A Prime example...

[Iron Butterfly]

This is not meant to knock Optimus Prime or make fun of him at all...BUT his rank, medal count and games played is an anomaly to me.

For those who like to argue that rank indicates ones skill level OP has played 1041 games and has won 326. He has won more then a third of his games, which is excellent.

He is in the 20 medals club as well.

Yet he is a two striper bordering on going down another rank.

Im sure there are other players under the radar where "points" and rank are not indicitive of skill level.

[Night Strike]

Are you trying to say that he's better than his rank/points suggest? I think that's what I'm reading out of it. If so, it's because he has primarily been a tournament player. The typical tournament participant will have a score ranging from 1200-1800 for most of their tenure. Because of the nature of tournaments, a player is more likely to play in a game against a Private or below than he is to play a Captain or above; therefore, losing a game loses more points for a player, on average. There are also many tournaments where you don't have to win your game to advance to the next round, so consistently finishing 2nd or 3rd may advance you even though you're not gaining points from it.

[White Moose]

Are you trying to say that he's better than his rank/points suggest? I think that's what I'm reading out of it.

I'm reading the same.
and as you explained Night Strike. It's becuase he plays so many tournament games where you mean lots of people with around 1000 points.

The typical tournament participant will have a score ranging from 1200-1800 for most of their tenure.

I'm abnomal! I play lots of tournament (75% of my current active games is tournaments), yet im 2000+.

[poo-maker]

I have always been a sceptic of tourney players claiming that they had better skill levels than their rank suggested. Now, with the map rank add-on, its easy to see what the facts are.

Below is a screen shot of the map rank search i did on OP. The only criteria, joinability= tournament.



The numbers speak for themselves...

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

I have always been a sceptic of tourney players claiming that they had better skill levels than their rank suggested.

me too - I'm 3000+ and am playing in 8 tournaments at the moment

[Night Strike]

I wasn't expecting that. Perhaps he should keep playing in tournaments.

[White Moose]

If you use Map Rank on me. Then you'll see the following statisctics:

I've been Captain/Major, a few very brief slips down to lieutenat, for all my time playing tournaments. Still i've lost points..

Point Loss: 126
Win: 55% (167/306)
Playing first: 66.7% (88/132)

So myself i've lost points from playing tournaments, and i play in all kinds of tournament

[edit] When you take away tournaments, then i would probably be quite a bit higher than i am right now.[/edit]

[sully800]

This is not meant to knock Optimus Prime or make fun of him at all...BUT his rank, medal count and games played is an anomaly to me.

For those who like to argue that rank indicates ones skill level OP has played 1041 games and has won 326. He has won more then a third of his games, which is excellent.

He is in the 20 medals club as well.

Yet he is a two striper bordering on going down another rank.

Im sure there are other players under the radar where "points" and rank are not indicitive of skill level.

OP's medal count is an anomaly to everyone He has wayyyy more medals than everyone else because he hosts tournaments, he doesn't have very many of the "regular" medals. Now don't get me wrong, I think hosting tournaments is an extremely valuable part of the site, and he deserves all the recognition he has gotten for it. But that is still a bit different than the other medals because tournament and map medals are in no way indicative of skill in playing the game, they are indicative of how much you help the site.

In the same right, regular medals are not a great measure of skill, but rather total games played. The better you are the quicker you will earn those medals since you have to defeat a certain number of opponents, which shows skill across a wide variety of maps. BUT an extraordinary player who is new or doesn't play much wouldn't have many medals but could have won 100/100 games. Take a player like qeee1 for instance, one of the greatest to ever play on this site. His rank may look relatively low now because he hasn't played in a long time, but in his day he was at the top of the scoreboard as a singles player who didn't play that many games. His medal count would be very low.

The best way to judge a players skill is to look at their standard medal count (not special contribution medals) and their score in combination. And then you can refine that judgment by also considering total games played and win percentages but those mean less with the addition of the medal count.

[Iron Butterfly]

Im not implying anything one way or another..Except as a noob in many regards... I look at, and Im sure others do as well, all the factors originaly listed. I can not judge if he is a good or bad player as I have never played him. For me to outright call him a bad player would be presumptuous. I erred on the side of presuming him better because of his numbers.

My point was that folks may give creedence to simple numbers as I did. Some wish to judge folks by medals, which he has 20. His winning % versus games played is very good as well. Your saying that his rank is indicitive of his playing skill.

I wasnt trying to make him better. I just didnt want to be insulting.

His numbers puzzled me that is all.

[Optimus Prime]

Well, how cool is it that someone made a thread about me. Never had that happen before.

Anyways, yeah, my score is a little wonky in comparison to my games played and the fact that I win about 32-33% given the day, but there are some things to take into consideration. I do play in a lot of tournaments and poo-maker pointed out, and given his check on my scoring, perhaps I should go back to that.

However, keep in mind that a majority of my tournament games are in the 2-player style, which leaves me with little chance to drastically improve my score unless I'm winning at a pretty high percentage, which if you knew the numbers that someone in the G1 clan ran a while back, you would realize is certainly not the case. I guess if I had been winning all those games at 5 or 4 players each I would probably have a better score.

Sully800 is completely correct in his analysis of my medal count. If you take away my tournament medals, I only have 7 of the "normal" ones, although I think I'm pretty close to a couple of others! A massive stack of tournament contribution medals certainly isn't indicative of my gameplay skill, but I like them as they are an example of my "other" skills if you will.

I like to think that if I concentrated exclusively on gameplay here that I could get myself up into the 1700-1900 range after a little while, but I'm not entirely sure if I could go much higher than that. It's an odd experience for me to be sure. I beat down the #10 player yesterday, but then got quickly smacked back into reality by him all over again in another game. What I do know though is that a lot of high ranking players aren't scared to play me from a skill standpoint and that (I think) most of the higher-ups know that I can hold my own for the most part and that my score is just as Iron Butterfly stated, a wonky anomaly.

Anytime you want to play, Iron Butterfly I can round up a couple fellas and we can have a game. Now, if only AAFitz would respond to my challenge for a duel!!

[DiM]

there's a bit of a problem here concerning map rank and tourney games.

for example i have won ~400 points from tourney games. what does that mean? well .... nothing. absolutely nothing about my skill.

take a new recruit and make him play 100 tourney games. he wins some loses some and in the end he gets 400 points.
take a brigadier and make him play the same tourney games as the recruit even if he gets a much bigger winning percentage than the new recruit he'll still lose a lot of points. why well because most people in tourneys have between 1000 and 1600 points.
i'm currently playing in 5 tourneys. i just finished the group stage ending on first place in my group. we played 6 games each with 6 players. i won 4 (which is great, it's 4 times bigger than normal) and yet my point gain was rather low considering i got ~50 points per win but lost ~40 points per loss. in the same conditions a new recruit that would have won just 2 games (half of my wins) would have had a much bigger net gain.

so rank, points, medals or even map rank are useless when it comes to estimating a player's skill.

[gimil]

I just looked at JR24's 1v1 games, those alone give him +2000. says alot to me.

[White Moose]

I just looked at JR24's 1v1 games, those alone give him +2000. says alot to me.

I think that the most part of those are 1v1 freestyles against new players here on CC.. so not really i would say.

edit: checked it, he has a total of 3000(!) 1v1 freestyles, and i think they are almost only against new players.
(Hes 3022+ points from that alone)

He's probably a very good CC player, im not saying he isnt.

[Assassin07]

yes i am lots of turneys my self and i think it is that there are more 1000 to 1600 players but 1vs1 do help

[DiM]

I just looked at JR24's 1v1 games, those alone give him +2000. says alot to me.

it's actually 3012 points profit. remember when he used to say freestyle 1v1 has cost him a few hundred points?

little liar

the fact he gained 3012 points by playing freestyle 1v1 vs noobs plus the fact that he's now down to 1667 points after trying several new maps and game types shows how skilled he really is

and since we're talking about abusers (and liers) let's take a look at klobber

circus maximus: +3059
all other maps: -999

boy i love the map rank. it really shows who's an abuser

[White Moose]

boy i love the map rank. it really shows who's an abuser

Same here lol, but not only for that reason