Predictions for Worst N00b Farmers

[jiminski]

So what relevance did the giant polar bears have?

[KoE_Sirius]

So what relevance did the giant polar bears have?

They have never attacked penguins .

[FabledIntegral]

Think it's kind of dumb, simply because it's using relative rank. Saying that a Field Marshall regularly beat Majors would convey the same result (that the average opponent they beat was less than half their score, or about half their score), but wouldn't put them as a noob farmer/point hoarder.

Anyways, if you're a brig or higher and you come out to be an equiliatarian (or w/e it is), then you DON'T DESERVE YOUR RANK, even a FOOL could see that... you have to be a noob farmer/point hoarder to truly gain the respect. The evidence is OBVIOUS and only an IDIOT would argue otherwise.

[chipv]

Think it's kind of dumb, simply because it's using relative rank. Saying that a Field Marshall regularly beat Majors would convey the same result (that the average opponent they beat was less than half their score, or about half their score), but wouldn't put them as a noob farmer/point hoarder.

Anyways, if you're a brig or higher and you come out to be an equiliatarian (or w/e it is), then you DON'T DESERVE YOUR RANK, even a FOOL could see that... you have to be a noob farmer/point hoarder to truly gain the respect. The evidence is OBVIOUS and only an IDIOT would argue otherwise.

Try some polite and constructive criticism.
There has been a whole thread discussing what to use for this calculation, do you have another suggestion you would like to volunteer?

[hwhrhett]

im not so curious about who has the lowest rank, but i am curious about who has the highest.... i was sure itd be benjij but he came out with one pretty close to mine, lol.

[FabledIntegral]

Think it's kind of dumb, simply because it's using relative rank. Saying that a Field Marshall regularly beat Majors would convey the same result (that the average opponent they beat was less than half their score, or about half their score), but wouldn't put them as a noob farmer/point hoarder.

Anyways, if you're a brig or higher and you come out to be an equiliatarian (or w/e it is), then you DON'T DESERVE YOUR RANK, even a FOOL could see that... you have to be a noob farmer/point hoarder to truly gain the respect. The evidence is OBVIOUS and only an IDIOT would argue otherwise.

Try some polite and constructive criticism.
There has been a whole thread discussing what to use for this calculation, do you have another suggestion you would like to volunteer?

1. The first paragraph was constructive criticism.
2. Concerning the second paragraph, I'll take it you haven't quite been following some of the other threads in the General Discussion.

[chipv]

Think it's kind of dumb, simply because it's using relative rank. Saying that a Field Marshall regularly beat Majors would convey the same result (that the average opponent they beat was less than half their score, or about half their score), but wouldn't put them as a noob farmer/point hoarder.

Anyways, if you're a brig or higher and you come out to be an equiliatarian (or w/e it is), then you DON'T DESERVE YOUR RANK, even a FOOL could see that... you have to be a noob farmer/point hoarder to truly gain the respect. The evidence is OBVIOUS and only an IDIOT would argue otherwise.

Try some polite and constructive criticism.
There has been a whole thread discussing what to use for this calculation, do you have another suggestion you would like to volunteer?

1. The first paragraph was constructive criticism.
2. Concerning the second paragraph, I'll take it you haven't quite been following some of the other threads in the General Discussion.

I agree with the first paragraph!

How about a potted summary, cannot follow every thread in GD, no, but if you are aware of a more preferred calc, I would like to hear it.

[jiminski]

have we got the data yet or are we still farting around?

[tracedout]

Think it's kind of dumb, simply because it's using relative rank. Saying that a Field Marshall regularly beat Majors would convey the same result (that the average opponent they beat was less than half their score, or about half their score), but wouldn't put them as a noob farmer/point hoarder.

Anyways, if you're a brig or higher and you come out to be an equiliatarian (or w/e it is), then you DON'T DESERVE YOUR RANK, even a FOOL could see that... you have to be a noob farmer/point hoarder to truly gain the respect. The evidence is OBVIOUS and only an IDIOT would argue otherwise.

Try some polite and constructive criticism.
There has been a whole thread discussing what to use for this calculation, do you have another suggestion you would like to volunteer?

1. The first paragraph was constructive criticism.
2. Concerning the second paragraph, I'll take it you haven't quite been following some of the other threads in the General Discussion.

I agree with the first paragraph!

How about a potted summary, cannot follow every thread in GD, no, but if you are aware of a more preferred calc, I would like to hear it.

easiest solution - list the average score/rank of opponents next to the relative rank score. this way you have context for both

listing the average rank, if you can, will also be able to indicate question mark farming

[Incandenza]

As far as relative rank and differential goes, yeah, it would be hard to differentiate between a field marshall that beats majors and a major that beats new recruits.... but only if map rank were the only tool at your disposal. This is just another element to an overall concept, not the end-all be-all.

[ParadiceCity9]

I haven't read any of this thread, but KLOBBER on Circus Maximus is 475 LMAO
And overall 521
hahahhahahhaha

[joecoolfrog]

There is more to it than sheer blind statistics, If I set up a seq 1 v1 and a cook joins then I am not neccesarily farmng points, but if I sit all day just waiting to join any freestyle 1 v 1 against low ranks ( in the certain knowledge that I will go first and have an overwhelming advantage ) then clearly I am a prospective scum bag !
Rabbit,Mobajborg, Torcav are prime examples of players who simply dont deserve any respect for their high scores.

[guylian]

mine is 1065

makes me an equalitarian cool

[ParadiceCity9]

Mine's 746..is that bad?

[chipv]

I knew this would be controversial.

Here is the history:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57658

[FabledIntegral]

From what I'm aware, the number would be easier viewed as a percent... not sure why it's in the hundreds... maybe to somehow compare to the standard 1000 starting points?

View it as...

1000 would be you playing players that are 100% of your score.
700 would mean the average player you play against is 70% of your score.
1300 would mean the average player you play against is 130% of your score.

I think it would be much easier if they were viewed as decimals...

such as .753 instead of 753, etc. Then again, I'm an economics major... so I prefer to view everything in decimals...

[FabledIntegral]

I knew this would be controversial.

Here is the history:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57658

I believe SL was actually asking for what I was referencing, aka the average points of your opponent. Which would be like "average opponent rank 1800" or something; your method actually conveys the exact same results, with just one more math equation needed.

[chipv]

From what I'm aware, the number would be easier viewed as a percent... not sure why it's in the hundreds... maybe to somehow compare to the standard 1000 starting points?

View it as...

1000 would be you playing players that are 100% of your score.
700 would mean the average player you play against is 70% of your score.
1300 would mean the average player you play against is 130% of your score.

I think it would be much easier if they were viewed as decimals...

such as .753 instead of 753, etc. Then again, I'm an economics major... so I prefer to view everything in decimals...

Yeah, that's how I did it first, but when I did a few runs could see that the difference between small fractions were actually quite large in reality.
It also depends on the statistical pool - 1.5 sounds great but against 6 players is no big deal. 1.4 against 1000 is.
I inflated the number to try and reflect the gap between these small numbers, I know what you mean though, I find decimal easier. The 1000 was completely random to try and get 3DP.

I opted not to choose percent because one thread recently showed mass aversion to percentages > 100.

[chipv]

I knew this would be controversial.

Here is the history:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57658

I believe SL was actually asking for what I was referencing, aka the average points of your opponent. Which would be like "average opponent rank 1800" or something; your method actually conveys the exact same results, with just one more math equation needed.

Give me the equation, I will do it...

[Zemljanin]

I'm not sure whether you count point difference at the time of the beginning or at the time of the ending of a game. If you play multiplayer singles (especially non-escalating), it's a HUGE difference...

[chipv]

I'm not sure whether you count point difference at the time of the beginning or at the time of the ending of a game. If you play multiplayer singles (especially non-escalating), it's a HUGE difference...

Currently uses the game log so the points are exactly reflective of the ranks at the point where they change.

[FabledIntegral]

I knew this would be controversial.

Here is the history:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57658

I believe SL was actually asking for what I was referencing, aka the average points of your opponent. Which would be like "average opponent rank 1800" or something; your method actually conveys the exact same results, with just one more math equation needed.

Give me the equation, I will do it...

I have no idea how it would be done, or if it would even be possible to calculate the person's points at the time of the game. But it would be something like... just merely counting up every single person's point totals you've ever played and dividing by the number of players. It wouldn't matter if it was a single-player game or 8-player games because the number of games you've played would be irrelevant.

You'd also have to recount anyone you've played twice... for example if I've played vs player A over 20x, then you'd count up that person's points 20x in the equation... if possible you wouldnt' have their current point total but the poitns they had at the time you played them... I'm not sure it's possible to do that thought.

[Incandenza]

There is more to it than sheer blind statistics, If I set up a seq 1 v1 and a cook joins then I am not neccesarily farmng points, but if I sit all day just waiting to join any freestyle 1 v 1 against low ranks ( in the certain knowledge that I will go first and have an overwhelming advantage ) then clearly I am a prospective scum bag !
Rabbit,Mobajborg, Torcav are prime examples of players who simply dont deserve any respect for their high scores.

Exactly. All this new update to map rank does is provide an extra bit of context. I'd be curious to know what the freestyle 1v1 numbers were like for the more notorious of the farmers, but given that I'm not running FF3, it'd take me a week to compile.

Oh, and also, JOE YOU DON'T DESERVE YOUR RANK ONLY PLAYING 1% OF THE SITE ZOMG I JUST CHOKED ON MY OWN SPIT!!!11!11eleventy11

Sorry, couldn't help myself. That was a funny goddamn thread.

[Fruitcake]

This thread has been made for a number of reasons aside from idle curiosity.

I think this is probably going to be one of the most unpopular statistics, having run this on a lot of people.

The numbers don't lie but some genuinely excellent top players will always suffer from always having to play
lower ranks, so I'm still thinking about how to shield this.

It's actually ready to go but I'm still a bit dubious about how it will be used...

Well here's a thought...just publish and be damned. I am amazed you should stutter, vacilate and prevaricate.

[chipv]

I knew this would be controversial.

Here is the history:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57658

I believe SL was actually asking for what I was referencing, aka the average points of your opponent. Which would be like "average opponent rank 1800" or something; your method actually conveys the exact same results, with just one more math equation needed.

Give me the equation, I will do it...

I have no idea how it would be done, or if it would even be possible to calculate the person's points at the time of the game. But it would be something like... just merely counting up every single person's point totals you've ever played and dividing by the number of players. It wouldn't matter if it was a single-player game or 8-player games because the number of games you've played would be irrelevant.

You'd also have to recount anyone you've played twice... for example if I've played vs player A over 20x, then you'd count up that person's points 20x in the equation... if possible you wouldnt' have their current point total but the poitns they had at the time you played them... I'm not sure it's possible to do that thought.

I was being sarcastic, Fabled, but your thinking is along the same lines as everyone. In SL's thread, I was exploring this but unfortunately concluded the current system may not allow the required calculation. Terminator games screw this into oblivion anyway. Not possible, I think, sadly unless lack tells me he's timestamped every point change in which case we're there.