points versus percentage won

by **spam storm** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:10 pm

I'm trying to figure out how someone can have a low percentage of games won but a high amount of points, blame it on my i q level but could someone explain this to me? Shouldn't rank reflect someones consistent ability to win games?

by **Rodion** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:14 pm

Sand Storm wrote:I'm trying to figure out how someone can have a low percentage of games won but a high amount of points, blame it on my i q level but could someone explain this to me? Shouldn't rank reflect someones consistent ability to win games?

If someone faces competition of the same level (points), he can increase his ranking by winning more than 12.5% of 8-player standard games. So you could see someone winning 15% of their games and being a general, for instance.

by **spam storm** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:17 pm

is it just me then or does rank not really reflect someones consistent ability to win?

by **Rodion** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:52 pm

Sand Storm wrote:is it just me then or does rank not really reflect someones consistent ability to win?

It's not a fail proof system, but it does a pretty good job.

Remember that winning 13% of 8-player standard games is "above average" (each player should be able to win 100 divided by 8 = 12.5% of the games). Winning 15% of 7-player games is above average, 17% of 6-player standard games is also above average and so on. You're only "expected" to win more than 50% of your games when you play two-sided games (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4).

by **Echospree** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:23 am

Remember that the expected win percentage is different for games with different number of players. 50% for 1v1s, 12.5% for 8 player games.

If everyone were to always play game with the same number of players, you might be right. But here rank implies a consistent ability to win, while also accounting for getting less points for beating weaker players! otherwise we'd have to only play 1v1 against noobs to see a high "percentage". I prefer to play 8 players FFA, which have a low win percentage but you get so many points for winning, since they're so hard to win.

by **Woodruff** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:47 am

Echospree wrote:But here rank implies a consistent ability to win

No. Rank represents a recent ability to win (or lose).

If someone's rank REMAINS high (or low), then that represents the consistency. But the current status of rank has nothing at all to do with consistency, but rather recency.

by **squishyg** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:10 am

Woodruff wrote:
Echospree wrote:But here rank implies a consistent ability to win

No. Rank represents a recent ability to win (or lose).

If someone's rank REMAINS high (or low), then that represents the consistency. But the current status of rank has nothing at all to do with consistency, but rather recency.

I agree that Woody's statement applies to some players (battle royale winners come to mind), but for the most part I think people's rank shows their consistency. Of course, looking at a player's rank and percentage gives you an even better picture, which is why CC shows both statistics. Sort of how like colleges/universities look at your grades and your standardized test scores.

by **john9blue** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

i've only won 28% of my games, but i'm a captain because i rarely play 2-4 player games (i find they are mostly luck-based), and winning 28% of 5+ player games is above average.

by **anonymus** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:50 am

also it reflects the games you choose to play..
i can stay on high major/ low colonel playing all types of games as long as i dont hit a rough patch.. but now playing mostly assasin-games for that medal i droppe to Lt pretty quickly, and then when i cash in on some of the wins (in the making) i jump back up..
i also have settings where i win 70% 1v1 and even higher on some maps/settings in the team-enviroment.. but that is also due to inexperienced players joining maps they dont know and not playing together (most high win% are attained doing this).

so,, basically neither is a fool-proof way of ability but consistency and a combination of the both (in relation to type of games) should give you a hint atleast.. (also games played on any given map/settings ofcourse.. im a fieldmarchal on feudal war and cook on classic

)

/

by **Commander62890** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:16 pm

Neither rank nor winning percentage is an accurate portrayal of a player's skill.

That being said, rank can at least sometimes give you a small taste of knowledge about a player's skill level.

Winning percentage is an absolutely worthless statistic unless you use map rank to narrow it down (ie 25% in 8-man is far more impressive than 60% in 1v1).

by **SirSebstar** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:17 pm

Jup that pretty much sums it all up, what the players above me said.
Rank, win% and a lot of other statistics are meaningless in themselves. But in relation to eachother and knowing what the limits of each are, you can make certain assumptions.
Also you need to know there is a certain amount of point inflation at the top.

However, if you take a player with say 13000+ games, with a win percentage of higher then 70% then you know you have a very good player against you.