-EQUILITARIAN LEADERBOARD -

[porkenbeans]

"clueless thought process", That is the best black kettle claim that I've heard in a while.
Try to follow this Thought process, wont you ? Ill try to to go slow.
How many different maps a person plays is of no consequence. If a person played all of his games on a single map, That would be his own strategy to advance. Everyone has the freedom here to develop whatever kind of strat. that they choose.
I just cant understand this silly notion that that is somehow unfair. How is trying to be the best, anything like farming Noobs ? Its like a kid that says after loosing a spelling bee, "Oh it was not fair, The other person studied the word more than me".
COME ON DUDE, get your thought processes in gear.

Wow, you keep talking about "true skill" and the like, and I assumed you played a variety of games. But almost all of your games are the exact same, except for the people you are playing. I don't think that you can pass that off as "true skill". Although it's a step above farming, it's not the same as playing a variety of styles. Not even close.

Also, I question the accuracy of your list in reflecting the actual skill of a player in a variety of settings. Seulessliathan plays team sequential, Fruitcake plays team sequential no cards chained, Gwaahjo play standard freestyle escalating chained 2 player, and timmy1 plays mostly standard freestyle escalating unlimited 2 player (although he does have some variety). Some of these guys play almost exclusively the same few maps. Do you think those are really the most skilled players on the site?

I am not trying to reflect anything of the sort. Maps, settings, number of players, None of it matters in respect to a persons own personal strategy to advance. It is totally up to the player to figure out how he wants to proceed. If a person earns 5,000 points on world 2.1, He has definitely earned his rank as far as I am concerned. As a matter of fact, I would like to play him on that map. What better way to learn, and gauge your own skill, than to play the best. That goes to any specialty holder. There is nothing wrong whatsoever, with striving to become the best at any setting or game type. Is it unfair that Tiger woods had hit more golf balls by the time he was 24 than all the other players had in their lifetime ?
Of coarse there are going to be all types of specialists, on every setting, and map. But the leaderboard is all about points. If you would care to compare all the various specialists to each other, or see if the guy is a Noob Farmer, Just get MAP-RANK.
One more thing to clear up. I do NOT play all of my games on one map or setting. I have my favorites like everyone else does. And when it comes to the game of RISK, I have played it longer than most here at CC have been alive. If you want doubt my "true skill" I would be more than happy to show you first hand on any map that you prefer.

[porkenbeans]

Yes, it used to be the other way around. I actually like multi-player games the best. Then one day I caught A multi, scum, cheater.
I had been stuck at sarge for a prolonged period at the time. And I thought that maybe there were games that I had been cheated, and didnt even know. So I decided to test my suspicions. I only entered or started games that could not be rigged. You cant multi in a 1V1, so most of my games became that type. Guess what friend, My rank shot up. I was being promoted every 6 or 7 games. My rank has steadily gone up every sense then. I missed the big multi-player games though. So, I decided to try and find a way to bring them back into my game.
I formed the CLEAN GROUP. It was not without its set backs, as the very first week a member was caught with a multi, adamk89. It has been a couple of months now, and we have close to 75 members. I am glad to have the big game back again.
Alas, I am weary though of arguing with you un-skilled Farmers.
You are not here to thoughtfully discuss anything. You are simply here to shout down anything that would hinder your rape of the Noob. And I am not going to give this as much time, as I have been lately. Nothing but Juvenalistic sparing is going on anyway. The same lame and discredited claims just follow on to the next thread. I have other things that I would rather be doing.
Like getting with chip, and doing what I can to further the development of MAP RANK. FYI, I am sure that M.R. will be used by more and more players. So, you guys may want to think of bringing on some new posters. I predict, that, your attempt at dominating the forums, ...is going to be getting, a little more difficult.

I'm not a farmer.. Which you would know..if you read my posts.. in this topic, that you've posted in a half dozen times.. responding to my posts.. which you would have to read.. and understand..for your reponses to make sense.. oh

By the way, playing the same three maps, in 1v1s, is pretty close to being a good definition of "unskilled".

You have played 1/3 of all your games on 3 maps.

See, Pork, this is where I'm going to finally disagree with you (I personally didn't see this day coming, but comments you've made hit home). I MRed myself and I have a 'Point Hoarder' rank also. As someone who actively hosts public dubs/trips/quads and invite mostly clan members but leave them open to whomever desires, I have no control over who joins and therefore can be mis-judged by the relative map rank. If you look at my recent games you can see I'm involved in clan challenges, private matches, and a tournament now all involving players mostly 2000+, yet due to the overwhelming majority of lower ranks that hop in my team games I am still titled 'Point Hoarder'. I may play a lot of classic, b isles, and aussie but I like those maps. I'm trying to learn maps like waterloo etc... so that I can put up a fight on them, but it's simply not that easy.

Now, I would also like to congratulate the individuals who did make this list. To maintain such a high score and not have obtained it via playing thousands of clueless players is admirable, and you do deserve the congratulations and recognition Pork has brought to you. Regardless of if you "play the same pool of people" or not as stated before- at least those people have enough strategy and knowledge to grow to near the same level as you. As an apparent noob-farming point hoarder, I commend you all.

Please allow me to enlighten you brother. I just looked at your stats.
And from what I see I am impressed by a couple of things.

1.) you have made it to Maj. in only 561 games. nice.
2.) You have played 86 maps, very nice.

Your M.R. is deceiving and I will tell you why, but first let me clue you in on how to navigate the M.R. page. You will notice the blue headers at the top of each column. Click on them when you are studying that stat. This will put them in the proper order for each study. Click on the far right header. this is your averaged map rank for each map that you have played.
you have a couple of Glads., $ brawlers, 22 E.Q.s' 41 point horders, and 17 Noob Farmers.
From the outset it is not very impressive, I will admit. But this is where the deceptive part comes in. Take a close look at the 58 maps that you are below E.Q. on. You will notice that more than 90% of them have only 1 or 2 games on them. So because they were against low rankers you received a low score for that map. This whole situation is an easy fix.
Now let me explain how they calculate your scores. For each map your opponents ranks are averaged. Then all the averages are add up. They then divide that number by the number of maps. which gives the final map rank. most of your maps with low scores are on maps that you have only played once or twice. So, my friend, can you see a way that you can easily raise a map score that you have only played once ? Dude, just play a high ranker once or twice on that map and wallah, it shoots up. This is a flaw in my opinion that should be changed so as to combine all the maps with 5 games or less and average them in together. This would go a long way to make Map Rank even better. I hope this info. does not fall on deaf ears. I will be watching your progress, and I hope to see you at E.Q. shortly.

[Artimis]

PorkenBeans,

I understand the noble intentions of your system and I agree with it in principle. I do see a problem with it though, it will force high ranks to stop hosting open games that are free for all to join for fear of being labelled a farmer when a bunch of low ranks join up. This will only encourage elistist snobbery among high ranks, personally I think there's too much of that already, so anything that promotes more elistist snobbery is a big no, no.

[porkenbeans]

PorkenBeans,

I understand the noble intentions of your system and I agree with it in principle. I do see a problem with it though, it will force high ranks to stop hosting open games that are free for all to join for fear of being labelled a farmer when a bunch of low ranks join up. This will only encourage elistist snobbery among high ranks, personally I think there's too much of that already, so anything that promotes more elistist snobbery is a big no, no.

I start open public games. As a matter fact, most of my games are that sort. I have easily kept an E.Q. I have managed to take on all comers, I have no control what ranks join. It is all a wash if you are not a Farmer. Your E.Q status will be fine as long as you do not drive it down by purposefully going after noobs.

[FabledIntegral]

You're missing the point. Equalitarian isn't any more respectable to half the people on this site. It merely shows you play the same pool of players over an over again.

Unique defeats are also include with the other various stats at M.R.
You are bright enough to figure CC out, and earn a high rank. You know very well that a persons rank does not tell the whole story. All I am trying to say is, If you want to find out the true story you need to know the facts. These facts are waiting for you at MAP RANK. It is up to you if you want to try and learn how to use it. Or you can just keep spouting off and condemning the facts. You only look the fool, my friend. Much like the dolts that called for Columbus's head, because he said the world was round.

Condemning the facts? No - I'm condemning your misguided interpretation of the facts - such as believing that equalitarian is directly associated with being of a higher skill. To "figure CC out" is nothing more than amusing, as I wasn't aware playing escalating as a playstyle was figuring CC out.

[bridge2far]

ugh.. pork, seriously man, your ignorance shines through like the morning sun.

YOU may have no problem starting games and maintaining eq at your what... 2000-ish rank?

now, for me... or anyone even above 3k. even someone with a rank of 1500 joins one of the games we set up.. BOOM there goes our eq.
while for you on the other hand are just an average player that really isn't that good, so you stay in the middle of the pack, and ranks from both sides of the spectrum join your games.

also, if you want anyone to take you serious, read back in this thread an answer all the questions you ignored and the flaws in your own logic... don't use that shit line back because you just come off sounding like a fag that doesn't know how to argue why he should be able to get a christian wedding. (hows that for a proper analogy)

here, ill even give you a starter... better answer these and not just come back with some bs like, YOU CAN BE IN A CULT TOO!

PorkenBeans,
This will only encourage elistist snobbery among high ranks, personally I think there's too much of that already, so anything that promotes more elistist snobbery is a big no, no.

I have no control over who joins and therefore can be mis-judged by the relative map rank.

But, like I said, you take nothing, insert it into a clueless thought process, and you get a whole bunch of nothing masquerading as statistics, useful data, etc.

Alas, I am weary though of arguing with you un-skilled Farmers.
You are not here to thoughtfully discuss anything. You are simply here to shout down anything that would hinder your rape of the Noob.

about this last one... wowwie... who exactly in this thread thats shutting you down is an un-skill Farmer???
and even if you can point out one, or possibly two.... what the fck man? what about the 6 other people that are shutting you down because you can't make a solid arguement and defense.

We are here discussing in a proper civilized open minded manor where we have considered both sides of the arguement and have come to the conclusion that yes, this may hinder farming, but that it will also mess the entire dynamic of 90% of the players of this site.

This will never get passed or credited as a viable way to gauge a players ability.

[Mr Changsha]

ugh.. pork, seriously man, your ignorance shines through like the morning sun.

YOU may have no problem starting games and maintaining eq at your what... 2000-ish rank?

now, for me... or anyone even above 3k. even someone with a rank of 1500 joins one of the games we set up.. BOOM there goes our eq.
while for you on the other hand are just an average player that really isn't that good, so you stay in the middle of the pack, and ranks from both sides of the spectrum join your games.

also, if you want anyone to take you serious, read back in this thread an answer all the questions you ignored and the flaws in your own logic... don't use that shit line back because you just come off sounding like a fag that doesn't know how to argue why he should be able to get a christian wedding. (hows that for a proper analogy)

here, ill even give you a starter... better answer these and not just come back with some bs like, YOU CAN BE IN A CULT TOO!

PorkenBeans,
This will only encourage elistist snobbery among high ranks, personally I think there's too much of that already, so anything that promotes more elistist snobbery is a big no, no.

I have no control over who joins and therefore can be mis-judged by the relative map rank.

But, like I said, you take nothing, insert it into a clueless thought process, and you get a whole bunch of nothing masquerading as statistics, useful data, etc.

Alas, I am weary though of arguing with you un-skilled Farmers.
You are not here to thoughtfully discuss anything. You are simply here to shout down anything that would hinder your rape of the Noob.

about this last one... wowwie... who exactly in this thread thats shutting you down is an un-skill Farmer???
and even if you can point out one, or possibly two.... what the fck man? what about the 6 other people that are shutting you down because you can't make a solid arguement and defense.

We are here discussing in a proper civilized open minded manor where we have considered both sides of the arguement and have come to the conclusion that yes, this may hinder farming, but that it will also mess the entire dynamic of 90% of the players of this site.

This will never get passed or credited as a viable way to gauge a players ability.

I really wouldn't bother, you know?

Waste of energy and all that.

I remember writing a few days ago that porkenbeans was cherry picking stats to make HIM look good and ignoring those that don't.

My opinion has not changed.

He has now broadened it out to include top rank players who also do well in this stat, to give him some higher up cover. You'll notice not one of those hallowed few mentioned have come on here to support him.

I still wonder if it is all a spoof though.

As bridge2far and others have pointed out, the higher up you go the worse this stat would become, unless you only played your own rank - something we want to avoid on CC. You know, I recently won an 8 man classic game, that I started, and picked up about 55 points or so for my troubles. I have no control over who joins my games and as porkenbeans commented on, I start most of the games I play. I'm guessing my map rank stat took a beating right there. Or, as another example, I rarely even see players with a higher rank than me in my bread and butter games (classic, 2.1, europe singles and 2.1 8 man doubles), a major is about as high as you get, so I guess my stat will continue to drop overall. Am I now a farmer? Of course, I could continue to play trips on classic and I don't doubt my map rank stat there is just nuts good. However, I was basically reverse farming (taking on three nose-bleed high guys with a couple of willing privates on my team) and stopped it after 10 games (and 130 points profit! )as I felt it was morally repugnant to ambush top teams in this way...though my map rank stat would suggest I am some kind of David (against goliath) figure, rather than being a bit of a point hoarding twat...something I really am not.

The reason I suspect it must be a spoof though is the idea of a chap who plays 1on1 on a complicated map for points (he admitted he was a sergeant - nothing wrong with that of course - when he played my kinds of games and game them up as he felt he was losing because of all the cheating...yeah right) criticising other players about how they achieved their points. I mean of all the crappy ways to get points, 1on1 is right up there...it is barely even Risk all things considered....just chess for stupid people (I am thinking sequential here). So you have a chap who plays a couple of maps and has used those maps for the point gain AND plays 1on1 (crappy Risk) criticising how others play? The nerve! My early record is quite good and I would hope fairly unquestionable, yet even I worry that most of my points have come from a few maps and a few styles. Porkenbeans, YOU are in no position to start trawling through fabled's stats, herpes' stats or anyone else's stats and finding fault when your own record is dubious at best. Equilitarian you may be, but you play dodgy Risk and finding 1 stat that makes you look good isn't going to cut any ice here.

Highly unusual for me to start attacking someone like this, but porkenbeans has been annoying me on this thread and on the 'top players overrated' thread. I am still annoyed now to be perfectly honest with you...but off for a christmas bong or five in an hour or so and I hope to be perfectly wasted as the 25th hits (China time).

Merry Christmas to you all (even you porkenbeans)!

Mr C

[timmy1]

"I fight for me! FOR ME!"
―Ivan Drago

I think we all play maps or game types that we individually find FUN. I bet a lot of us (certainly me included) have even joined games with lower ranked people to simply learn a new map that looked interesting at the time. I wouldn't call that noob farming. Of course there are flaws in any rating system but does it really matter that much in the end? You're only as good as you've played recently.

[Jeff Hardy]

its extremly hard to get a good relativ rank on map rank thingy when you have more than 3k

mine is: Point Hoarder (0.734) but for me to maintain that my average opponent has to have 2789 points. you have no idea how hard it is to only play people that rank. that means if a private joins one of my games then i have to play a field marshall only to keep my average rank. raising it is nearly impossible for someone that STARTS games and if i were to only play high ranks and private games then people would complain about me being scared to play them.

[Jeff Hardy]

8.) GRIG. comic boy

[Fruitcake]

its extremly hard to get a good relativ rank on map rank thingy when you have more than 3k

mine is: Point Hoarder (0.734) but for me to maintain that my average opponent has to have 2789 points. you have no idea how hard it is to only play people that rank. that means if a private joins one of my games then i have to play a field marshall only to keep my average rank. raising it is nearly impossible for someone that STARTS games and if i were to only play high ranks and private games then people would complain about me being scared to play them.

Agreed in the main, but I have to say it is rare for me to join a game, I start games almost exclusively.

I have to say, that this whole debate started when analysis of the top scorers was carried out. To retain some kind of relativity a high scorer needs only play others within their own band on a fairly consistent basis. The origins of all this emanate from the 'farmers' issue. The analysis I did recently showed you, Jeff, at number 10 out of 25, nothing to be ashamed of there that's for sure. I have always felt that anyone in that top 25 band who can average over 0.7 relative rank is achieving something, however, to consistently show a relative rank of 0.6 or less does actually tell its own tale. Unsurprisingly, amongst this band are both Max and Herpes, both hovering around the 0.5 region.

The other side of the coin is that a high relative rank can bring about accusations of eschewing risking ones points against low rankers. I can speak from recent experience that to win and hold ones points is hard. Not long ago I had a lower ranked player join some 31 of my games. I won 27 of them with the princely sum of just 36 points profit over the whole exchange. Meanwhile, this damaged my relative rank. However, amongst these, and other, games, I played quite a few high ranking players so ensuring any slippage in my RR was kept to a minimum.

In summary, I am sure in my mind there are 2 sides to this argument. However, to keep a high score and a high relative rank is more difficult than anything else.

[Prankcall]

AN E.Q rank says to me these player's hide behind all Private games.E.Q rank does not mean squat,it means they play high ranks and risk losing very little while gaining the most possible,another form of Farming if you ask me.Sigh when will you guys decide this horse is dead?!

[Mr Changsha]

its extremly hard to get a good relativ rank on map rank thingy when you have more than 3k

mine is: Point Hoarder (0.734) but for me to maintain that my average opponent has to have 2789 points. you have no idea how hard it is to only play people that rank. that means if a private joins one of my games then i have to play a field marshall only to keep my average rank. raising it is nearly impossible for someone that STARTS games and if i were to only play high ranks and private games then people would complain about me being scared to play them.

Agreed in the main, but I have to say it is rare for me to join a game, I start games almost exclusively.

I have to say, that this whole debate started when analysis of the top scorers was carried out. To retain some kind of relativity a high scorer needs only play others within their own band on a fairly consistent basis. The origins of all this emanate from the 'farmers' issue. The analysis I did recently showed you, Jeff, at number 10 out of 25, nothing to be ashamed of there that's for sure. I have always felt that anyone in that top 25 band who can average over 0.7 relative rank is achieving something, however, to consistently show a relative rank of 0.6 or less does actually tell its own tale. Unsurprisingly, amongst this band are both Max and Herpes, both hovering around the 0.5 region.

The other side of the coin is that a high relative rank can bring about accusations of eschewing risking ones points against low rankers. I can speak from recent experience that to win and hold ones points is hard. Not long ago I had a lower ranked player join some 31 of my games. I won 27 of them with the princely sum of just 36 points profit over the whole exchange. Meanwhile, this damaged my relative rank. However, amongst these, and other, games, I played quite a few high ranking players so ensuring any slippage in my RR was kept to a minimum.

In summary, I am sure in my mind there are 2 sides to this argument. However, to keep a high score and a high relative rank is more difficult than anything else.

Ok...

But if I asked you to predict how much YOUR map rank score will drop if (and when I am sure) you reach say 5,000 - what would you say?

Would a 0.6 at 5,000 be equivalent to a 0.7 at 4,000?

It wasn't clear from your post if you felt that score being discussed was a very useful guide to ability or not.

For example - I would say that percentage win combined with av. number of players played (certainly useful for singles) is a far better guide to ability.

[bridge2far]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

now when (not if ) i get to 5k or above the average rank of my opponents will most likely stay as a constant, or close to.
but then if i find out my relative rank again?
3332/5000 = .6664

dang. thats a drop of .1 relative rank.. .10% drop with the addition of 630 points.

what happens if i reach 6k?
3332/6000 = .5533 another .11 drop... 11% in 1000 pts.

and now what would it take for me to increase my relative rank?
since i've played 1516 games and my average opponent is of a rank 3332... and say i started playing players around my own rank or lets just say 4k to make it easy...
how many games would i have to play so that my relative rank(3332) grew to 4k?

if i play another 7561 games that have an average rank of 4k i will get my rank up to EQ...

CONGRATS!!!! only a shitload more to go bridge2far!!!!

[Fruitcake]

Ok...

But if I asked you to predict how much YOUR map rank score will drop if (and when I am sure) you reach say 5,000 - what would you say?

Would a 0.6 at 5,000 be equivalent to a 0.7 at 4,000?

It wasn't clear from your post if you felt that score being discussed was a very useful guide to ability or not.

For example - I would say that percentage win combined with av. number of players played (certainly useful for singles) is a far better guide to ability.

A great point, as I would expect from you Mr C (bowing low as I say this).

In all honesty, I can pretty much predict my relative rank score as I keep records/graphs etc which show trends and keep me aware of various success rates. I have set myself a target of ensuring my RR is between 7.2 and 7.3 when I hit 5000 points. I am slowly expanding my map successes so that I can add some medals on the way up. As you know, and I have made no secret of, my preferred arena is triples, no cards, chained forts. This suits my instincts to err on the side of caution in battle rather than relying on the 'luck' of the assault cube software used here on cc.

I am of the firm opinion, score is but one benchmark of skill. I do not profess to be as good as some of the players who have mastered so many maps in so many styles. They are the true top players, especially if they manage to keep a good RR at the same time. Other factors should, indeed, include number of players beaten along with others. Maybe we should al try to resolve this by looking to refine and distill what is the essence of the truly great player here on cc. I firmly believe the likes of Seul would still appear at the top of those lists, whereas mere mortals such as I would slip somewhat.

[Jeff Hardy]

im sure by the time ive played 5k games (if i maintain my score) my relative rank will be like 0.65

that still being major/colonel im not too fussed about it

if my score goes up a lot and stays up during that time id say my relative rank might even drop to 0.6, but again im not too bothered about this because that is still quite a high average and like i said before, i make the games and it requires a lot of games against reasonable ranks to make up for one cook joining

[Fruitcake]

im sure by the time ive played 5k games (if i maintain my score) my relative rank will be like 0.65

that still being major/colonel im not too fussed about it

if my score goes up a lot and stays up during that time id say my relative rank might even drop to 0.6, but again im not too bothered about this because that is still quite a high average and like i said before, i make the games and it requires a lot of games against reasonable ranks to make up for one cook joining

I think you aren't factoring in point inflation. When I first got onto the front page of the score sheet, I managed it with around 2,200 points and there were some 28 Brigadiers and about 5 Generals. That was around 6 months back. Now it is almost de riguer to have 2,500 points to hit the front page and there are 29/30 players over 3,000 points with Brigadiers going as far down as 73rd position. By the time you, and I, get to 5,000 points by clawing our way up the rockface, I should imagine it will be close to a 3,000 points requirement to even get on the front page. From this, of one plays a regular number of games amongst senior players the market will be that much larger, with a greater number of 3,500 point+ players.

[porkenbeans]

ugh.. pork, seriously man, your ignorance shines through like the morning sun.

YOU may have no problem starting games and maintaining eq at your what... 2000-ish rank?

now, for me... or anyone even above 3k. even someone with a rank of 1500 joins one of the games we set up.. BOOM there goes our eq.
while for you on the other hand are just an average player that really isn't that good, so you stay in the middle of the pack, and ranks from both sides of the spectrum join your games.

also, if you want anyone to take you serious, read back in this thread an answer all the questions you ignored and the flaws in your own logic... don't use that shit line back because you just come off sounding like a fag that doesn't know how to argue why he should be able to get a christian wedding. (hows that for a proper analogy)

here, ill even give you a starter... better answer these and not just come back with some bs like, YOU CAN BE IN A CULT TOO!

PorkenBeans,
This will only encourage elistist snobbery among high ranks, personally I think there's too much of that already, so anything that promotes more elistist snobbery is a big no, no.

I have no control over who joins and therefore can be mis-judged by the relative map rank.

But, like I said, you take nothing, insert it into a clueless thought process, and you get a whole bunch of nothing masquerading as statistics, useful data, etc.

Alas, I am weary though of arguing with you un-skilled Farmers.
You are not here to thoughtfully discuss anything. You are simply here to shout down anything that would hinder your rape of the Noob.

about this last one... wowwie... who exactly in this thread thats shutting you down is an un-skill Farmer???
and even if you can point out one, or possibly two.... what the fck man? what about the 6 other people that are shutting you down because you can't make a solid arguement and defense.

We are here discussing in a proper civilized open minded manor where we have considered both sides of the arguement and have come to the conclusion that yes, this may hinder farming, but that it will also mess the entire dynamic of 90% of the players of this site.

This will never get passed or credited as a viable way to gauge a players ability.

It has already been passed. Where have you been ? MAP RANK is here. Anyone who believes that "points" is NOT the only factor that determine the better player, All they need do now is click MAP RANK.

[jarrett155]

i have to say my rank is slowly but steadily dropping ever since got to brig. eventually i will lose EQ just because i play whoever joins my games

[porkenbeans]

i have to say my rank is slowly but steadily dropping ever since got to brig. eventually i will lose EQ just because i play whoever joins my games

Yes, but I think that this will be fixed in the near future. To allow for a wider rang as you go up the ranks. So whereas a sarge might have to maintain an R.R. of at least corp. to maintain his E.Q. status, A Genaral would have to maintain an R.R. of say Lieut. To keep his E.Q.

[Jeff Hardy]

A Genaral would have to maintain an R.R. of say Lieut. To keep his E.Q.

you underestimate how hard it is for us to keep a good relative rank
my average opponent is a lot higher than LT but my relative rank is still under 0.8

[porkenbeans]

A Genaral would have to maintain an R.R. of say Lieut. To keep his E.Q.

you underestimate how hard it is for us to keep a good relative rank
my average opponent is a lot higher than LT but my relative rank is still under 0.8

The exact range can be determined. Hell it just may turn out to be sarge as the dipping point for a General. I dont know. But I am sure that it will be fair. It does not take a genius to know that a top ranks opponents are on average going to be a lot lower than himself.

[Velvecarrots]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

I don't have map rank, and I don't know how map rank works. However, I don't think that your average opponent's score is (your current score) * (your relative rank). Looking at your recent batch of games, there is just no way your opponent's average score is 3332. Just think about it for a second, that sounds ridiculously high...I don't think anyone has an average opponent score of anything close to 3300.

Is relative rank for a game determined when the game starts, when the game ends, or does it constantly change when a player's score changes?

Example: Max has 5000 points, plays a new recruit with 1000 points. Max's RR for that game is 0.2. Now say this new player achieves a score of 2500 six months later.. Is Max's RR for that game now .5? Or is it still 0.2?

Let's take the newb's point of view. His RR for that game was 5. Now, at a score 2500, is his RR for that game only 2?

If it is based on current scores, then it constantly changes. This would mean if Max instantly dropped to 2500, then his RR would instantly double...I don't think this is how RR works.

I'm thinking it's when a game starts or ends. Otherwise these RR's are ridiculous. If this is indeed the case, then it matters WHEN you achieve a high score.

Overexaggerated Example: Say a player plays 5000 games against opponents with an average score of 1500 and hovers around 1000, and then wins a battle royale and has 4000 points. Well guess what, now this guy has a RR of 1.5 and a score of 4000!

(Assuming I'm correct about how map rank works:)
This leads me to believe that the RR to become an "EQ" player is different for everyone, and therefore it is difficult to determine what that number really means. Sure, it tells you how high your opponents were ranked relative to you at the time of those games, but it doesn't tell you what your AVERAGE score* is.


*To determine average score:
Score1 = score at end of game 1, Score2 = score at end of game 2, etc...
Average Score = AS = ( score1 + score2 + ... + score(# of games played) ) / (# of games played)

[bridge2far]

alright, since my relative rank is .762 atm and my score is 4373 my average opponent has a score of 3332
decent, correct?

I don't have map rank, and I don't know how map rank works. However, I don't think that your average opponent's score is (your current score) * (your relative rank). Looking at your recent batch of games, there is just no way your opponent's average score is 3332. Just think about it for a second, that sounds ridiculously high...I don't think anyone has an average opponent score of anything close to 3300.

Is relative rank for a game determined when the game starts, when the game ends, or does it constantly change when a player's score changes?

Example: Max has 5000 points, plays a new recruit with 1000 points. Max's RR for that game is 0.2. Now say this new player achieves a score of 2500 six months later.. Is Max's RR for that game now .5? Or is it still 0.2?

Let's take the newb's point of view. His RR for that game was 5. Now, at a score 2500, is his RR for that game only 2?

If it is based on current scores, then it constantly changes. This would mean if Max instantly dropped to 2500, then his RR would instantly double...I don't think this is how RR works.

I'm thinking it's when a game starts or ends. Otherwise these RR's are ridiculous. If this is indeed the case, then it matters WHEN you achieve a high score.

Overexaggerated Example: Say a player plays 5000 games against opponents with an average score of 1500 and hovers around 1000, and then wins a battle royale and has 4000 points. Well guess what, now this guy has a RR of 1.5 and a score of 4000!

(Assuming I'm correct about how map rank works:)
This leads me to believe that the RR to become an "EQ" player is different for everyone, and therefore it is difficult to determine what that number really means. Sure, it tells you how high your opponents were ranked relative to you at the time of those games, but it doesn't tell you what your AVERAGE score* is.


*To determine average score:
Score1 = score at end of game 1, Score2 = score at end of game 2, etc...
Average Score = AS = ( score1 + score2 + ... + score(# of games played) ) / (# of games played)

dang, so after reading this i did a few little checks to my math...
realizing that its not my math, but its the calculations of Map Rank that do not make sense..

now that my rank has just jumped up to 4519 i have a relative rank of .761, which is a difference of -.001
so now the average opponent i play is 3439??? up 100pts eh??

This proves that Relative rank is taken from all opponents current scores, and not there scores at the time of defeat.(because map rank has not been around that long and nobody has kept record of current players conditions at the time of win/loss.)

So unless someone changes Map Rank to check every play and trace back there score to the time of each game you've played them, which would overload the system and crash it, we cannot get an accurate Relative Rank formula up.

your math seems correct and would give an accurate reading, but would crash the site if you wished to do that much data mining at once.

makes sense Velve,

just another flaw in porkies connect the dots theory.
no, you can't just connect any dot you want pork, you have to follow the numbers!!

[jarrett155]

the RR is taken from the amount of points won or lost as there is a specific ratio... I hope you both know that by now:P im nnot entirely sure what the actual formula is but it is taken from ratio between the scores at time of game.

EX. you played your 1st game against a noob who was also in there first game. whether you win or lose is irrelevant your RR for that game alone is 1.

I dont think it has anything to do with average rank played because it is relative to your rank when you played the game. so it really makes no sense to judge what ranks someone plays off it because someone who has been a high rank for a short time still has a chance at EQ while if youve been in high ranks for a while then your RR has steadily been dropping.

I believe it can show if people have been playing a ton of noobs and crap but other then that i dont think it can provide much info.