-EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

[jarrett155]

last 100 games would make it even worse. i am only EQ because of old games. I am rank 40 or so right now. you cant expect me to play all my games with the 39 above me can you? The RR as it is just screws over high ranks but last 100 games would make it worse.

[PepperJack]

I was the one to suggest a rolling avg. In the case of someone like jarrett155, everyone should be capable of seeing that there is not much competition for him. There is, however, plenty of Sergeant + players. Granted that only gives someone like jarrett155 a RR of .400, but he's working off a different circumstance than most players here.

Now max, he will look differently. If he only plays new recruits, his RR will be around .200.

I think its silly to want to create a hard and fast line. The rolling RR, combined with other metrics including pts. game selection, etc. etc. give plenty of fodder for discussion. There is no purely objective way to define this. It might be best summed up by the old US Supreme Court profanity argument.

I know it when I see it.

[porkenbeans]

Relative Rank is a joke - anyone who can't properly understand why it's flawed to take the number and assume it's accurate shouldn't be trying to discuss it. Second, you need to apply relative rank to the person's score - if you even want to use that number in the first place, which would still be flawed.

A person with score 5000 and a relative rank of .75 is going to be better than a person with score 3000 and relative rank .80. Not too hard to figure out. These are all things this porky kid is dismissing, and merely backs it up with "it's all facts, it's just if you can interpret it correctly." FINE. But if you can interpret it correctly, you wouldn't go around boasting that RR means something because the number itself it useless. And trying to create a scoreboard by it is useless as well.

First, I am certainly not a kid. I have been playing RISK for over 40 years. I can not say that I am the best, but I have not played any one that is better. And I have played some of the so called Best here. I am NOT saying that those at the top are bad players, But if you want to claim that you are the best, You can not convince me or any rational person by bullying the little kids. Plain and simple Fab.
Now we can argue back and forth about what is fair. We can continue this debate till the cows come home, but I will continue to post the E.Q. Leaderboard. Your side can simply dismiss it as "meaningless" if you choose. The same way that I and others dismiss the idea that the ones with the most points are the BEST players.
So it comes down to this my friend. You can have your leaderboard, and we will have ours. Instead of battleing back and forth here, I suggest that we take it to the Risk battlefield.
I propose a tournament between our top 10, and your top 10. And, I will politely say "PUT UP OR SHUT UP".

[niMic]

can not say that I am the best, but I have not played any one that is better.

[sully800]

The overall problem (which has been stated repeatedly) is that your map rank will automatically get lower as your score gets higher.

Consider 3 new recruits, all played zero games.

PlayerA plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He wins every single game and has a terrible maprank because as his score goes higher his RR inevitably plummets.

PlayerB plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses every single game yet has a very high relative rank, because as his score gets lower his opponents all become ranked higher.

PlayerC plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses to every player with a score that is above the average and beats every player who has a score below the average. He finishes the day with a maprank of 1.000

Porkenbeans would apparently rate PlayerC as the best for having such an equalitarian RR. However it is clear that PlayerA was the best player (in fact the perfect player). They played all the same opponents, and PlayerA won much more often than PlayerC. Your RR does not determine your skill, it only determines your rank compared to your opponents rank. Nothing more.

It is not noob farming to beat a person who is ranked lower than you. When you are at the top of the scoreboard playing people ranked lower than you is the default. Map rank does not take this into account and any strict interpretation of the RR values is asinine IMO. Map rank IS a very useful tool, and this list is interesting as well because it shows the top players who maintain EQ. Everyone is being judged by the same criteria so it is one way to look at skill. What everyone has a problem with is the notion that players without an EQ status are somehow noob farmers. That is simply not true.

[Artimis]

Sully, I could not have said it better myself.

PorkenBeans, the work you are doing is good work, but I don't think there is any foolproof way to exclude 'false positives' from your system. It's useful for highlighting the chronic farmers in CC, but it can't be taken as the 'be all' and 'end all' of scoreboards.

[porkenbeans]

The overall problem (which has been stated repeatedly) is that your map rank will automatically get lower as your score gets higher.

Consider 3 new recruits, all played zero games.

PlayerA plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He wins every single game and has a terrible maprank because as his score goes higher his RR inevitably plummets.

PlayerB plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses every single game yet has a very high relative rank, because as his score gets lower his opponents all become ranked higher.

PlayerC plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses to every player with a score that is above the average and beats every player who has a score below the average. He finishes the day with a maprank of 1.000

Porkenbeans would apparently rate PlayerC as the best for having such an equalitarian RR. However it is clear that PlayerA was the best player (in fact the perfect player). They played all the same opponents, and PlayerA won much more often than PlayerC. Your RR does not determine your skill, it only determines your rank compared to your opponents rank. Nothing more.

It is not noob farming to beat a person who is ranked lower than you. When you are at the top of the scoreboard playing people ranked lower than you is the default. Map rank does not take this into account and any strict interpretation of the RR values is asinine IMO. Map rank IS a very useful tool, and this list is interesting as well because it shows the top players who maintain EQ. Everyone is being judged by the same criteria so it is one way to look at skill. What everyone has a problem with is the notion that players without an EQ status are somehow noob farmers. That is simply not true.

Sully, I do NOT, NOT, NOT equate rr with skill in any way. This is just the E.Q. leaderboard. All those with E.Q. are eligible. This is a leaderboard for E.Qs' only. If people want to comment on why it is not a good club, then power to them. If someone wants to create one for Noob farmers or point hoarders or even Glads., Power too them. You can consider us a club if you want. You must be in the club to be on our leaderboard, thats all. This thread is not meant as a sugg. or I would have put it in suggs and bugs.
If I had the time I would post a leaderboard for each group, But I don't have The time that it would require. After all I am E.Q. and it is that which I am interested in. So I would just say to those that are not interested in knowing the status of our leaderboard, simply leave us be, or post if you must. We would appreciate the bump. Coming soon - Top 100 E.Qs'

[FabledIntegral]

The overall problem (which has been stated repeatedly) is that your map rank will automatically get lower as your score gets higher.

Consider 3 new recruits, all played zero games.

PlayerA plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He wins every single game and has a terrible maprank because as his score goes higher his RR inevitably plummets.

PlayerB plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses every single game yet has a very high relative rank, because as his score gets lower his opponents all become ranked higher.

PlayerC plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses to every player with a score that is above the average and beats every player who has a score below the average. He finishes the day with a maprank of 1.000

Porkenbeans would apparently rate PlayerC as the best for having such an equalitarian RR. However it is clear that PlayerA was the best player (in fact the perfect player). They played all the same opponents, and PlayerA won much more often than PlayerC. Your RR does not determine your skill, it only determines your rank compared to your opponents rank. Nothing more.

It is not noob farming to beat a person who is ranked lower than you. When you are at the top of the scoreboard playing people ranked lower than you is the default. Map rank does not take this into account and any strict interpretation of the RR values is asinine IMO. Map rank IS a very useful tool, and this list is interesting as well because it shows the top players who maintain EQ. Everyone is being judged by the same criteria so it is one way to look at skill. What everyone has a problem with is the notion that players without an EQ status are somehow noob farmers. That is simply not true.

Sully, I do NOT, NOT, NOT equate rr with skill in any way. This is just the E.Q. leaderboard. All those with E.Q. are eligible. This is a leaderboard for E.Qs' only. If people want to comment on why it is not a good club, then power to them. If someone wants to create one for Noob farmers or point hoarders or even Glads., Power too them. You can consider us a club if you want. You must be in the club to be on our leaderboard, thats all. This thread is not meant as a sugg. or I would have put it in suggs and bugs.
If I had the time I would post a leaderboard for each group, But I don't have The time that it would require. After all I am E.Q. and it is that which I am interested in. So I would just say to those that are not interested in knowing the status of our leaderboard, simply leave us be, or post if you must. We would appreciate the bump. Coming soon - Top 100 E.Qs'

It's hilarious - do you even understand that Jarrett155 or whatever his name is just recently hit Brig, and played lieutenants at average, or played 8-man games, the same ones I did? We played in the exact same games, I won significantly more than him, with teh same players. Yet he was a lower rank, thus his RR got higher. NOw recently he's managed to get his score up by whatever means he chose. We were in the exact same games each time with the exact same people. Yet his RR is higher. Who's the better player? Case in point - it's dumb.

You say it's bullying but you are in fact going beyond the fact that the only EQ players generally are

1. Doubles/Triples/Quads plaeyrs
2. Players that only play within a small group of players

It's merely a way of playing the system, just like everything else - you're too blind to see it.

[porkenbeans]

The overall problem (which has been stated repeatedly) is that your map rank will automatically get lower as your score gets higher.

Consider 3 new recruits, all played zero games.

PlayerA plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He wins every single game and has a terrible maprank because as his score goes higher his RR inevitably plummets.

PlayerB plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses every single game yet has a very high relative rank, because as his score gets lower his opponents all become ranked higher.

PlayerC plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses to every player with a score that is above the average and beats every player who has a score below the average. He finishes the day with a maprank of 1.000

Porkenbeans would apparently rate PlayerC as the best for having such an equalitarian RR. However it is clear that PlayerA was the best player (in fact the perfect player). They played all the same opponents, and PlayerA won much more often than PlayerC. Your RR does not determine your skill, it only determines your rank compared to your opponents rank. Nothing more.

It is not noob farming to beat a person who is ranked lower than you. When you are at the top of the scoreboard playing people ranked lower than you is the default. Map rank does not take this into account and any strict interpretation of the RR values is asinine IMO. Map rank IS a very useful tool, and this list is interesting as well because it shows the top players who maintain EQ. Everyone is being judged by the same criteria so it is one way to look at skill. What everyone has a problem with is the notion that players without an EQ status are somehow noob farmers. That is simply not true.

Sully, I do NOT, NOT, NOT equate rr with skill in any way. This is just the E.Q. leaderboard. All those with E.Q. are eligible. This is a leaderboard for E.Qs' only. If people want to comment on why it is not a good club, then power to them. If someone wants to create one for Noob farmers or point hoarders or even Glads., Power too them. You can consider us a club if you want. You must be in the club to be on our leaderboard, thats all. This thread is not meant as a sugg. or I would have put it in suggs and bugs.
If I had the time I would post a leaderboard for each group, But I don't have The time that it would require. After all I am E.Q. and it is that which I am interested in. So I would just say to those that are not interested in knowing the status of our leaderboard, simply leave us be, or post if you must. We would appreciate the bump. Coming soon - Top 100 E.Qs'

It's hilarious - do you even understand that Jarrett155 or whatever his name is just recently hit Brig, and played lieutenants at average, or played 8-man games, the same ones I did? We played in the exact same games, I won significantly more than him, with teh same players. Yet he was a lower rank, thus his RR got higher. NOw recently he's managed to get his score up by whatever means he chose. We were in the exact same games each time with the exact same people. Yet his RR is higher. Who's the better player? Case in point - it's dumb.

You say it's bullying but you are in fact going beyond the fact that the only EQ players generally are

1. Doubles/Triples/Quads plaeyrs
2. Players that only play within a small group of players

It's merely a way of playing the system, just like everything else - you're too blind to see it.

Your facts are wrong. I am none of the above, and I am E.Q.
But maybe you did not read the thread. This is a scoreboard for E.Q.s' This is not a sugg. The merits of this scoreboard might be offered by you if you wish in your own thread. This is only a place for E.Q.s to find out there standings amongst each other. It is not a place for your tired arguments about the fact that RR means nothing. Well maybe not to you. But to many it does. So, if you are not interested in the top E.Q.s' then I suggest that you not click this thread.'
If you cant see the wisdom there, maybe it is you that is blind.

[FabledIntegral]

The overall problem (which has been stated repeatedly) is that your map rank will automatically get lower as your score gets higher.

Consider 3 new recruits, all played zero games.

PlayerA plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He wins every single game and has a terrible maprank because as his score goes higher his RR inevitably plummets.

PlayerB plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses every single game yet has a very high relative rank, because as his score gets lower his opponents all become ranked higher.

PlayerC plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses to every player with a score that is above the average and beats every player who has a score below the average. He finishes the day with a maprank of 1.000

Porkenbeans would apparently rate PlayerC as the best for having such an equalitarian RR. However it is clear that PlayerA was the best player (in fact the perfect player). They played all the same opponents, and PlayerA won much more often than PlayerC. Your RR does not determine your skill, it only determines your rank compared to your opponents rank. Nothing more.

It is not noob farming to beat a person who is ranked lower than you. When you are at the top of the scoreboard playing people ranked lower than you is the default. Map rank does not take this into account and any strict interpretation of the RR values is asinine IMO. Map rank IS a very useful tool, and this list is interesting as well because it shows the top players who maintain EQ. Everyone is being judged by the same criteria so it is one way to look at skill. What everyone has a problem with is the notion that players without an EQ status are somehow noob farmers. That is simply not true.

Sully, I do NOT, NOT, NOT equate rr with skill in any way. This is just the E.Q. leaderboard. All those with E.Q. are eligible. This is a leaderboard for E.Qs' only. If people want to comment on why it is not a good club, then power to them. If someone wants to create one for Noob farmers or point hoarders or even Glads., Power too them. You can consider us a club if you want. You must be in the club to be on our leaderboard, thats all. This thread is not meant as a sugg. or I would have put it in suggs and bugs.
If I had the time I would post a leaderboard for each group, But I don't have The time that it would require. After all I am E.Q. and it is that which I am interested in. So I would just say to those that are not interested in knowing the status of our leaderboard, simply leave us be, or post if you must. We would appreciate the bump. Coming soon - Top 100 E.Qs'

It's hilarious - do you even understand that Jarrett155 or whatever his name is just recently hit Brig, and played lieutenants at average, or played 8-man games, the same ones I did? We played in the exact same games, I won significantly more than him, with teh same players. Yet he was a lower rank, thus his RR got higher. NOw recently he's managed to get his score up by whatever means he chose. We were in the exact same games each time with the exact same people. Yet his RR is higher. Who's the better player? Case in point - it's dumb.

You say it's bullying but you are in fact going beyond the fact that the only EQ players generally are

1. Doubles/Triples/Quads plaeyrs
2. Players that only play within a small group of players

It's merely a way of playing the system, just like everything else - you're too blind to see it.

Your facts are wrong. I am none of the above, and I am E.Q.
But maybe you did not read the thread. This is a scoreboard for E.Q.s' This is not a sugg. The merits of this scoreboard might be offered by you if you wish in your own thread. This is only a place for E.Q.s to find out there standings amongst each other. It is not a place for your tired arguments about the fact that RR means nothing. Well maybe not to you. But to many it does. So, if you are not interested in the top E.Q.s' then I suggest that you not click this thread.'
If you cant see the wisdom there, maybe it is you that is blind.

Irrelevant as it may be - I doubt you're a good player.

And I was referring to top players - there are many cooks that are EQ - which means nothing. You didn't address the point whatsoever about the major flaws in your scoreboards. Unless Jarrett has gotten significantly better - that is. But tell me, say Jarrett and I play 1000 games together in 8man games - which leads me to a relative rank of .6 and him a relative rank of 1.00. We play in them TOGETHER. I win much more than he. Later on, he becomes a brigadier, and goes down to a RR of .95. Who's the better player? He has EQ rating, I have .6 still. That IS what happens with high ranks most of the time.

Nearly 100% of my posts I've made - you haven't even addressed the points, and merely try to say "oh but you are wrong." Post some substance for one kid - stop trying to turn my argument around without backing it up - at least I'm presenting facts, those of which you completely ignore.

[sully800]

Alright, sounds cool to me then porkenbeans. As I said, I see the value in this list, just like I see the value in all of Blitz's record lists. They don't necessarily mean these are the best players or anything similar, it is just one set of data and one particular record. You definitely need to look at a larger picture to encompass a players skill and I'm glad that you do understand that (I thought you did, the vibe of this thread just threw me off a bit!)

Basically, when you are telling players to shoot for EQ status you are just suggesting it as a way for them to qualify for this particular list...not telling them to become EQ because otherwise they are not as skilled. I think many people interpreted it to be the latter which is why you caught so much flack.

[sully800]

And I think the most interesting point about this list was just brought up: It is hard to reach ever higher scores while maintaining and EQ status the whole time.

On the other hand it is easy to play hundreds of games at a low rank, and then advance your score quickly. This will give you a high score with a high RR because the majority of the games you played were during a low ranking period, but your current score is high. I don't think players would intentionally try to make this happen, but it is interesting that many of the top EQ players may have come from this situation.

[porkenbeans]

Alright, sounds cool to me then porkenbeans. As I said, I see the value in this list, just like I see the value in all of Blitz's record lists. They don't necessarily mean these are the best players or anything similar, it is just one set of data and one particular record. You definitely need to look at a larger picture to encompass a players skill and I'm glad that you do understand that (I thought you did, the vibe of this thread just threw me off a bit!)

Basically, when you are telling players to shoot for EQ status you are just suggesting it as a way for them to qualify for this particular list...not telling them to become EQ because otherwise they are not as skilled. I think many people interpreted it to be the latter which is why you caught so much flack.

FINALLY, You are indeed starting to understand me. Thank you Sully.

[sully800]

Sorry that you received 6 pages of confusion then!

I think many people will view this page more amicably if they understand its true purpose.

[porkenbeans]

The overall problem (which has been stated repeatedly) is that your map rank will automatically get lower as your score gets higher.

Consider 3 new recruits, all played zero games.

PlayerA plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He wins every single game and has a terrible maprank because as his score goes higher his RR inevitably plummets.

PlayerB plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses every single game yet has a very high relative rank, because as his score gets lower his opponents all become ranked higher.

PlayerC plays a game against every person on the scoreboard. He loses to every player with a score that is above the average and beats every player who has a score below the average. He finishes the day with a maprank of 1.000

Porkenbeans would apparently rate PlayerC as the best for having such an equalitarian RR. However it is clear that PlayerA was the best player (in fact the perfect player). They played all the same opponents, and PlayerA won much more often than PlayerC. Your RR does not determine your skill, it only determines your rank compared to your opponents rank. Nothing more.

It is not noob farming to beat a person who is ranked lower than you. When you are at the top of the scoreboard playing people ranked lower than you is the default. Map rank does not take this into account and any strict interpretation of the RR values is asinine IMO. Map rank IS a very useful tool, and this list is interesting as well because it shows the top players who maintain EQ. Everyone is being judged by the same criteria so it is one way to look at skill. What everyone has a problem with is the notion that players without an EQ status are somehow noob farmers. That is simply not true.

Sully, I do NOT, NOT, NOT equate rr with skill in any way. This is just the E.Q. leaderboard. All those with E.Q. are eligible. This is a leaderboard for E.Qs' only. If people want to comment on why it is not a good club, then power to them. If someone wants to create one for Noob farmers or point hoarders or even Glads., Power too them. You can consider us a club if you want. You must be in the club to be on our leaderboard, thats all. This thread is not meant as a sugg. or I would have put it in suggs and bugs.
If I had the time I would post a leaderboard for each group, But I don't have The time that it would require. After all I am E.Q. and it is that which I am interested in. So I would just say to those that are not interested in knowing the status of our leaderboard, simply leave us be, or post if you must. We would appreciate the bump. Coming soon - Top 100 E.Qs'

It's hilarious - do you even understand that Jarrett155 or whatever his name is just recently hit Brig, and played lieutenants at average, or played 8-man games, the same ones I did? We played in the exact same games, I won significantly more than him, with teh same players. Yet he was a lower rank, thus his RR got higher. NOw recently he's managed to get his score up by whatever means he chose. We were in the exact same games each time with the exact same people. Yet his RR is higher. Who's the better player? Case in point - it's dumb.

You say it's bullying but you are in fact going beyond the fact that the only EQ players generally are

1. Doubles/Triples/Quads plaeyrs
2. Players that only play within a small group of players

It's merely a way of playing the system, just like everything else - you're too blind to see it.

Your facts are wrong. I am none of the above, and I am E.Q.
But maybe you did not read the thread. This is a scoreboard for E.Q.s' This is not a sugg. The merits of this scoreboard might be offered by you if you wish in your own thread. This is only a place for E.Q.s to find out there standings amongst each other. It is not a place for your tired arguments about the fact that RR means nothing. Well maybe not to you. But to many it does. So, if you are not interested in the top E.Q.s' then I suggest that you not click this thread.'
If you cant see the wisdom there, maybe it is you that is blind.

Irrelevant as it may be - I doubt you're a good player.

And I was referring to top players - there are many cooks that are EQ - which means nothing. You didn't address the point whatsoever about the major flaws in your scoreboards. Unless Jarrett has gotten significantly better - that is. But tell me, say Jarrett and I play 1000 games together in 8man games - which leads me to a relative rank of .6 and him a relative rank of 1.00. We play in them TOGETHER. I win much more than he. Later on, he becomes a brigadier, and goes down to a RR of .95. Who's the better player? He has EQ rating, I have .6 still. That IS what happens with high ranks most of the time.

Nearly 100% of my posts I've made - you haven't even addressed the points, and merely try to say "oh but you are wrong." Post some substance for one kid - stop trying to turn my argument around without backing it up - at least I'm presenting facts, those of which you completely ignore.

Forgive me, I do not always know just how to respond to gobbledygook. I do appreciate the bumps though.
OK, I will try to respond to your points. First, there is no flaw in my scoreboard. These are the top 10 E.Q. players. That is fact. All of your reasons for not being on it, is not my concern. You are probably a good payer. And because of your choices of games, settings, or whatever, you are not an E.Q. All of your protest about RR this and RR that, is only saying that you put no stock in RR. That is fine with me. I am not trying to change your mind. You can believe whatever you choose. But, this is the E.Q. leaderboard. It is only a stat. How you interpret it along with all the other stats and records is for everyone to choose for themselves. You can ask 10 different people, What makes the best Risk player. and you will get back 10 different answers.
I will say to you again, THIS IS THE E.Q. LEADERBOARD. If you or anyone else wants to know who is on the top, just come here. Not everyone can make it to this list. it is very hard to do. Especially for the top rank players. Hell only 10 in the top 40 are on it. I wonder if we will ever see an E.Q. make it to Conquer ? These are the kind of discussions That I am concerned with in this thread. Not your views on RR. That is a moot point my friend. You can start a thread on that topic if you wish. I may even chime in if I think it worth my time.

[FarangDemon]

Fabled:

Which kind of ranking system do you prefer?

A) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats player ranked number 2
B) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats other lower ranked players more often than Player ranked number 2 does.

ConquerClub currently implements System B, allowing farmers to rise to the top.

The purpose of this thread is to create a competitive scoreboard that aspires to System A by implementing a policy on each player that takes into account the relative ranks of their opponents. If you beat players your rank or near your rank you show that have satisfied the condition of System A.

If you don't like System A just say so. Only then this isn't really about faults of RR - it is about the bigger picture of your definition of competitiveness, where competitiveness just means beating lower ranked players instead of peers.

[Aradhus]

How is a player expected to play against players above them in the scoreboard, when you are telling players not to play anyone below them?

Talk about clueless.

If anything, this equilitarian status reveals to us those snobby players that won't play anybody beneath them on the scoreboard(mostly because it means losing more points when defeated). Elitism at its worst.

[porkenbeans]

How is a player expected to play against players above them in the scoreboard, when you are telling players not to play anyone below them?

Talk about clueless.

If anything, this equilitarian status reveals to us those snooby players that won't play anybody beneath them on the scoreboard(mostly because it means losing more points when defeated). Elitism at its worst.

I have not told players anything of the sort. Most of my games are started by me in open public games. But when I do enter a game, I do look for the highest ranks. Yes, for the points. Talk about clueless. And also I enjoy playing others that give me a challenge. If I only cared about points however, I would be farming Noobs. But alas, I like to play RISK.

[FabledIntegral]

Fabled:

Which kind of ranking system do you prefer?

A) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats player ranked number 2
B) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats other lower ranked players more often than Player ranked number 2 does.

ConquerClub currently implements System B, allowing farmers to rise to the top.

The purpose of this thread is to create a competitive scoreboard that aspires to System A by implementing a policy on each player that takes into account the relative ranks of their opponents. If you beat players your rank or near your rank you show that have satisfied the condition of System A.

If you don't like System A just say so. Only then this isn't really about faults of RR - it is about the bigger picture of your definition of competitiveness, where competitiveness just means beating lower ranked players instead of peers.

That's NOT how it turns out however. RR is so screwed because it doesn't tell you the average rank of your opponent, rather the average rank of your opponent RELATIVE to your own score. That is the problem. If it only kept the rank of the opponent - it would be a fine way to measure. However - my point about Jarrett hasn't been refuted nor even addressed.

Thus your proposed "Player rank 1 playing Player rank 2" is completely irrelevant to your Relative rank and EQ status. EQ status is based directly on RR.

[Aradhus]

How is a player expected to play against players above them in the scoreboard, when you are telling players not to play anyone below them?

Talk about clueless.

If anything, this equilitarian status reveals to us those snooby players that won't play anybody beneath them on the scoreboard(mostly because it means losing more points when defeated). Elitism at its worst.

I have not told players anything of the sort.

In this topic..several times..

[FabledIntegral]

How is a player expected to play against players above them in the scoreboard, when you are telling players not to play anyone below them?

Talk about clueless.

If anything, this equilitarian status reveals to us those snooby players that won't play anybody beneath them on the scoreboard(mostly because it means losing more points when defeated). Elitism at its worst.

I have not told players anything of the sort. Most of my games are started by me in open public games. But when I do enter a game, I do look for the highest ranks. Yes, for the points. Talk about clueless. And also I enjoy playing others that give me a challenge. If I only cared about points however, I would be farming Noobs. But alas, I like to play RISK.

Ok - hypothetical situation - you're now at 3500 points. You still host the exact same public games. You play the exact same competition. You're now a noob farmer instead of an EQ. Thus if you want EQ you can't play public games, they HAVE to be private. Private games keep players in the same pool. Case in point.

[porkenbeans]

How is a player expected to play against players above them in the scoreboard, when you are telling players not to play anyone below them?

Talk about clueless.

If anything, this equilitarian status reveals to us those snooby players that won't play anybody beneath them on the scoreboard(mostly because it means losing more points when defeated). Elitism at its worst.

I have not told players anything of the sort. Most of my games are started by me in open public games. But when I do enter a game, I do look for the highest ranks. Yes, for the points. Talk about clueless. And also I enjoy playing others that give me a challenge. If I only cared about points however, I would be farming Noobs. But alas, I like to play RISK.

Ok - hypothetical situation - you're now at 3500 points. You still host the exact same public games. You play the exact same competition. You're now a noob farmer instead of an EQ. Thus if you want EQ you can't play public games, they HAVE to be private. Private games keep players in the same pool. Case in point.

By same pool, you mean same rank, dont you. If you are among the best, you SHOULD be wanting to play others of the same caliber as yourself. Or is every sport that I can think of, ...wrong ?

[porkenbeans]

Fabled:

Which kind of ranking system do you prefer?

A) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats player ranked number 2
B) Player ranked number 1 consistently beats other lower ranked players more often than Player ranked number 2 does.

ConquerClub currently implements System B, allowing farmers to rise to the top.

The purpose of this thread is to create a competitive scoreboard that aspires to System A by implementing a policy on each player that takes into account the relative ranks of their opponents. If you beat players your rank or near your rank you show that have satisfied the condition of System A.

If you don't like System A just say so. Only then this isn't really about faults of RR - it is about the bigger picture of your definition of competitiveness, where competitiveness just means beating lower ranked players instead of peers.

That's NOT how it turns out however. RR is so screwed because it doesn't tell you the average rank of your opponent, rather the average rank of your opponent RELATIVE to your own score. That is the problem. If it only kept the rank of the opponent - it would be a fine way to measure. However - my point about Jarrett hasn't been refuted nor even addressed.

Thus your proposed "Player rank 1 playing Player rank 2" is completely irrelevant to your Relative rank and EQ status. EQ status is based directly on RR.

You should think about taking your argument to chip. He wrote Map Rank, not me. I do not know what formula he used, and I do not care. I am only playing the reporter. Truth be known, I too have some issues with M.R. but this is the tool that i have to work with. so it will continue to be the source for the post.

[Artimis]

By same pool, you mean same rank, dont you. If you are among the best, you SHOULD be wanting to play others of the same caliber as yourself. Or is every sport that I can think of, ...wrong ?

So this would rule out tournaments as well, you will find players of equal calibre there but not necessarily of equal rank. As for the Conquerer of CC, who is he/she going to play against to maintain his/her RR? You're at the top, no one is above or equal to your rank, now who can you play beside players of lower rank?

[porkenbeans]

By same pool, you mean same rank, dont you. If you are among the best, you SHOULD be wanting to play others of the same caliber as yourself. Or is every sport that I can think of, ...wrong ?

So this would rule out tournaments as well, you will find players of equal calibre there but not necessarily of equal rank. As for the Conquerer of CC, who is he/she going to play against to maintain his/her RR? You're at the top, no one is above or equal to your rank, now who can you play beside players of lower rank?

What in the hell is wrong with you ?
THIS IS NOT TRYING TO REPLACE THE LEADERBOARD . It is merely just another set of stats for you to use in your own personal quest to the top. If it does not interest you, why are you wasting your time responding to a stat., like the facts should change or not be shown altogether, because you don't happen to like them.