Conquer Club

I have played several players that are pretty impressive. Some are patient, some have great strategy, and some are just lucky. Besides the scoreboard, I was just wondering who people think is the best player they have played?

This might give you a clue.

Kurt Russell is the best??

I fear the damnable Scorbinator the most....grrrrrrrrrrr

Many good players, like Scorba, Belzbub, #U, etc. But I still think the old Weidsun was the best one... 3 of his 4 multis were top-5 in the scoreboard (the last one was 14th, or sort of), and he almost never played team games (still reached 2300 points). Too bad he was a cheater and abandoned the site

But as KB mentioned, Scorba is also terrible. I lose to him 90% of the time. He is great at strategy, and its also lucky... perfect combination. At least I just defeated him today

I like marvaddin.. less because of playing skill(which he has) and more because of maps he makes especially brazil.

I always hate to see Scorba join my games, even though (I think) we win 50/50, you always know it's gonna be tough with him.

I fear no player.

I'm shit scared of the defending dice though.

(((Shudders)))

Simple ... maniacmath17

Wicked...she'll butter and grease you up in game chat (and outside the game if she can find you), only to later sink her fangs into your succulent oiled flesh. Mmm...


--Andy

LOL!! I enjoy beting masticated by Wicked......

i play better in singles than team games...as long as i dont have bad luck i will do well but since when do i ever get good luck?

There is another way to look at the score...
The average # of points gained per game would perhaps be a better indicator of who is "best".
Of the top 100 players on the scoreboard, the following have averaged 10 or MORE points per completed game.
I've listed everybody by scoreboard ranking..... and.. umm, well, yes... it's because I prefer to be on TOP

Rank.....Avg.pts/game
6................11.8...........Robinette
8................20.4...........xMBKx
14..............14.8...........got heart86
18..............16.8...........geee1
19..............18.5...........hilts
29..............11.9...........#U
30..............14.5...........Dirty Sanchez
32..............14.5...........sully800
38..............18.0...........taode
43..............33.9...........Cromwell
52..............18.0...........marius
58..............11.0...........enterprise47
60..............13.6...........snusleppa
63..............11.8...........Eyestone
69..............13.2...........Enigma
71..............14.9...........karumai
85..............10.0...........stinkycheese
88..............17.3...........barbu1977
89..............10.7...........Paul Wall
90..............18.6...........stooby

i'm definitely the best! jk, im horrible

Robinette wrote:There is another way to look at the score...
The average # of points gained per game would perhaps be a better indicator of who is "best".
Of the top 100 players on the scoreboard, the following have averaged 10 or MORE points per completed game.
I've listed everybody by scoreboard ranking..... and.. umm, well, yes... it's because I prefer to be on TOP

Rank.....Avg.pts/game
6................11.8...........Robinette
8................20.4...........xMBKx
14..............14.8...........got heart86
18..............16.8...........geee1
19..............18.5...........hilts
29..............11.9...........#U
30..............14.5...........Dirty Sanchez
32..............14.5...........sully800
38..............18.0...........taode
43..............33.9...........Cromwell
52..............18.0...........marius
58..............11.0...........enterprise47
60..............13.6...........snusleppa
63..............11.8...........Eyestone
69..............13.2...........Enigma
71..............14.9...........karumai
85..............10.0...........stinkycheese
88..............17.3...........barbu1977
89..............10.7...........Paul Wall
90..............18.6...........stooby

I don't really know about that system, because everyones peak will probably be around 30-40 games (for the best people). Once you get in the 1800-2000 range it gets a lot harder to increase your score, and it would be impossible to maintain to same points per game for 100+ games.

At one point my average was 70 points per game. Even if I won every single game I played now I wouldn't be able to get that.

Hmmm... you make a good point... I never looked at it that way before....

sully800 wrote:I don't really know about that system, because everyones peak will probably be around 30-40 games (for the best people). Once you get in the 1800-2000 range it gets a lot harder to increase your score, and it would be impossible to maintain to same points per game for 100+ games.

All righty then... Let's make a NEW list, one that factors out easy scoring for rookies... THIS TIME we'll list ALL the players who've played OVER 100 games that have averaged 10+ points per game...

Rank.....Avg.pts/game
6................11.8...........Robinette



(Rustle of the wind)



It's lonely at the top....

Can you put away your horn now? I think it needs a rest after all your tootin'.


--Andy

Robinette wrote:Hmmm... you make a good point... I never looked at it that way before....

sully800 wrote:I don't really know about that system, because everyones peak will probably be around 30-40 games (for the best people). Once you get in the 1800-2000 range it gets a lot harder to increase your score, and it would be impossible to maintain to same points per game for 100+ games.

All righty then... Let's make a NEW list, one that factors out easy scoring for rookies... THIS TIME we'll list ALL the players who've played OVER 100 games that have averaged 10+ points per game...

Rank.....Avg.pts/game
6................11.8...........Robinette



(Rustle of the wind)



It's lonely at the top....

lol...The problem is, every additional game you play makes it harder to be ahead in the points per game. If you really want to determine who's the best with this method, I think you need some kind of curve to base the scores off of. I'll see if I can figure something out.

AndyDufresne wrote:Can you put away your horn now? I think it needs a rest after all your tootin'.


--Andy

...cant resist......................mmmmust........hooooooold........back..................(weakening)........cant...do...it......(getting weaker)..urge...is...toooooo...strong....
LET'S LOWER THE BAR BY 30%! ONLY LIST PLAYERS WHO'VE PLAYED OVER 100 GAMES THAT HAVE AVERAGED OVER 7 POINTS PER GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rank.....Avg.pts/game
6................11.8...........Robinette
23................9.1...........vyvyan
25................7.9...........ElDangerouso
27................7.7...........Hunting_high
37................7.1...........bondra
40................7.8...........cyberdaniel
62................7.3...........Bekkstrand
67................7.3...........Thorhound
77................7.1...........sigep864




(deep breaths....calming down now)

(sigh) i am so ashamed....sorry....... I'll put my horn away now.... sorry for shouting.....

sully800 wrote:lol...The problem is, every additional game you play makes it harder to be ahead in the points per game. If you really want to determine who's the best with this method, I think you need some kind of curve to base the scores off of. I'll see if I can figure something out.

Seriously though, I am anxious to see if you can figure it out.... this should be very interesting.
Another thing to consider is that the average score will be lowered by playing team games (especially triples).
_________________________________________________________
I've just gotta say that I have REALLY enjoyed this thread so far... lol
tooooot...... toooooot..............(sorry, won't happen again)

Yeah, just like you gain less points in 3 player games. However in each of those cases your chances of winning are higher

Okay, first graph was a flop on my part. I compared the wrong values at first, and was surprised when it showed almost no trend.



Actually, it shows a bit of a trend. I only used the top 250 players for this analysis....If I used more, the densest part of the data distribution would be around a score of 1000, and toward the zero side of games played. If you keep that in mind, the data would actually be distributed fairly evenly in all directions, decreasing in frequency as you get further from this point. Really a pointless graph, though perhaps interesting to some.

Okay this graph is a winner. I compared the right values and it showed a distinct trend as I expected.



Once again, I only used the top 250 players (I would use everyone, but the data from the scoreboard can't be directly handled in excel, because there is no seperation of the fields).

As you can see, I placed a trendline on the graph, and it fits the data very well. The equation of the trendline is listed on the graph. So now to truly compare players, all you have to do is plug in there # of games played, which yields an 'expected' value for points per game. To see who's the best, I would suggest taking the person's real points per game and subtracting the expected value. Whoever has the highest difference would be at the top.

Err, scratch that. It should be the distance from their data point to the line....not the vertical distance (since the graph is nearly vertical at the left, a small change horizontally from the graph yields a great difference vertically). This value will be much harder to calculate, but I'll try to figure that out now.

EDIT: Alright, to figure out the distance between the line and the points I need an equation to find that. I know the equation for distance between a straight line and a point, but not a curve. So if anyone knows that post it here and I'll finish the calculations. Otherwise I'll try to find it later because I have real work to do now

Um, which diamond am I? Is it THAT one.. over there, a little more to the right..actually, it's a nice graph and all... but can you make me a different color?

sully800 wrote:Okay this graph is a winner. I compared the right values and it showed a distinct trend as I expected.

Seriously though, great job. Hope somebody knows that curve formula, this just keeps getting better and better.
Could you enlarge the detailed part of the graph by say 9x (points=15, games=467) or something like that....