Conquer Club

How do you measure 3000 players or are you picking on only the top 50 or something ?
Its very hard to maintain rank when you restrain from playing SNOB games .

chipv wrote:I've just been running through some last tests on a new stat in Map Rank which measures relative rank of defeated opponents.

The results are surprising.

I thought I'd like to see people's predictions before making this available out of interest...

So who are the worst offenders at n00b farming?

I think it would also be interesting to see absolute rank. I would think that Absolute rank might be a better indication of n00b farming. (BTW, love your Map Rank tool.)

I mean the cc people keep refering to KLOBBER as a villian on the Circle map ,but these games are public and open to anyone .It just so happens most are occupied by n00bs .
Geeez it sounds like I am defending him lol

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:

poo-maker wrote:*eagerly awaits the new update*

JR, torcav, rabbiton, King_herpes, Klobber and maxatstuy are probably the worst offenders

I did have a quick look over scotts proposal thread.

chipv wrote:So Strength ratio = ratio of average rank of defeated opponents / target rank at game end time.

Is target rank your own rank? If it is, I'm bound to have a terrible strength ratio.

Just release it already chipv!! - very curious to see whether my personal assertion that I play a fair number of high ranked players is actually true!

Shouldn't strength ratio take account of the strength of your teammates too? - A brig and 3 cooks beating 4 cooks is very different from 4 brigs beating 4 cooks.

I've chosen to measure defeats only and discounting losses so by the same token:
For teams , there is still a relative measurement between your rank and the individuals you defeated.
No accounting for teammate strength is done as of yet - this will mean a delay to releasing this version.

I do not have the experience to say, but I did assume that it was less relevant who was on your team than whom you defeated.

Hmm...

Just knew you would come up with something like that LOL

White Moose wrote:Just a quick question.

Does this calculate the relative score of your opponent in the Calculation: |You Opponent's Points / Your Own Points|

or is it just an average of your opponents points by the time you beat them?

Average Relative score at the time you beat them.

So add the relative scores , divide by number of players.

Relative scores are derived from the game log numbers. (loser/winner * 20) = points gained
so points gained / 20 = relative score.

chipv wrote:

White Moose wrote:Just a quick question.

Does this calculate the relative score of your opponent in the Calculation: |You Opponent's Points / Your Own Points|

or is it just an average of your opponents points by the time you beat them?

Average Relative score at the time you beat them.

So add the relative scores , divide by number of players.

Relative scores are derived from the game log numbers. (loser/winner * 20) = points gained
so points gained / 20 = relative score.

OK, quite obvious that you would calculate the relative score like that. Just wanted to make sure that i didn't get it wrong

Thanks for the quick answer.

Now unleash this great feature to Map Rank!

yes !

look at me farming points. A big 1,600 I got right now. Looking forward to my next return to 4K and what excuse will be used this time when there wont be any 1 vs 1's involved.

KoE_Sirius wrote:How do you measure 3000 players or are you picking on only the top 50 or something ?
Its very hard to maintain rank when you restrain from playing SNOB games .

Map Rank only measures one player's stats at a time. Comparing that player to their opponents not difficult.

bob3603 wrote:

chipv wrote:I've just been running through some last tests on a new stat in Map Rank which measures relative rank of defeated opponents.

The results are surprising.

I thought I'd like to see people's predictions before making this available out of interest...

So who are the worst offenders at n00b farming?

I think it would also be interesting to see absolute rank. I would think that Absolute rank might be a better indication of n00b farming. (BTW, love your Map Rank tool.)

That's been debated on another thread. Everyone's rank is different at game time than it is now, so at the moment taking the count from the game log which gives the exact rank at that time.

chipv wrote:I've just been running through some last tests on a new stat in Map Rank which measures relative rank of defeated opponents.

The results are surprising.

I thought I'd like to see people's predictions before making this available out of interest...

So who are the worst offenders at n00b farming?

So now that it's available (and people don't have to speculate any more), care to share your research?

btw excellent job as always...

Incandenza wrote:

chipv wrote:I've just been running through some last tests on a new stat in Map Rank which measures relative rank of defeated opponents.

The results are surprising.

I thought I'd like to see people's predictions before making this available out of interest...

So who are the worst offenders at n00b farming?

So now that it's available (and people don't have to speculate any more), care to share your research?

btw excellent job as always...

Well, Klobber won't be in the top 10, put it that way, there are far worse offenders.

Someone is bound to put up a top 10 thread...

This is a bit of a negative stat (and probably will be used that way, I'm monitoring carefully).

mine was 766, is that good or bad? im guessing that 1000 means you play people your exact same rank. and higher means you play higher folks, and lower means you play lower folks?

whats the lowest?

hwhrhett wrote:mine was 766, is that good or bad? im guessing that 1000 means you play people your exact same rank. and higher means you play higher folks, and lower means you play lower folks?

whats the lowest?

Yeah, but it only takes into account victories.... plus, if I'm not mistaken, it's point differential at the end of the game, not now...

and I'm at 837, which isn't bad I guess... hard to say what's good and bad without a bit more context.

chipv wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

chipv wrote:I've just been running through some last tests on a new stat in Map Rank which measures relative rank of defeated opponents.

The results are surprising.

I thought I'd like to see people's predictions before making this available out of interest...

So who are the worst offenders at n00b farming?

So now that it's available (and people don't have to speculate any more), care to share your research?

btw excellent job as always...

Well, Klobber won't be in the top 10, put it that way, there are far worse offenders.

Someone is bound to put up a top 10 thread...

This is a bit of a negative stat (and probably will be used that way, I'm monitoring carefully).

There's a big range when discussing Noobs- from cooks to privates but I would assume players in the 400-500 range would break the curve as they have twice fewer points than new recruits ( rather elementary deduction I know). Which explains why Klobber wouldn't be in the Top10. EDIT: He farms new recruits not cooks.

chipv wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

chipv wrote:I've just been running through some last tests on a new stat in Map Rank which measures relative rank of defeated opponents.

The results are surprising.

I thought I'd like to see people's predictions before making this available out of interest...

So who are the worst offenders at n00b farming?

So now that it's available (and people don't have to speculate any more), care to share your research?

btw excellent job as always...

Well, Klobber won't be in the top 10, put it that way, there are far worse offenders.

Someone is bound to put up a top 10 thread...

This is a bit of a negative stat (and probably will be used that way, I'm monitoring carefully).

Ofc he isn't. Thats becuase his points arent that high as the "Big" offenders. However, they all play against people with around 1000 points (Mostly New Recruics AKA 1000 points).

[Edit] By mistake put my post inside the quote. Now its changed.

hwhrhett wrote:mine was 766, is that good or bad? im guessing that 1000 means you play people your exact same rank. and higher means you play higher folks, and lower means you play lower folks?

whats the lowest?

No, it's not that bad. I'm still undecided as to what to set the levels at, but the lowest I've seen so far is just above 400.
I may redo the levels after a decent survey.

I did a map rank on JR and KLOBBER (straight after my own one)

The results- JOHNNYROCKET24= N00b Farmer (348)
KLOBBER= Point Hoarder (520), Circus Maximus N00b Farmer (475)

Mine was Point Hoarder (586) I'm pretty happy with my result actually... thought it might be less. Guess all those times I've beaten you has helped my ratio out- Scott.

Well, excuse me for mentioning Klobber...

Incandenza wrote:Yeah, but it only takes into account victories....

Is this right? Why not use the logs in losses to include all opponents?

Anybody mind running it on me? I'm at work the next 7 hours with no access to firefox or IE Pro

BaldAdonis wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Yeah, but it only takes into account victories....

Is this right? Why not use the logs in losses to include all opponents?

a) What's the point?
b) It's frigging difficult for Terminator games and I don't have that much time at the moment.

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:Anybody mind running it on me? I'm at work the next 7 hours with no access to firefox or IE Pro

your 668

poo-maker wrote:I did a map rank on JR and KLOBBER (straight after my own one)

The results- JOHNNYROCKET24= N00b Farmer (348)
KLOBBER= Point Hoarder (520), Circus Maximus N00b Farmer (475)

Mine was Point Hoarder (586) I'm pretty happy with my result actually... thought it might be less. Guess all those times I've beaten you has helped my ratio out- Scott.

I was thinking the same thing- thank god for you and Rashid being in the lineup

I play the private games too- so I'm sure it helped mine.

hwhrhett wrote:

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:Anybody mind running it on me? I'm at work the next 7 hours with no access to firefox or IE Pro

your 668

Thanks. Not too bad I guess, not good...but not terrible.

Man, I never make the top 10