Conquer Club

What is the best way to determine the best player?

My guess would be score divided by games completed.

Any thoughts?

Well im the best, so thats the end of that....

papadopo wrote:What is the best way to determine the best player?

My guess would be score divided by games completed.

Any thoughts?

Yea I agree. That would be a fairer value to gauge a player.

Ronaldinho wrote:Well im the best, so thats the end of that....

nope your not i am better

2000+ vs 1200+ wisse, no you are not.
Best players?
Those with a lot of positive feedback and no negative feedback tend to be at least are not moronic players.(speaking in general ofcourse)

You need to look at the kind of games a player tend to play and determine if thats what you play too.
freestyle excalating does not go well with seq no cards...

And then you determine if he wins more games then he losses. If yes, then he is your man...(or woman)

lol

SirSebstar wrote:2000+ vs 1200+ wisse, no you are not.

400+ games vs 100+ games. yes i am

lol, that only proves he is the better player to have less games played and more points then you too......

Your comparison is like postcount. Its not how much you post, but the substance contained therein that matters...

Wisse wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:2000+ vs 1200+ wisse, no you are not.

400+ games vs 100+ games. yes i am

that means he has gained ~2.5 points/game to your 2 points/game. You lose again.

The way to determine the best players would be to have a win percentage for each type of game.

So an average player would have a 25% win percentage for 4 player games etc. 33.33% for 6 player doubles. 50% for triples and so on.

Score divided by games played does not work as I would score 41.07 compared to generals scoring between 4 and 9! And I don't think I am better than all the generals put together. A player who won there fist game would score over 1000!

Perhaps score plus games played would be the easiest way.

then count the pointa GAINED, like I just did. Leave out the 1000 you start with.

stats this basic wont deliver the best player....its far more complex....

it would take many variables....including types of games, number of games, win ratio, win ratio in each type, and players played

and even then there would be some gray area, because very few players, if any play all types of games, so they could have a weakness that isnt obvious...though this is doubtful

There are some amazing players in here that their scores do not reflect their true ability....so their ratios wouldnt even be considered, when in fact they could be better than many on the scoreboard above them

Any ranking like this would need to incorporate all game types to truly accurate...but since all players dont play all games it cant be accurate...the only way to really know who the best is would be for the top players to all play all types of games, 50 each, and go by the win ratio, not their points

personally id like to see a point-free arena for some tourneys, so this would be possible for everyone to go up against everyone else evenly...without and advantage in the score...

now although some of the top players have almost never played anything but a 5 or 6 player game, it is reasonable to assume that since those are the most difficult, they would fare well in games with fewer people....however, the players who have more experience with all games, would have an advantage, because, there is nothing like seeing the games unfold to get a feel for how they go....because pure logic and strategy wont get you through them...you have to know what each individual will do, so you know who to attack...

and repetition makes it easier...you dont have to think in half of the games once youve seen enough

However in general, i have played with every one of the top players...i wouldnt venture to guess if you put the top 20 into 10 games of each type against each other who would win, but the top players are the top players...some are artists at the type they play, and others are artists at every type, and in general the score does reflect the ability of the players, especially if you factor in the types of games played, players played and number of games played

Excellent post AAFitz.

Another factor is the other players in the game..Good players in a game will allow the good player to rise to the top. Bad players in a game will make moves, deadbeat, not proper;y fort, attack and or defend which changes each game...and sometimes you can be the best in a game and not have a prayer of a chance.

I have tried to play as many of the top players as possible there are many that I respect - but there are two or three in my opionon...that ARE ROCK SOLID!!!! And when I am in a game with them..I am worried about there EVERY MOVE and decision!! And I am trying to understand or figure out why they are doing what they are doing.

Comparing the best Risk player on CC is like picking the best athlete in the world. Different sports have their best person! CC has different players that are good on different maps, unlim forting, feeestyle, etc.

papadopo wrote:What is the best way to determine the best player?

My guess would be score divided by games completed.

Any thoughts?

1027 points 1 game.
I'm the best player

there is no easy way. first off i guess u r talkin ability wise....
as ur points increase u gain less points for a win so therefore u can't use points. u hav to base it on raw wins and losses. next u hav to take into account game type. singles, doubles, triples, tactics for other game types eg terminator that doesn't hav a clear winner. cba talkin any more but u get the idea

I know Im the best player... just having to much bad luck or is it elsewise.... the worst player with incredible luck

Hmmmm. so it sounds like we need some sort of combination of overall record, strength of schedule, and a breakdown of the sorts of games played.

Someone call the BCS!

see the 20 posts i made on the subject,,,,,,,

we need a way to keep score.

and yes a no points area is a great idea,,,

and i wanna see an anonymous option,,,, no names or ranks until the game is over

dugcarr1 wrote:see the 20 posts i made on the subject,,,,,,,

and i wanna see an anonymous option,,,, no names or ranks until the game is over

Option is okay, but that's like playing football blindfolded

It seems to me now that my initial proposal of score/games is too weak. Now i am thinking something similar to the way the tennis players are ranked (Points awarder for more than just winning a game). Even accomplishments within a game could count (like x armies owned for y rounds, or other things)?

How would you factor luck in this because you do play with dice. Ill play games where the dice are great others where I cant roll anything.

This is too simple, the best player is the one with the best DICE.

Dont forget about the lovely cards

1027 points 1 game.
I'm the best player

Hmm... that's funny, since u could only get a maxium of 100 pts. from a player and the maxium players u can get pts. from is 5, I wonder how u did that Darnor.

In my opinion, the scoreboard is roughly right. Anyway, even if it is slightly innaccurate, Blitz is still the best since he is about 1000 points clear, no matter how many team games he plays

I came up with a theory that may be of interest:
The best player is the one who can adapt to the competition's rules and ranking system and through that manage to go to the 1st place. The real challenge is to be number 1 with someone else's rules!