Conquer Club

It's pretty handy to point to the fact that one need only improve by 100 pts at the lower ranks while it takes 500 at the high end as some tragic flaw in the new system.

Perhaps you'd be curious to know that there are 6671 players with rankings between 900 and 1000.

Meanwhile there are about 180 between 2000 and 2500, 40 between 2500 and 3000 and only 5 between 3000 and 3500.

Of course, there should always be less players among the higher ranks and that certainly seems to be the case.

ok

kwanton wrote:ok

ok

detlef wrote:It's pretty handy to point to the fact that one need only improve by 100 pts at the lower ranks while it takes 500 at the high end as some tragic flaw in the new system.

Perhaps you'd be curious to know that there are 6671 players with rankings between 900 and 1000.

Meanwhile there are about 180 between 2000 and 2500, 40 between 2500 and 3000 and only 5 between 3000 and 3500.

Of course, there should always be less players among the higher ranks and that certainly seems to be the case.

and how much between 1000 and 2000?

Jeepee wrote:

detlef wrote:It's pretty handy to point to the fact that one need only improve by 100 pts at the lower ranks while it takes 500 at the high end as some tragic flaw in the new system.

Perhaps you'd be curious to know that there are 6671 players with rankings between 900 and 1000.

Meanwhile there are about 180 between 2000 and 2500, 40 between 2500 and 3000 and only 5 between 3000 and 3500.

Of course, there should always be less players among the higher ranks and that certainly seems to be the case.

and how much between 1000 and 2000?

About 8000, what's your point? I'm simply pointing out that, as it stands, there are fewer and fewer people at each rank despite the fact that there is a larger spread in points per rank.

Specifically:
4619 between 1000-1200
1894 between 1200-1400
964 between 1400-1600
505 between 1600-1800
193 between 1800-2000
180 between 2000-2500
40 between 2500-3000
5 between 3000-3500

Thus, the current system does a fine job of achieving exactly what everyone is (or at least should be) arguing for. The only group that doesn't see a dramatic difference is the 1800-2000 and 2000-2500, but that's being a little picky isn't it? Overall, if you look at the curve...

If the spread were to more closer, as has been suggested, this would be even more severe. I suppose it would be cooler for those at the top to get more handy little carrots to shoot for but it is hard to create a logical argument that the new system doesn't do a fine job.

works for me . . . ok?

detlef wrote:

Jeepee wrote:

detlef wrote:It's pretty handy to point to the fact that one need only improve by 100 pts at the lower ranks while it takes 500 at the high end as some tragic flaw in the new system.

Perhaps you'd be curious to know that there are 6671 players with rankings between 900 and 1000.

Meanwhile there are about 180 between 2000 and 2500, 40 between 2500 and 3000 and only 5 between 3000 and 3500.

Of course, there should always be less players among the higher ranks and that certainly seems to be the case.

and how much between 1000 and 2000?

About 8000, what's your point? I'm simply pointing out that, as it stands, there are fewer and fewer people at each rank despite the fact that there is a larger spread in points per rank.

Specifically:
4619 between 1000-1200
1894 between 1200-1400
964 between 1400-1600
505 between 1600-1800
193 between 1800-2000
180 between 2000-2500
40 between 2500-3000
5 between 3000-3500

Thus, the current system does a fine job of achieving exactly what everyone is (or at least should be) arguing for. The only group that doesn't see a dramatic difference is the 1800-2000 and 2000-2500, but that's being a little picky isn't it? Overall, if you look at the curve...

If the spread were to more closer, as has been suggested, this would be even more severe. I suppose it would be cooler for those at the top to get more handy little carrots to shoot for but it is hard to create a logical argument that the new system doesn't do a fine job.

no it doesn't do its job. the purpose of rankings is not to provide stimulus for improvement, or little carrots. the purpose is to distinguish the skill level of players.

there is currently no way to look at a rank alone and tell the difference between a 2950 player and a 2550 player. let me tell you, the actual difference is pretty huge (team games skews this of course). there is less of a problem w/ 2450 and 2050, but it's still problematic there too.

all i'm asking for is something like 2000-2200-2500-2800-3000. i don't care how many people this does or doesn't affect; your arguments mean nothing to me. the ranks should be a way to discern a player's skill, regardless of how many above or below a certain number.

Exactly, i noticed that there are huge differences in the skills of opponents that are/were in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region.

I would like it if there were ranks that i could aim at that aren't 500 points away.

Nephilim wrote:

detlef wrote:

Jeepee wrote:

detlef wrote:It's pretty handy to point to the fact that one need only improve by 100 pts at the lower ranks while it takes 500 at the high end as some tragic flaw in the new system.

Perhaps you'd be curious to know that there are 6671 players with rankings between 900 and 1000.

Meanwhile there are about 180 between 2000 and 2500, 40 between 2500 and 3000 and only 5 between 3000 and 3500.

Of course, there should always be less players among the higher ranks and that certainly seems to be the case.

and how much between 1000 and 2000?

About 8000, what's your point? I'm simply pointing out that, as it stands, there are fewer and fewer people at each rank despite the fact that there is a larger spread in points per rank.

Specifically:
4619 between 1000-1200
1894 between 1200-1400
964 between 1400-1600
505 between 1600-1800
193 between 1800-2000
180 between 2000-2500
40 between 2500-3000
5 between 3000-3500

Thus, the current system does a fine job of achieving exactly what everyone is (or at least should be) arguing for. The only group that doesn't see a dramatic difference is the 1800-2000 and 2000-2500, but that's being a little picky isn't it? Overall, if you look at the curve...

If the spread were to more closer, as has been suggested, this would be even more severe. I suppose it would be cooler for those at the top to get more handy little carrots to shoot for but it is hard to create a logical argument that the new system doesn't do a fine job.

no it doesn't do its job. the purpose of rankings is not to provide stimulus for improvement, or little carrots. the purpose is to distinguish the skill level of players.

there is currently no way to look at a rank alone and tell the difference between a 2950 player and a 2550 player. let me tell you, the actual difference is pretty huge (team games skews this of course). there is less of a problem w/ 2450 and 2050, but it's still problematic there too.

all i'm asking for is something like 2000-2200-2500-2800-3000. i don't care how many people this does or doesn't affect; your arguments mean nothing to me. the ranks should be a way to discern a player's skill, regardless of how many above or below a certain number.

I can assure you the difference between players ranked 2950 and 2550 is no where near as "huge" as the difference between players ranked 1450 and 1050. That, my friend, is the point. In fact, I see a ton of players cycle between the low 2000s and high teens, then back again. Far more so, I would imagine than players cycling from the high teens to 1200 or so.

Honestly, both a player who's at 2550 and one at 2950 have illustrated that they possess superior strategy and are in the 99.7th percentile of active CC members. To imply there is a "huge difference" is simply being elitist. Frankly, the fact that so many of those ranks are cheapened by the fact that they only play triples against random noobs, only lessens the importance of distinguishing them even more.

Think of it like this. Let's say you are ranking people based on how much money they make. When you are talking about people who make about $50K/year, $20K is a pretty big deal, right? Thus, you'd want to set your "rankings" to certainly put someone who makes $50K in a different rank than someone who makes, say $71K. However, when you get to 6 figures, are you going to put someone who makes $221K in a different rank than someone who makes $200K? Not likely, the threshold would likely be around $250K. The percentage difference is much smaller.

I'm sorry my argument "means nothing to you", but that doesn't change the fact that it is right. The fact that there are markedly less players at each higher rank despite the fact that the spread is larger says plenty.

I only mentioned the carrots in response to what seemed to be a common complaint about the fact that you had to earn another 500 pts. to move up mattering at all. However, that point has been made by plenty and it's rather weak at best. Like in every other competition, the steps get harder to make the further up you go. Assuming you have any skill at all, it is typically relatively easy to move past the first half of the field, the next step up is significantly harder, and so on. Thus, once you've developed some reasonable strategy, you should be able to move into the mid to high teens. However, each step from that point on should require a whole lot more.

i think what he says is right ^^^^^^ i think it would be nice if i didnt have to make 500 points to make the next rank however all of his arguments are true and correct and the ones against it are, well, petty in my opinion.

poo-maker wrote::roll: Exactly, i noticed that there are huge differences in the skills of opponents that are/were in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region.

Let me see if I get this argument. According to what was publshed by detlef there are 40 people in the range 2500-3000 and you are saying out of a sample size of 40 you can tell "huge" differences in the skills of those in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region?

Sorry poo-maker, that's statistical bull shit.

tzor wrote:

poo-maker wrote::roll: Exactly, i noticed that there are huge differences in the skills of opponents that are/were in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region.

Let me see if I get this argument. According to what was publshed by detlef there are 40 people in the range 2500-3000 and you are saying out of a sample size of 40 you can tell "huge" differences in the skills of those in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region?

Sorry poo-maker, that's statistical bull shit.

I actually assumed he was poking fun at that statement based on the rolled eyes emoticon.

No, i am serious. From the players that I have played, there are definitely players in the 2500-3000 region that are much better than others.

detlef wrote:

tzor wrote:

poo-maker wrote::roll: Exactly, i noticed that there are huge differences in the skills of opponents that are/were in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region.

Let me see if I get this argument. According to what was publshed by detlef there are 40 people in the range 2500-3000 and you are saying out of a sample size of 40 you can tell "huge" differences in the skills of those in the 2900 region as compared to the 2500 region?

Sorry poo-maker, that's statistical bull shit.

I actually assumed he was poking fun at that statement based on the rolled eyes emoticon.

I use the rolled eyes emotion instead of quoting sometimes, my bad.

poo-maker wrote:No, i am serious. From the players that I have played, there are definitely players in the 2500-3000 region that are much better than others.

Of course, in order for your argument that they should be separated by rank to have any merit, those same players rating score should either always stay above 2750 or never get that high.

My guess is, that there are about 60 players total who sort of fluctuate in rating from the low to high 2000 and another batch still who fluctuate from the high teens to low 2000s. Do these players magically get better because they win a few high stakes games and move up a few hundred points?

At the end of the day, the reality is that you are claiming some significant difference in skill between players that represent less than 1/3 of 1 percent of the entire active CC community. It's pretty hard to take that argument very seriously.

If you look at the number breakdown I provided, it creates a very clean curve with the exception of one drop-off 1800-2000 and 2000-2500. Perhaps one could make an argument that that 7000 span should be split in half rather than 200 and 500, but that's really the only change that one can provide an argument substantiated by actual numbers. And that's getting pretty picky.

Your argument and that of the other guy are entirely arbitrary. Because you think there's a "huge" difference in skill between, say, NUKE and Jolly Roger (or any other two players in that batch), then the powers that be should disregard anything quantifiable and pick a different set of levels.

look detlef, your arguments are just as arbitrary as anyone else's. i still see no relevance at all in the number of players above or below the 2000 mark (referring to your 1/3 of 1 percent comments and the like).

you do know that new players come in w/ 1000 pts, rite? there will always be more low rankers. a shitload of them are also non-paying customers or people who play a couple games then never return. why should the ranks be skewed toward them? this isn't an issue of majority rule; why the f*ck would that have anything to do w/ a ranking system?

also, no one ever asked that the 2000+ crowd receive a couple more rank distinctions at the expense of others. no one said we should take from them and give to us. you seem to think so.

i am an elitist b/c i can tell a difference between nuke and jolly roger? are you serious? nothing you have said or can say will quantify your opinions. your statements are all arbitrary, but you would have us believe they aren't. if you haven't played the highest ranked players, then it's certainly possible that you just don't know what you're fucking talking about.

this isn't an issue of fair treatment for people under 2000, why do you continue to render it that way? i just want a ranking system that distinguishes between the good, the very good, and the excellent. it still doesn't do that.

I think they're passing out tissues in the suggestions forum....

Molacole wrote:I think they're passing out tissues in the suggestions forum....

edit

Nephilim wrote:look detlef, your arguments are just as arbitrary as anyone else's. i still see no relevance at all in the number of players above or below the 2000 mark (referring to your 1/3 of 1 percent comments and the like).

you do know that new players come in w/ 1000 pts, rite? there will always be more low rankers. a shitload of them are also non-paying customers or people who play a couple games then never return. why should the ranks be skewed toward them? this isn't an issue of majority rule; why the f*ck would that have anything to do w/ a ranking system?

also, no one ever asked that the 2000+ crowd receive a couple more rank distinctions at the expense of others. no one said we should take from them and give to us. you seem to think so.

i am an elitist b/c i can tell a difference between nuke and jolly roger? are you serious? nothing you have said or can say will quantify your opinions. your statements are all arbitrary, but you would have us believe they aren't. if you haven't played the highest ranked players, then it's certainly possible that you just don't know what you're fucking talking about.

this isn't an issue of fair treatment for people under 2000, why do you continue to render it that way? i just want a ranking system that distinguishes between the good, the very good, and the excellent. it still doesn't do that.

There is nothing arbitrary about claiming that the relative difference between players in the top 1/3 of 1 percent is, by definition rather small compared to to, say the difference between those ranked 1500 and 2000 (a group that contains over 1000 players rather than 40). That is my argument. Mind you, I'm not the one complaining and asking for a change. Merely pointing out that the new rankings are doing a fine job, unless that job is to make you feel good.

So, forgive me, but if you see this as an "arbitrary" argument, I have a hard time buying into the fact that you recognize some significant skill level drop off at some magical number between 2500-3000. Especially when you seem to claim that there is less of a difference between 2000-2500. Talk about arbitrary.

detlef wrote:

Nephilim wrote:look detlef, your arguments are just as arbitrary as anyone else's. i still see no relevance at all in the number of players above or below the 2000 mark (referring to your 1/3 of 1 percent comments and the like).

you do know that new players come in w/ 1000 pts, rite? there will always be more low rankers. a shitload of them are also non-paying customers or people who play a couple games then never return. why should the ranks be skewed toward them? this isn't an issue of majority rule; why the f*ck would that have anything to do w/ a ranking system?

also, no one ever asked that the 2000+ crowd receive a couple more rank distinctions at the expense of others. no one said we should take from them and give to us. you seem to think so.

i am an elitist b/c i can tell a difference between nuke and jolly roger? are you serious? nothing you have said or can say will quantify your opinions. your statements are all arbitrary, but you would have us believe they aren't. if you haven't played the highest ranked players, then it's certainly possible that you just don't know what you're fucking talking about.

this isn't an issue of fair treatment for people under 2000, why do you continue to render it that way? i just want a ranking system that distinguishes between the good, the very good, and the excellent. it still doesn't do that.

There is nothing arbitrary about claiming that the relative difference between players in the top 1/3 of 1 percent is, by definition rather small compared to to, say the difference between those ranked 1500 and 2000 (a group that contains over 1000 players rather than 40). That is my argument. Mind you, I'm not the one complaining and asking for a change. Merely pointing out that the new rankings are doing a fine job, unless that job is to make you feel good.

So, forgive me, but if you see this as an "arbitrary" argument, I have a hard time buying into the fact that you recognize some significant skill level drop off at some magical number between 2500-3000. Especially when you seem to claim that there is less of a difference between 2000-2500. Talk about arbitrary.

there isn't a magical number. but there is a difference in the skill of many of the people around 2800+ and that of the 2500 crowd. if you don't understand that, it's probably b/c you haven't played enough here to know. you don't know what you're talking about. same goes for 2000-2500. when you have played a significant number of those folks, maybe you'll understand. as it is, you're a windbag. bye

You're funny. Or, at least, you would be if you weren't so pathetic.

To begin with, I am not implying there is no difference between the skill level of a player who's rating normalizes around 2900 and one who's does at 2500. Simply that, just like every single other competition in which players are ranked, the difference between players skills gets smaller as you move up the ranks. It is a freaking irrefutable fact.

The entire basis of your argument is, "I know better than you". Frankly, I'll take a mountain of evidence over that any time. Is CC so unique that it defies the laws that govern all other ranked endeavors?

Think about it. Say you start playing tennis. If you are remotely athletic, the day you pick up a racket, you're at least a 2.0. If you spend a few weeks/months playing, you'll be 2.5, a bit more, 3.0 and so on til you hit 3.5 or so. Then, you've really got to put some work in to continue moving up. Sound familiar? By the time you get to 5.0 or so, there are less and less players around yet it still gets harder and harder to make the next ranking. All the way until you make pro. Now you are in a group of insanely good players, who, in the big picture, mostly share the same rank. Touring Pro. Among themselves, there are certainly different skill levels, but none as profound as the difference between say, a 4.0 and 3.0.

Still to arbitrary? Do I need to list the 1000s of other examples that prove my point?

Nephilim wrote:there isn't a magical number. but there is a difference in the skill of many of the people around 2800+ and that of the 2500 crowd. if you don't understand that, it's probably b/c you haven't played enough here to know. you don't know what you're talking about. same goes for 2000-2500. when you have played a significant number of those folks, maybe you'll understand. as it is, you're a windbag. bye

Neph- I think you are right, in that there is a pretty big difference between the people just shy of 3000 and the people just over 2500. However there are so few people in that range that you get to know the differences without even knowing what their current score is.

detlef is right in that the point difference at lower levels is statistically more significant, and thats why those levels are broken up into such small increments.

You say that no one is asking to take away ranks from the low end and add them to the top....well, in the system Blitz proposed in the other thread (the system you backed) he did just that. All of the intermediate point levels at the bottom were taken away and added to the top.

If you don't want to do that, then you'd have to come up with a whole new set of symbols and titles for players at the top...which is harder than you think, trust me. Additionally, many people already think that the new ranks are confusing because there are so many. Adding more would make things even harder to remember.

I think that 500 points is not a huge gap at the top, and the top members should have ever increasing hurdles to climb.

"i just want a ranking system that distinguishes between the good, the very good, and the excellent. it still doesn't do that."

I guess that means you thin the good, the very good and the excellent all fall within a 500 point spread. I think that the members at the top are much closer to the same skill level than you do I guess.

But anyway, my biggest argument against your entire point, is that the score system itself makes the distinguishment that you want. The symbols just correspond to the scores, and if you really want to know how players compare all you have to do is look at their number of points instead of their rank. Its just a more detailed method to achieve the same information, and it appears that is what you're looking for anyway.

I notice a big difference in the people at 2900 and the people at 2500, mainly singles games though.

ok

sully800 wrote:

Nephilim wrote:there isn't a magical number. but there is a difference in the skill of many of the people around 2800+ and that of the 2500 crowd. if you don't understand that, it's probably b/c you haven't played enough here to know. you don't know what you're talking about. same goes for 2000-2500. when you have played a significant number of those folks, maybe you'll understand. as it is, you're a windbag. bye

Neph- I think you are right, in that there is a pretty big difference between the people just shy of 3000 and the people just over 2500. However there are so few people in that range that you get to know the differences without even knowing what their current score is.

detlef is right in that the point difference at lower levels is statistically more significant, and thats why those levels are broken up into such small increments.

You say that no one is asking to take away ranks from the low end and add them to the top....well, in the system Blitz proposed in the other thread (the system you backed) he did just that. All of the intermediate point levels at the bottom were taken away and added to the top.

fair enough, i skimmed blitz's post, didn't realize your point.

sully800 wrote:If you don't want to do that, then you'd have to come up with a whole new set of symbols and titles for players at the top...which is harder than you think, trust me. Additionally, many people already think that the new ranks are confusing because there are so many. Adding more would make things even harder to remember.

I think that 500 points is not a huge gap at the top, and the top members should have ever increasing hurdles to climb.

"i just want a ranking system that distinguishes between the good, the very good, and the excellent. it still doesn't do that."

I guess that means you thin the good, the very good and the excellent all fall within a 500 point spread. I think that the members at the top are much closer to the same skill level than you do I guess.

But anyway, my biggest argument against your entire point, is that the score system itself makes the distinguishment that you want. The symbols just correspond to the scores, and if you really want to know how players compare all you have to do is look at their number of points instead of their rank. Its just a more detailed method to achieve the same information, and it appears that is what you're looking for anyway.

thanks for the post. when i said "good, very good, excellent," i meant over 2000 folks. like around 2000 is good, 2500 very good, 2800 and up excellent. something rough like that, hadn't thought it out that much.

i'm mainly arguing from principle, the principle that ranks should help us distinguish between players and their abilities. the main practical problem i have is when i scan open games. i would like to be able to tell who is who. and i get your argument that we pretty much recognize people and their abilities after a while. all i can say is i am pretty active here and your point is not true for me. i know lots of people, but not nearly everyone. so there are tons of folks that i would love to recognize in some sense just by looking at their rank. i honestly think that i shouldn't have to research someone in order to figure out where they stand here. all i'm asking for is 4 ranks between 2K and 3K instead of 2 ranks.

and even though it's difficult w/ the new ranks, i've never complained about the insignias or the sheer number of the ranks. common sense says we will get used to them. we could all get used to 2 more ranks, y'know? it's not so much to ask.