheater proof.

To many times i have seen games given away to the highest ranked player in a game because of the fact a low ranker was about to win a game with mainly high ranked players in it ( majors and above ) all afraid to lose to many points.

And thats just one simple example why the current ranksystem isnt working.

I am sure you all know loads of other reasons( cheating, secret alliances etc etc).

I sugest we take a look at another rank system something we used at Hasbro risk site and wich is called Casey's ladder.

I know loads of the players who used to play there know what i am talking about and will agree that that rank system is much better.

It basicly means that we are able to have ranking systems for every single game style if you like.

Seperate ranking systems for doubles, triples, standard, quadrupples you name it.

It will take some time to set this up and a few changes needs to be made in the current game coding but i am sure that things will be diffrent once we have it.

if we get enough postive feedback about changing current rank system we may be able to convince admins as well.

[Bruceswar]

When I first got to this site.. I sucked bad! Now after trying many maps and games I can see visual improvement in my game. It does not mean I am good, but it does say that playing many games will make you better. About the only games I generally do not play are FOG games. For the simple reason I have too many going and would lose track. Rank on this game means something. Most of us get it by winning games of all types. So what if you only play 1 or 2 types of games. You are still good at it if you win. I have found 1 vs 1 games to be a bit lame, but that is my personal opinion. Putting a number on it would be hard, but 2000 plus usally means the player at least knows what is going on and will make less mistakes.

[jangler3]

IDK. I got trashed today for having 19% win rate. But considering I started at 9%, I think I'm doing OK.

[austex]

Win percentage has a lot to do with the number of people you play in your games. If you only play 8 player games, a win percentage of 25% would be awesome. If you only play 2 or 3 player games, a 25% win rate would suck.

[jangler3]

Win percentage has a lot to do with the number of people you play in your games. If you only play 8 player games, a win percentage of 25% would be awesome. If you only play 2 or 3 player games, a 25% win rate would suck.

I agree. I try to play 4-6 player games. I have played less than 10, 3player or under games.

[DiM]

Win percentage has a lot to do with the number of people you play in your games. If you only play 8 player games, a win percentage of 25% would be awesome. If you only play 2 or 3 player games, a 25% win rate would suck.

it also has a lot to do with the opponents you face.

as you said a 25% in 8p games is awesome but i'd settle just for a 15% if all the opponents were colonels or higher.

[Funfile]

Very intresting topic.

I do not wish to be negative about CC cause i love playing this game but with CC's current ranking system i doubt that we can ever find out who is really good and who really sucks in this game.

Off course there are players with better skills then others wich make them win more games then but i think that the dropps and dice have more influence in winning a game then just skill.

You can have lots of skill but if the dice work against you whats skill worth you can ask yourself.

Besides the above there are numerous reasons why the current ranking system is a joke.

So many diffrent types of maps and game settings and just one rank system wich is not cheater proof.

To many times i have seen games given away to the highest ranked player in a game because of the fact a low ranker was about to win a game with mainly high ranked players in it ( majors and above ) all afraid to lose to many points.

And thats just one simple example why the current ranksystem isnt working.

I am sure you all know loads of other reasons( cheating, secret alliances etc etc).

I sugest we take a look at another rank system something we used at Hasbro risk site and wich is called Casey's ladder.

I know loads of the players who used to play there know what i am talking about and will agree that that rank system is much better.

It basicly means that we are able to have ranking systems for every single game style if you like.

Seperate ranking systems for doubles, triples, standard, quadrupples you name it.

It will take some time to set this up and a few changes needs to be made in the current game coding but i am sure that things will be diffrent once we have it.

if we get enough postive feedback about changing current rank system we may be able to convince admins as well.

htis has nouthing to do with the question ,

the topic is about what you think is a good rank , NOT "lets rip unto the ranking system" posting off topic is rude , and should get you a warning ,

as for what a see as being good , 15000 points

[jnd94]

IMO, a great player is that takes risks. Yeah, it's the game. I'm not saying that Colonels and Majors and all of them aren't taking risks by playings mass team games, but a truly good player will play a variety of games, and win most of them. I'm not saying I've done that, but that is what I think makes great players. I've been beaten miserably by cooks, and I've also beaten people with much higher ranks/skill levels.

[Snorri1234]

htis has nouthing to do with the question ,

It explains why he thinks rank has nothing to do with being a great player, so that there is no rank he considers the line between good and bad player.

It's pretty on topic.

the topic is about what you think is a good rank , NOT "lets rip unto the ranking system" posting off topic is rude , and should get you a warning ,

Holy crap? A warning for posting off-topic?

[BADPAT]

Very intresting topic.

I do not wish to be negative about CC cause i love playing this game but with CC's current ranking system i doubt that we can ever find out who is really good and who really sucks in this game.

Off course there are players with better skills then others wich make them win more games then but i think that the dropps and dice have more influence in winning a game then just skill.

You can have lots of skill but if the dice work against you whats skill worth you can ask yourself.

Besides the above there are numerous reasons why the current ranking system is a joke.

So many diffrent types of maps and game settings and just one rank system wich is not cheater proof.

To many times i have seen games given away to the highest ranked player in a game because of the fact a low ranker was about to win a game with mainly high ranked players in it ( majors and above ) all afraid to lose to many points.

And thats just one simple example why the current ranksystem isnt working.

I am sure you all know loads of other reasons( cheating, secret alliances etc etc).

I sugest we take a look at another rank system something we used at Hasbro risk site and wich is called Casey's ladder.

I know loads of the players who used to play there know what i am talking about and will agree that that rank system is much better.

It basicly means that we are able to have ranking systems for every single game style if you like.

Seperate ranking systems for doubles, triples, standard, quadrupples you name it.

It will take some time to set this up and a few changes needs to be made in the current game coding but i am sure that things will be diffrent once we have it.

if we get enough postive feedback about changing current rank system we may be able to convince admins as well.

htis has nouthing to do with the question ,

the topic is about what you think is a good rank , NOT "lets rip unto the ranking system" posting off topic is rude , and should get you a warning ,

as for what a see as being good , 15000 points

maby you should clean your glasses and read the two first lines i posted before you start with chilish "you need a warning" noncense.

[Kemmler]

He's right, a more ffective way of measuring rank would be top score, but it still wouldn't be perfect.

[JCsolidrock]

Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beat Paper... but Paper beats Rock... I'm confused.

An excellent player is one who specializes in all criterias of the game... excellent attitude, excellent communication (team games), excellent play etc. An excellent player can also be one who is really good at a certain map or all kinds of maps. I wouldn't consider myself an excellent player, but rather one who enjoys to play the game, whether it be doubles, triples, assassin, fog or no fog, chained or unlimited.

[Wild_Tiger]

you cannot grade a player on his / hers rank.. thats just silly.

there are too many ways to scam your way to the top on this site to make a rank meaningful.

To grade players you would have to look at their moves and if they are competent with everything or just a part of what you can make of maps / styles.

ive seen good lieutenants and crappy colonels... so rank doesnt mean much to me.