highest/lowest relative rank

[MOBAJOBG]

So here it is....just for fun you understand...the scores adjusted.
The first digit is the cc scoreboard position. Then the player name. Relative Ranking. CC points. RR points. RR adjusted position. RR adjusted rank.

...
9 Torcav2 0.484 3589 1737 46 Brig
etc.

Kindly correct the rank, please.

[Scott-Land]

Fixed. 1.5.2 wont make any difference if you use the exact case for player names (relative rank is correct), but you probably won't realise the number is off if you get the case wrong so use 1.5.2

e.g. Incandenza gave the correct score, incandenza did not.
This is now fixed in 1.5.2

On the plus side , if you have been getting the case wrong then 1.5.2 will give you a slightly higher score if you have lost any terminator games.

I suppose when you break it down- the numbers don't lie... at least for me. Seems to be an accurate assessment of my game selections. Although I wish there were more high ranks that played Speed Free = )

Standard Freestyle: 0.581 Point Hoarder
Standard Sequential: 0.879 Equalitarian

[Fruitcake]

So here it is....just for fun you understand...the scores adjusted.
The first digit is the cc scoreboard position. Then the player name. Relative Ranking. CC points. RR points. RR adjusted position. RR adjusted rank.

...
9 Torcav2 0.484 3589 1737 46 Brig
etc.

Kindly correct the rank, please.

Thanks for the heads up. Done

[MOBAJOBG]

9 Torcav2 0.484 3589 1737 46 Gen

Well, 1737 is supposed to be Lieutenant as I'm sure you're enjoying 2 bottles of port but don't forget to pour me a glass too.

[Fruitcake]

9 Torcav2 0.484 3589 1737 46 Gen

Well, 1737 is supposed to be Lieutenant as I'm sure you're enjoying 2 bottles of port but don't forget to pour me a glass too.

Losing my marbles here Mob!

And I shall certainly raise a glass to all those on the list later, when my guests are round for the 5 course dinner I am preparing.

[chipv]

Fixed. 1.5.2 wont make any difference if you use the exact case for player names (relative rank is correct), but you probably won't realise the number is off if you get the case wrong so use 1.5.2

e.g. Incandenza gave the correct score, incandenza did not.
This is now fixed in 1.5.2

On the plus side , if you have been getting the case wrong then 1.5.2 will give you a slightly higher score if you have lost any terminator games.

Glad you found the problem.

Thanks to you!

[Blitzaholic]

this is not really fair either, let me give you an example

in around the mid 2006 to mid 2007 i was over 4000 points, 2nd place in cc had just barely over 3000 points, there was a time 5th place on the site was at around 2567 or 2500 score, even lower so for over half of a year or more there was no choice for my score to plummit and get hit hard core, so the highest/lowest relative rank is highly effected by such a large difference in points for that long, no doubt it was going way down, and not really fair to the higher ranks.

another example, there was a time I was playing 3 singles 6 player games against high ranks during that time, and during one of those times i was able to win 2 out of 3 games, i won a whopping 37 points and 39 points off 6 players singles games, and when i lost it was like 70 points, so even though I won 2 of 3, 67% at singles, I still almost lost in points.

let me say it like this: ex: it is like if poo-maker was at 6500 in score right now and played most all his games against 3000 scores, he is going to get hit hard core and drop a ton after time, no way around it, now really fair or a true reflection of the player he is, but his highest-lowest relative rank is highly crippled.


you really cant change the system due to this, so it is what it is, just thought I show you all that some of this could be a little misleading, the numbers may not lie, but could be viewed as partially deceptive if you are looking at it from my set of lens or have experienced my experiences.

[qeee1]

But Blitz if I remember correctly the reason your score was so much more inflated at the time was because you were playing the muliplayer game, back when new recruits could still join multiplayer games. If you had been playing mostly those high ranking singles at the time your score wouldn't have been so inflated. As you said you mostly lost points in them.

[chipv]

I'm highly impressed at how the high ranks have taken this stat.

This stat will also warp things at the bottom end also.
A player constantly losing to higher ranks will have a high relative rank.
The more they lose, the lower their rank and hence the higher their relative rank.

A cook at 400 has not much choice - their relative rank will increase.
A conqueror also has not much choice - their relative rank will decrease.

The question is by how much.

For the high players, sure, their choice of higher ranked players is limited but if they stick to playing
people near their own rank, it won't affect this number that much - this relative rank counts all opponents in all games played
so it's a small proportion. (Just a reminder that this is not kill rank but any opponent rank).

Take a high rank.
If they win, their points go up slowly. So their relative rank will subsequently decrease slowly.
If they lose, their points go down sharply. So their relative rank will subsequently increase sharply.

[Fruitcake]

this is not really fair either, let me give you an example

in around the mid 2006 to mid 2007 i was over 4000 points, 2nd place in cc had just barely over 3000 points, there was a time 5th place on the site was at around 2567 or 2500 score, even lower so for over half of a year or more there was no choice for my score to plummit and get hit hard core, so the highest/lowest relative rank is highly effected by such a large difference in points for that long, no doubt it was going way down, and not really fair to the higher ranks.

another example, there was a time I was playing 3 singles 6 player games against high ranks during that time, and during one of those times i was able to win 2 out of 3 games, i won a whopping 37 points and 39 points off 6 players singles games, and when i lost it was like 70 points, so even though I won 2 of 3, 67% at singles, I still almost lost in points.

let me say it like this: ex: it is like if poo-maker was at 6500 in score right now and played most all his games against 3000 scores, he is going to get hit hard core and drop a ton after time, no way around it, now really fair or a true reflection of the player he is, but his highest-lowest relative rank is highly crippled.


you really cant change the system due to this, so it is what it is, just thought I show you all that some of this could be a little misleading, the numbers may not lie, but could be viewed as partially deceptive if you are looking at it from my set of lens or have experienced my experiences.

I am unsure what exactly you are saying Blitz.

The first two paras are really about history. The scoreboard bears little or even no resemblance to back then. I recall not so long ago a comment about Brigs being common as they went down to number 40 odd on the scoreboard, they now go as far as 48 at time of writing.

The third para is not what the reality of the situation is. I doubt anyone would ever get that kind of jump on the top players in this site now anyway. Furthermore poo-maker does not have 6500. He has 4911. His actual position rises to 2nd place due to having a slightly better relativity to Scott. Rashid must play top players more often than sjnap, simple as that. If sjnap played Generals and Brigs et al, his relative rating would rise, this is fact, not hypothesis. If I go into the lower reaches of the scoreboard and constantly beat up on chefs and their ilk, my rating would drop, fact, not hypothesis. The idea being to take on a decent mixture.

I do not believe for one moment, that many on the front page could achieve 1.0+ This would cause nothing more than an elitist group appearing. However, It goes without saying that to play this game against nothing but low rankers does not really prove how good one is, it only proves that one is capable of beating those with a lower skill set. The true test is always to look for and take on, those with a higher skill set, as I did you, and lost. I did not concern myself, I went away and am still honing and improving my skill to the level where I may be able to beat you. If I did, this would improve my relative score. if you beat me, it would improve yours.

What the figures show, and little else, is purely the strength of the score the player holds. If a first Division team beats up a local team in sport, there is little applause as it is expected. However, if two top teams get it together and take each other on, then the result is far weightier, this is reflected in a raw form through the points gained, and in turn, the impact on the relative rank.

[Scott-Land]

this is not really fair either, let me give you an example

in around the mid 2006 to mid 2007 i was over 4000 points, 2nd place in cc had just barely over 3000 points, there was a time 5th place on the site was at around 2567 or 2500 score, even lower so for over half of a year or more there was no choice for my score to plummit and get hit hard core, so the highest/lowest relative rank is highly effected by such a large difference in points for that long, no doubt it was going way down, and not really fair to the higher ranks.

another example, there was a time I was playing 3 singles 6 player games against high ranks during that time, and during one of those times i was able to win 2 out of 3 games, i won a whopping 37 points and 39 points off 6 players singles games, and when i lost it was like 70 points, so even though I won 2 of 3, 67% at singles, I still almost lost in points.

let me say it like this: ex: it is like if poo-maker was at 6500 in score right now and played most all his games against 3000 scores, he is going to get hit hard core and drop a ton after time, no way around it, now really fair or a true reflection of the player he is, but his highest-lowest relative rank is highly crippled.


you really cant change the system due to this, so it is what it is, just thought I show you all that some of this could be a little misleading, the numbers may not lie, but could be viewed as partially deceptive if you are looking at it from my set of lens or have experienced my experiences.

I am unsure what exactly you are saying Blitz.

The first two paras are really about history. The scoreboard bears little or even no resemblance to back then. I recall not so long ago a comment about Brigs being common as they went down to number 40 odd on the scoreboard, they now go as far as 48 at time of writing.

The third para is not what the reality of the situation is. I doubt anyone would ever get that kind of jump on the top players in this site now anyway. Furthermore poo-maker does not have 6500. He has 4911. His actual position rises to 2nd place due to having a slightly better relativity to Scott. Rashid must play top players more often than sjnap, simple as that. If sjnap played Generals and Brigs et al, his relative rating would rise, this is fact, not hypothesis. If I go into the lower reaches of the scoreboard and constantly beat up on chefs and their ilk, my rating would drop, fact, not hypothesis. The idea being to take on a decent mixture.

I do not believe for one moment, that many on the front page could achieve 1.0+ This would cause nothing more than an elitist group appearing. However, It goes without saying that to play this game against nothing but low rankers does not really prove how good one is, it only proves that one is capable of beating those with a lower skill set. The true test is always to look for and take on, those with a higher skill set, as I did you, and lost. I did not concern myself, I went away and am still honing and improving my skill to the level where I may be able to beat you. If I did, this would improve my relative score. if you beat me, it would improve yours.

What the figures show, and little else, is purely the strength of the score the player holds. If a first Division team beats up a local team in sport, there is little applause as it is expected. However, if two top teams get it together and take each other on, then the result is far weightier, this is reflected in a raw form through the points gained, and in turn, the impact on the relative rank.

LIke Poo said earlier- he and Rashid both farm me..... accounts for the their relativity.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

Spot 14 on the lowest list please....0.668

[Blitzaholic]

But Blitz if I remember correctly the reason your score was so much more inflated at the time was because you were playing the team game, back when new recruits could still join multiplayer games. If you had been playing mostly those high ranking singles at the time your score wouldn't have been so inflated. As you said you mostly lost points in them.

exactly qeee1 and the points i was winning off teams was so so low but at least i was gaining some, i couldnt control who would join or not, and singles it just was not worth it as the scoring system pounded me either way over time, i had to win over 50% singles for my score to increase and over 90% teams for it to go up, so it was no win either way, almost impossible feat, so at least you see my point on the relativity as does scott-land. over a long time, it will only cripple the higher scores, and help the lower ones

ty







the law of gravity: what goes up must come down

[Kemmler]

lol pengui, mine is 0.9 and I'm almost a brig again... how do you get 0.6? too many noob farmers...

[chipv]

But Blitz if I remember correctly the reason your score was so much more inflated at the time was because you were playing the team game, back when new recruits could still join multiplayer games. If you had been playing mostly those high ranking singles at the time your score wouldn't have been so inflated. As you said you mostly lost points in them.

exactly qeee1 and the points i was winning off teams was so so low but at least i was gaining some, i couldnt control who would join or not, and singles it just was not worth it as the scoring system pounded me either way over time, i had to win over 50% singles for my score to increase and over 90% teams for it to go up, so it was no win either way, almost impossible feat, so at least you see my point on the relativity as does scott-land. over a long time, it will only cripple the higher scores, and help the lower ones

ty

the law of gravity: what goes up must come down

Can you explain exactly what you think this number means at present please?

You description is more relevant to the old calculation.

[qeee1]

Spot 14 on the lowest list please....0.668

When I run it for you I get Equalitarian (0.886)

Anyone want to provide a third opinion?

[chipv]

0.886 for The Fuzzy Pengui here also.

FP, can you check you have version 1.5.2 please, then do a full rescan to be safe?

[Thomas.Paine]

So if I want to maintain my relative rank, I can only play people on the top of the first page? Obviously as the CCs newest Brig, I am likely to have a higher relative rank (.990 at the moment) than others on the scoreboard. You still have to look at the first page of recent games to put it into perspective and it can be obscured by a history of holding a lower rank and playing different games (as is the case with mine). I don't think this stat is useful to most players on the site and only tells us what we already know about the most egregious offenders (torcav2 etc). Still fascinated with your awesome programming skills chipv, keep up the good work!

[chipv]

RashidJelzin is currently #6 on the scoreboard with 4387 and a relative opponent rank of 0.922

The average is over all of your games, in some cases a large number of games and in some cases a large number of players.

Stats are useful to some people and useless to others, people can make their own minds up.

This stat was specifically requested.

I think that covers it.

[chipv]

Install 1.5.5 - contains fixes for terminator game log variations, so you will get a different relative rank now after a full rescan.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

0.886 for The Fuzzy Pengui here also.

FP, can you check you have version 1.5.2 please, then do a full rescan to be safe?

Did a full rescan (I thought I did the first time b/c I couldn't believe it was that low).

I'm at 0.897 now

Thanks guys.

(PS: Kemm you are at 0.876...i'm beating you (: )

[Scott-Land]

RashidJelzin is currently #6 on the scoreboard with 4387 and a relative opponent rank of 0.922

The average is over all of your games, in some cases a large number of games and in some cases a large number of players.

Stats are useful to some people and useless to others, people can make their own minds up.

This stat was specifically requested.

I think that covers it.

Yikes that's impressive- anyway you can change Barbarian (or anything over 1.0) to Rank Hunter ?

Thai Robert: .577
GreatWhite: .639
Skillerman: .625

[Tisha]

sexy_man got busted as a multi, and shouldn't be on the list..

[Georgerx7di]

Tisha can you tell me mine?

[Blitzaholic]

someone should run

georgerx7di
khazalid
roadwarrior
jasperjack
slamhog
andrewb
enhenrickson
genghis khan ca
gibbom
dangermouse
collett6
comic boy
billy7
robinette
chefo
clapper011
mitriclark
pedronicus
louisp141
loudawg
sully800
golfer1024
big yuma ripper
j33j
rl_orange
yunnick
dupa
marriedman
wertz407
osujacket
virual
david_wain
nephilim
thanatose
xtratabasco
fireside poet
wacicha
eye84free
ptlowe
alstergren
jaydog
djt5483


gibbom may be # 1




update all those and I got like 30 more for you, but dont want you to get too overwhelmed