Conquer Club

The only map I might get close to 100 games on is the random map..

AAFitz wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:I like to think I'm doing well on New World.

New World Sergeant +387 84 from 135(62%) 68 Serial Killer (62%)69 Equalitarian (0.918)

It's the Equalitarian part that is important for boasting rights.

86

Yes I agree, Your EQ. status is the true measure, if you want to know if someone is a Farmer or not.

except that the EQ is very dependent upon the rank you had while winning the games. To say someone with 3000 points at all times playing 1v1s is somehow more of a farmer than someone who happens to only maintain 1500 points while playing them is ridiculous.

The rating alone means nothing.Its just as easy to manipulate your EQ as it is to farm. The rating alone means nothing... the average or median rank of your opponent would be a better measure, and even that changes, because some really good players have low ranks at times.

It does mean something. You just need to know how to interpret the info. A very high rank will always tend to keep a slightly lower RR. As you climb up into the higher ranks, the pool of players are gradually going to fall below your rank. This is going to lower your RR as you climb the ranks, but, it is NOT going to lower it to the point of noob farmer.



My case is a prime example of this. Most all of my games are started by me, and I have no say as to who joins them. So, the average rank of my opponents have stayed the same, but my rank has gone up. I do not know what my RR is now, but I will bet that I am still an EQ., or close to it.

You are not a prime example though, because many have ranks far better than major...hell, major is a low rank...when i drop this low, I use the opportunity to gain points on maps. Those at the top of the scoreboard will always look like noob farmers because their score is so high. It is only the rank of the opponents that truly matters. Your rank at the time is irrelevant to your skill, and easily manipulated, so it is for all intensive purposes, not a good stat.

And I am a prime example, because I have 7 or 8000 points on world, but If I only ever played world, and didnt lose lots, and lots on other maps, my relative rank would be ridiculous, and I possibly would not even have won any points even at 75% win rate.

No I am indeed a prim example of what I was getting at. You see, because I have started most of my games, the average rank of my opponents is always going to pretty much stay the same. I am not picking and choosing.
Those at the top will not always look like noob Farmers. Their RR will not be as high as it was when they were in the lower ranks, but their RR will clearly show if they are farming noobs or not.

A while back I started the EQ Leaderboard. I included only the top scoring 100 EQ's. There were a number of players that were at the top of the CC leaderboard that kept an EQ status. There were quite a few that I am afraid will never be able to be on the EQ top 100. Players like herps have just played too many games exclusively against noobs.

RR is the determining factor to evaluate if someone is a "Noob Farmer" or not. You just need to understand how to interpret the stats.

Close to 500
Age Of Realms 2 - 207 from 338 (61%) Equalitarian (0.900)
Overall 1v1 Sequential - 422 from 790 (53%) Equalitarian (0.932)

I haven't played more than 150 or so 1vs1 sequential---and thus, I've played only a couple of 1vs1 maps, but for the totality I'm pretty sure I'm over 55%, may close to 60% win rates with a couple I have going now that are close to finishing.


--Andy

porkenbeans wrote:
A while back I started the EQ Leaderboard. I included only the top scoring 100 EQ's. There were a number of players that were at the top of the CC leaderboard that kept an EQ status. There were quite a few that I am afraid will never be able to be on the EQ top 100. Players like herps have just played too many games exclusively against noobs.

RR is the determining factor to evaluate if someone is a "Noob Farmer" or not. You just need to understand how to interpret the stats.

No. Your math is simply wrong. And its you misinterpreting them. If you have 4000 points, playing against people with 2000 points is the same as someone with 3000 points farming people with 1000 points. They are playing majors, and the brigs are playing brand new noobs, but the RR will be the exact same, and one is clearly not a noob farmer, and one is nothing but.

The RR means nearly nothing by itself, it as a relative number, which is easily manipulated. Only the scores of your opponents matter. I do understand how to interpret the stats, and they are interpreted as relative, and nothing more useful than that.

It is so easly manipulated as to be worthless. Mageplunka is the best example of this... He plays other maps and loses tons of points... the then goes to doodle underanked and wins tons of points and RR stays relatively normal. But hes practically dumping in other games to get those points, and keep that ratio down. On any given map the RR is pointless because it is so easily manipulated. The opponents score however is not, and is the key to deciding if someone is farming on a map, and not their relative rank, which by definition, is just relative.

Overall it is a much more useful stat, but for using it to guage one map, it is almost completely useless information.

Farming is farming of new players, and the occasional bad one perhaps....but RR makes anyone playing low scores look like noob farmers, and that is not the case on any given map. It can also make some look like equilitarians, when they are in fact noob farming.

AAFitz wrote:No. Your math is simply wrong. And its you misinterpreting them. If you have 4000 points, playing against people with 2000 points is the same as someone with 3000 points farming people with 1000 points.

You lost me right there. I think you're the one that is wrong.

4000 playing 2000 is a .500 rank. 3000 playing 1000 is a .333 rank.

Bones2484 wrote:

AAFitz wrote:No. Your math is simply wrong. And its you misinterpreting them. If you have 4000 points, playing against people with 2000 points is the same as someone with 3000 points farming people with 1000 points.

You lost me right there. I think you're the one that is wrong.

4000 playing 2000 is a .500 rank. 3000 playing 1000 is a .333 rank.

Well its the same points... but again the person playing the major is only at half rank, when he is playing a major, which is why it is pointless. If hes playing a major, it looks like hes noob farming, and clearly he is not.

but 5000 vs 2000 would have been a better analogy obviously. The point is the same regardless though. Its relative, easily manipulated and pointless when using one map RR.

Your score has nothing to do with whether you are noob farming...only the scores of the opponents and whether you are actually farming does.

Either way, RR has nothing to do with this thread, because its about winning percent on 1v1, not the usefulness of Relative rank.

58 of 98 on classic 59%

I am afraid that you do not understand what I am trying to get across to you.

I am only saying that RR stats are only one, of a myriad of various categories of statistics.
There are many different factors that need to be included when performing an evaluation. You yourself have listed a few.

Others include,

Rank
# games played
# maps played
types of settings
average # of players per game
unique defeats
win ratio
...etc

There are many things to consider when you evaluate a players skill. RR is just one, but it is one of the first things that I look at after the rank.

If I was trying to determine if someone was a Noob Farmer or not, and I was only given two sets of facts, I would want them to be, Their rank, and their RR. While not perfect, the analysis would be somewhat sound.

I am aware that a players RR will suffer as he climbs toward the top of the leaderboard. Yes this is simple math, but a real Farmers RR, will absolutely be crushed. These players stick out like a sore thumb, if you know how to read the data. I am talking about the numbers, NOT the designations that chip uses.

Hmm... only one map with over 100 games. Classic - 171 games (win percentage 85%). And with a relative rank of 0.439 so, please feel free to pee on my parade...

porkenbeans wrote:I am afraid that you do not understand what I am trying to get across to you.

I am only saying that RR stats are only one, of a myriad of various categories of statistics.
There are many different factors that need to be included when performing an evaluation. You yourself have listed a few.

Others include,

Rank
# games played
# maps played
types of settings
average # of players per game
unique defeats
win ratio
...etc

There are many things to consider when you evaluate a players skill. RR is just one, but it is one of the first things that I look at after the rank.

If I was trying to determine if someone was a Noob Farmer or not, and I was only given two sets of facts, I would want them to be, Their rank, and their RR. While not perfect, the analysis would be somewhat sound.

I am aware that a players RR will suffer as he climbs toward the top of the leaderboard. Yes this is simple math, but a real Farmers RR, will absolutely be crushed. These players stick out like a sore thumb, if you know how to read the data. I am talking about the numbers, NOT the designations that chip uses.

No and again, since you can change your score before winning on any individual map, its all pointless, and even more so than this discussion. Overall the RR is fine, but on any individual map, as we are discussing in this thread, the RR is not relevant, because its based on your score upon time of winning, which can easily be lower than it should be, so much so, as to be pointless. I know, because I only play world games when my score is low, and therefore, my RR is artificially low. But at the same time, Im not a complete farmer, because im setting up games, not joining, and the complement of real players is substantial enough.

alstergren wrote:Hmm... only one map with over 100 games. Classic - 171 games (win percentage 85%). And with a relative rank of 0.439 so, please feel free to pee on my parade...

That is so bad its hysterical.

KraphtOne wrote:Classic Sergeant69 +331 399 from 718(56%) 337 Serial Killer (56%)558 Equalitarian (0.942

Arms Race! Sergeant88 +312 383 from 654(59%) 206 Serial Killer (59%)430 Equalitarian (0.890)

1vs1 sequential on this site blows...

since many have higher win rates than this, some much higher...it may not be the site that blows.

That being said, your rate on arms race is much better than mine, and ill even bet classic is...or at least could be.

AAFitz wrote:

alstergren wrote:Hmm... only one map with over 100 games. Classic - 171 games (win percentage 85%). And with a relative rank of 0.439 so, please feel free to pee on my parade...

That is so bad its hysterical.

Well, the thing is that I never play 1v1 seq. on Classic unless my current score is at least 3,000 or above...

alstergren wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

alstergren wrote:Hmm... only one map with over 100 games. Classic - 171 games (win percentage 85%). And with a relative rank of 0.439 so, please feel free to pee on my parade...

That is so bad its hysterical.

Well, the thing is that I never play 1v1 seq. on Classic unless my current score is at least 3,000 or above...

Honestly at 85% win on sequential after so few games, I dont even care how you did it...though you may need the disclaimer: Some noobs were harmed in the making of these stats.

AAFitz wrote:Honestly at 85% win on sequential after so few games, I dont even care how you did it...though you may need the disclaimer: Some noobs were harmed in the making of these stats.

LOL. Yeah, that much is obvious. Don't like Classic that much, never have. On 1v1's and with that relative rank, I'd assume that most games have been player's one would start humming the Jaws sound track to...

alstergren wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Honestly at 85% win on sequential after so few games, I dont even care how you did it...though you may need the disclaimer: Some noobs were harmed in the making of these stats.

LOL. Yeah, that much is obvious. Don't like Classic that much, never have. On 1v1's and with that relative rank, I'd assume that most games have been player's one would start humming the Jaws sound track to...

well, i have a few games to go on das schloss, but theres no way I can hit 85% on it...though I think the first 6 or 7 went well.

I feel like I’m on Oprah telling about my love for my cousin – I thought Benelux was my dirty little secret.

BeNeLux Lieutenant +627 177 from 253 (70%) 149 Serial Killer (70%) Point Hoarder (0.780)

After that it goes right down:

Classic Private 1st Class 68 +32 73 from 122(60%) 62 Serial Killer (60%) Equalitarian (0.835)

Egypt: Upper Corporal 1st Class 36 +264 54 from 81(67%) 45 Serial Killer (67%) Equalitarian (0.846)

How does relative rank work? Is it relative to your rank now or relative to the rank when you played the game? Hoping it's the former, as I was a lot lower ranked, probably averaging captain, when I used to play 1on1s.

laughingcavalier wrote:I feel like I’m on Oprah telling about my love for my cousin – I thought Benelux was my dirty little secret.

BeNeLux Lieutenant +627 177 from 253 (70%) 149 Serial Killer (70%) Point Hoarder (0.780)

After that it goes right down:

Classic Private 1st Class 68 +32 73 from 122(60%) 62 Serial Killer (60%) Equalitarian (0.835)

Egypt: Upper Corporal 1st Class 36 +264 54 from 81(67%) 45 Serial Killer (67%) Equalitarian (0.846)

How does relative rank work? Is it relative to your rank now or relative to the rank when you played the game? Hoping it's the former, as I was a lot lower ranked, probably averaging captain, when I used to play 1on1s.

RR I believe measures the difference between your rank, and your opponents ranks, at the time of the game. So you can determine what the average level of skill that you play against, overall. So for instance if you play only Noobs, your RR will be in the toilet. If you play only higher ranks than yourself, win or loose, you will have a very high RR.

I play all comers in mostly 1v1's, so my RR would be average or below average, but I make up for it by joining games against higher ranks. As you get towards the top of the leaderboard, there is the hazard that your RR will suffer greatly. So, If you are concerned about your RR, you must then play mostly equal or higher ranks. This is usually a natural thing for most to do anyways because most people want to play a challenging game. That is unless you are a Noob Farmer. Then you will endure the hundreds of mind numbing games, against clueless noobs that make the mistake of starting freestyle games. Some Noob Farmers can rack over 200 straight wins this way. However there are players at the top of the leaderboard that do indeed maintain an EQ status. They rarely play against low ranked players.

So basically if you try to play challenging games against equally skilled players, you can have fun, and still maintain a high RR.

Jesus, didn't we all have this exact same boring conversation a year ago? Can we please move on from RR?

AAFitz wrote:Player...none over 500 but many over or close to 100

Age Of Merchants1 Sergeant23 +377 83 from 154(54%)
Age Of Realms 1 Corporal10 +190 68 from 135(50%) 57
Age Of Realms 225 Major202 +1298 696 from 1300(54%)
Arms Race!5 Corporal 1st Class79 +221 160 from 312(51%)
Bamboo Jack Sergeant42 +358 47 from 70(67%)
City Mogul Corporal 1st Class31 +269 48 from 84(57%)
Classic1 Cadet85 -185 98 from 203(48%)
Feudal War9 Cook533 -733 144 from 302(48%)
New World1 Corporal 1st Class48 +252 75 from 125(60%)
Pearl Harbor7 Lieutenant26 +774 97 from 149(65%)
Peloponnesian War Cadet74 -174 54 from 111(49%)
Saint Patricks Day Cadet42 -142 48 from 106(45%)

Thanks for checking!

Incandenza wrote:Jesus, didn't we all have this exact same boring conversation a year ago? Can we please move on from RR?

Too true!!!

Mr Changsha wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Jesus, didn't we all have this exact same boring conversation a year ago? Can we please move on from RR?

Too true!!!

I tried, i really did.

porkenbeans wrote:

laughingcavalier wrote:I feel like I’m on Oprah telling about my love for my cousin – I thought Benelux was my dirty little secret.

BeNeLux Lieutenant +627 177 from 253 (70%) 149 Serial Killer (70%) Point Hoarder (0.780)

After that it goes right down:

Classic Private 1st Class 68 +32 73 from 122(60%) 62 Serial Killer (60%) Equalitarian (0.835)

Egypt: Upper Corporal 1st Class 36 +264 54 from 81(67%) 45 Serial Killer (67%) Equalitarian (0.846)

How does relative rank work? Is it relative to your rank now or relative to the rank when you played the game? Hoping it's the former, as I was a lot lower ranked, probably averaging captain, when I used to play 1on1s.

RR I believe measures the difference between your rank, and your opponents ranks, at the time of the game. So you can determine what the average level of skill that you play against, overall. So for instance if you play only Noobs, your RR will be in the toilet. If you play only higher ranks than yourself, win or loose, you will have a very high RR.

I play all comers in mostly 1v1's, so my RR would be average or below average, but I make up for it by joining games against higher ranks. As you get towards the top of the leaderboard, there is the hazard that your RR will suffer greatly. So, If you are concerned about your RR, you must then play mostly equal or higher ranks. This is usually a natural thing for most to do anyways because most people want to play a challenging game. That is unless you are a Noob Farmer. Then you will endure the hundreds of mind numbing games, against clueless noobs that make the mistake of starting freestyle games. Some Noob Farmers can rack over 200 straight wins this way. However there are players at the top of the leaderboard that do indeed maintain an EQ status. They rarely play against low ranked players.

So basically if you try to play challenging games against equally skilled players, you can have fun, and still maintain a high RR.

You can also maintain a high RR on any given individual map, by losing points on other maps, which is why it is pointless in this situation. If you make your score that of a noob, your RR will not be in the toilet. It will only show you play people of the same rank. For an individual map, which is what this thread is about, the RR is essentially useless.