Win Percentage

[betiko]

In some cases medals instantly tell you what kind of player you're looking at though. When I was recruiting for my clan, I saw plenty of people with good ranks who didn't have a single team game medal.

Exactly. Also rhp, just looking at the medals bellow your avatar you instantly know what type of player you are.
The ballance between medal types shows if someone plays a lot of a setting and barely others. Having platinum in some and bronze/none in others is pretty meaningful. It s always 100% acurrate about the type of player.

Ps: play whambot 10 times on a map with 12/15 starting terts and tell me if you win them all!

And u are incorrect my friend... while my medals correctly suggest that I'm a good fs player, to assume I'm not a good team player or whatever else ur comments suggest, would be a mistake on your part... I choose to generally play exciting games that I enjoy... don't assume i'm not skilled @ the snooze festivals you play... yet again proving my point that medals are an indicator and not definitive
I could spend what? A month or 2 getting golds in all the categories and all of a sudden I'm a totally different player in your eyes? Lol... silly... my point exactly...

first, you're in the wrong thread, this is not the thread about "the best overall player" and second yeah. you have silver crossmap, and not many team games under your belt. does it mean i think you suck at them? no. does it mean that with more experience on them you would be better? yes.

is there something wrong when I say that looking at your medals you have standard/freestyle/manual/speed tendencies on a very limited amount of maps? No right? I love how defensive you are each time, why are you so insecure?

[BigBallinStalin]

What do you mean, BBS?

If you have Maprank installed, yYou can check someone's win percentage by searching for whatever settings you like in Game Finder, inputing the player's name, and hitting the Maprank button.

Ohhhh, thanks!

[rhp 1]

In some cases medals instantly tell you what kind of player you're looking at though. When I was recruiting for my clan, I saw plenty of people with good ranks who didn't have a single team game medal.

Exactly. Also rhp, just looking at the medals bellow your avatar you instantly know what type of player you are.
The ballance between medal types shows if someone plays a lot of a setting and barely others. Having platinum in some and bronze/none in others is pretty meaningful. It s always 100% acurrate about the type of player.

Ps: play whambot 10 times on a map with 12/15 starting terts and tell me if you win them all!

Not defensive @ all bud... tone doesn't translate well through the typed word... my point was that you'd be mistaken if you drew conclusions from my medals other than what i enjoy playing.... they show my preferences, not my proficiency at any game/setting...

And u are incorrect my friend... while my medals correctly suggest that I'm a good fs player, to assume I'm not a good team player or whatever else ur comments suggest, would be a mistake on your part... I choose to generally play exciting games that I enjoy... don't assume i'm not skilled @ the snooze festivals you play... yet again proving my point that medals are an indicator and not definitive
I could spend what? A month or 2 getting golds in all the categories and all of a sudden I'm a totally different player in your eyes? Lol... silly... my point exactly...

first, you're in the wrong thread, this is not the thread about "the best overall player" and second yeah. you have silver crossmap, and not many team games under your belt. does it mean i think you suck at them? no. does it mean that with more experience on them you would be better? yes.

is there something wrong when I say that looking at your medals you have standard/freestyle/manual/speed tendencies on a very limited amount of maps? No right? I love how defensive you are each time, why are you so insecure?

Not defensive @ all bud... tone doesn't translate well through the typed word... my point was that you'd be mistaken if you drew conclusions from my medals other than what i enjoy playing.... they show my preferences, not my proficiency at any game/setting...
And I'm aware of what thread I'm in... I was using players with all platinum medals to illustrate that medals are a guideline, not the final answer... please pay attention before flaming... ty

[betiko]

Exactly. Also rhp, just looking at the medals bellow your avatar you instantly know what type of player you are.

Eh.... I know many riduculously average players with all gold and a few platinums... you wanna call them "well rounded"?

just to clear out what i was responding to from your reply, that had nothing to do with my initial statement. Just like this whole conversation in a thread about improving the win rates we have on our walls. And nope, those weren't flames, if I had been flaming you would've known.

back on topic -> I'd like to see an index, based on 1 or 100 or whatever corelated to expected win % per game type played; if we have such stat on our wall I'd rather not see something pointless there.

[rhp 1]

Exactly. Also rhp, just looking at the medals bellow your avatar you instantly know what type of player you are.

Eh.... I know many riduculously average players with all gold and a few platinums... you wanna call them "well rounded"?

just to clear out what i was responding to from your reply, that had nothing to do with my initial statement. Just like this whole conversation in a thread about improving the win rates we have on our walls. And nope, those weren't flames, if I had been flaming you would've known.

back on topic -> I'd like to see an index, based on 1 or 100 or whatever corelated to expected win % per game type played; if we have such stat on our wall I'd rather not see something pointless there.

I'd like that... def more informative than an overall win percentage...

And "if I had been flaming you would've known"? LOL...

[BoganGod]

I would be interested in seeing an egalitarian number on folk's wall. Who is beating up noobs to get rank and win % kudos. That said I have a few maps that I played exclusively when I was a brig and general. So whilst my opponents were generally 2000-2500(team2000 social group), my score was 3000+ so that negatively affects my egalitarian score
This is a great topic thanks OP. Common theme seems to be that there is no real way to measure a player's "worth", as exceptions exist to every rule, and data interpretation is highly subjective.

[betiko]

I would be interested in seeing an egalitarian number on folk's wall. Who is beating up noobs to get rank and win % kudos. That said I have a few maps that I played exclusively when I was a brig and general. So whilst my opponents were generally 2000-2500(team2000 social group), my score was 3000+ so that negatively affects my egalitarian score
This is a great topic thanks OP. Common theme seems to be that there is no real way to measure a player's "worth", as exceptions exist to every rule, and data interpretation is highly subjective.

how about an average score of the opponent? as you're saying, it all depends on the rank you have at a given time; and I don't think it's normal to have a very bad equalitarian score because you face a low tier major when you're a brig for example. I'd rather see the average score of the oponent because our own score fluctuates a lot. Basically, when we are low on point we have more rights to face people low on points, and as soon as we go up we cannot face the same player? doesn't make any sense.
And as I said in another post, it's way harder to have a high score facing people with any rank rather than facing exclusively high ranks, because you are putting much more in stake and you are not going to win a lot (well it depends if we're talking about someone playing exclusively farmer settings)

ps: love the jefjef avatar, i guess megaswoman was happy to see you in her loverboy's gounds.

[josko.ri]

There is easy implemented and mathematically fair way to adjust winning percentage, if there is will to consider the idea by admins.
This idea would make not perfect (if some can develop perfect system then it would already be here and we would not have this discussion) but will make statistically flawless win-loss ratio.

Statistically, when you play 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 game, then you have 50% chance to win. So, when those games ends, into your statistics is added 1/1 if you win, or 0/1 if you lose.

Also statistically, when you play 8 player standard or freestyle game with whichever settings, you have 1/8 chance of winning and 7/8 chance of losing. In average, you will win every 8th game, if you win more you are better than average and if you win less you are lower than average. Statistically, if you play 8 player standard game, it is the same like you are playing 7 1v1 games vs those 7 players, if you win it, then it is statistically (and CC points wise) the same like you achieved 7/7 score in 1v1 games vs other 7 players. If you lose, statistically (and CC points wise) that is the same like you lost 0/1 vs the player who won, and played 0/0 vs other 6 players.

This can also be applied for Terminator games. If you play 8 player Terminator game, and you eliminated 3 players, and then some other player eliminates you, it is the same like you player 3 1v1 games vs those 3 players and achieved 3/3 result, played 1v1 game vs the player who killed you and achieved 0/1 result, and did not play vs other 4 players (result 0/0), as there is no any point gain nor loss between you and other 4 players.

The same system can very easy be implemented on CC and included all history results of all players, a simple written script would do that easy.

Example how it would work:

Player A (great in 1v1 and team games but bad in standard 8 player games):
played 10 games of 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4. Won 8 of 10
played 10 standard 8 player games, won 1 of them. His score is 7/7 for game won, and 0/9 for 9 game lost.
played 10 Terminator 8 player games. In 3 of them eliminated 1 player and then lost game, in 2 of them eliminated 2 players and then lost game and in other 5 was being the first eliminated. His score is 2/2 *3 + 1/1 *2 + 0/10 = 8/18.
Total score: 23/44 (52%)
Total score with current % system: 9/30 (30%)

Conclusion: With current % system, his performance is penalized a lot because 66% of his games are 8 player standard. With my suggestion, his 52% instead of 30% would better show his performance.

Player B (bad in 1v1 and team games, but great in 8 player standard games):
played 10 games of 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4. Won 1 of 10.
played 10 standard 8 player games, won 8 of them. His score is 7/7 * 8 + 0/2 = 56/58
played 10 Terminator 8 player games. Let's say achievement is the same like player A in this category, so the final result will compare just the discrepancy between 1v1 and Standard performance between player A and B): score 8/18
Total score: 65/86 (76%)
Total score with current % system: 9/30 (30%)

Final conclusion: At first, it is visible how much my proposed system better value the fact that in 8-player games initial chance to win a game is 12,5 while initial chance in 1v1 games is 50%, so for every player on the site, this system will increase their winning %, and average winning % of all players ever played CC would be 50%, which is how it should be. At second, comparison between player A and player B shows how much this proposed system would value the ones who are doing really good in Standard games but with current % system that is not properly represented on their profile.

P.S. For the ones who complain how 1v1 gaming is just luck while team games are pure skill, I would say it is very relative. I can guarantee that much more skill is needed to win 1v1 Hive game, than to win Quadruples on Doodle Earth, o statement that 1v1 is always pure luck in comparing with for example Quads is not true. I would say, they both are 50% for each player to win.

[betiko]

you're just explaining in 8 paragraphs what has been said before in 1 sentence.

[josko.ri]

you're just explaining in 8 paragraphs what has been said before in 1 sentence.

Can you quote/link the sentence? I do not see it.

[betiko]

I'd like to see an index, based on 1 or 100 or whatever corelated to expected win % per game type played

[josko.ri]

I'd like to see an index, based on 1 or 100 or whatever corelated to expected win % per game type played

Maybe my english skills are lower, but I do not interpret your sentence the same like my idea. Also, your idea does not speak about what you propose about Terminator games and how to value kills, which my idea propose.

Also, I think it is good to give a numerical example of an idea, to see for real how it would work in some comparable cases, instead of just forming it with words.

I just ranked myself to see how this index system works, and to answer question to myself about how better or lower is my performance on team/1v1/other type of games.

show: Out of curiosity, I have just ranked myself, here are results, who is not interested do not need to open

[betiko]

i think i would not agree with your way of calculating terminator though. It's a win percentage, and killing in a terminator without winning the game is not worth mentioning in my opinion. I would just count it the way unique kills work for terminator: win the game you get your%, eliminate some guys without winning the game, count it as a loss. I know it's not the same thing at all; but I know that when I play terminator i don't really care about the kill points, I play to be the last man standing.

[BoganGod]

There is easy implemented and mathematically fair way to adjust winning percentage, if there is will to consider the idea by admins.
This idea would make not perfect (if some can develop perfect system then it would already be here and we would not have this discussion) but will make statistically flawless win-loss ratio.

Statistically, when you play 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 game, then you have 50% chance to win. So, when those games ends, into your statistics is added 1/1 if you win, or 0/1 if you lose.

Also statistically, when you play 8 player standard or freestyle game with whichever settings, you have 1/8 chance of winning and 7/8 chance of losing. In average, you will win every 8th game, if you win more you are better than average and if you win less you are lower than average. Statistically, if you play 8 player standard game, it is the same like you are playing 7 1v1 games vs those 7 players, if you win it, then it is statistically (and CC points wise) the same like you achieved 7/7 score in 1v1 games vs other 7 players. If you lose, statistically (and CC points wise) that is the same like you lost 0/1 vs the player who won, and played 0/0 vs other 6 players.

This can also be applied for Terminator games. If you play 8 player Terminator game, and you eliminated 3 players, and then some other player eliminates you, it is the same like you player 3 1v1 games vs those 3 players and achieved 3/3 result, played 1v1 game vs the player who killed you and achieved 0/1 result, and did not play vs other 4 players (result 0/0), as there is no any point gain nor loss between you and other 4 players.

The same system can very easy be implemented on CC and included all history results of all players, a simple written script would do that easy.

Example how it would work:

Player A (great in 1v1 and team games but bad in standard 8 player games):
played 10 games of 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4. Won 8 of 10
played 10 standard 8 player games, won 1 of them. His score is 7/7 for game won, and 0/9 for 9 game lost.
played 10 Terminator 8 player games. In 3 of them eliminated 1 player and then lost game, in 2 of them eliminated 2 players and then lost game and in other 5 was being the first eliminated. His score is 2/2 *3 + 1/1 *2 + 0/10 = 8/18.
Total score: 23/44 (52%)
Total score with current % system: 9/30 (30%)

Conclusion: With current % system, his performance is penalized a lot because 66% of his games are 8 player standard. With my suggestion, his 52% instead of 30% would better show his performance.

Player B (bad in 1v1 and team games, but great in 8 player standard games):
played 10 games of 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4. Won 1 of 10.
played 10 standard 8 player games, won 8 of them. His score is 7/7 * 8 + 0/2 = 56/58
played 10 Terminator 8 player games. Let's say achievement is the same like player A in this category, so the final result will compare just the discrepancy between 1v1 and Standard performance between player A and B): score 8/18
Total score: 65/86 (76%)
Total score with current % system: 9/30 (30%)

Final conclusion: At first, it is visible how much my proposed system better value the fact that in 8-player games initial chance to win a game is 12,5 while initial chance in 1v1 games is 50%, so for every player on the site, this system will increase their winning %, and average winning % of all players ever played CC would be 50%, which is how it should be. At second, comparison between player A and player B shows how much this proposed system would value the ones who are doing really good in Standard games but with current % system that is not properly represented on their profile.

P.S. For the ones who complain how 1v1 gaming is just luck while team games are pure skill, I would say it is very relative. I can guarantee that much more skill is needed to win 1v1 Hive game, than to win Quadruples on Doodle Earth, o statement that 1v1 is always pure luck in comparing with for example Quads is not true. I would say, they both are 50% for each player to win.

Josko, don't worry about what that big betiko pussy is saying. I think he is just trying to pull your whiskers. Love this suggestion, and like your reasoning, especially using a doodle quad analogy. Doodle manual quad, one team can get knocked out without taking a turn..... No real skill in that, just turn order luck.

Betiko, I'm considering putting megaswoman on foe, am getting so many X rated pm's from her. The high ranked putting more on the line is true. A relative average vs your score at the time would be a good thing. Most points I lost in a single game was 78. That stung. End of the day, would rather play for fun than be a point accumulation whore. Been there done that.

[Shannon Apple]

i am proud of my win percentage as i hate losing a single game.

i do play a lot of team games and some 1 v 1 games. i had to look it up but it appears i am 73-20 (78%) on 1 v 1 games. there are quite a few conquer rome games and kings court 2 games there and i do enjoy those maps, but a lot of the games are tournament games. I am guessing there are quite a few players that have a win percentage of 75% or better on 1 v 1 games?

I am guessing my team games are in the same ball park for win percentage but i need to look it up...?

I have 500 plus games right now. My win percentage would be even higher if i would have avoided the 8 man escalating games quicker and not joined that damn tournament with all the escalating games. are you starting to notice my dislike for escalating? I did play quite a few 8 man world 2.1 fog games in the beginning and I am pretty sure i did pretty well there as well?

LOL escalating isn't that bad. Earlier this year, some guys taught me how to play it, as well as reading the SoC strategy threads like "first 4 moves." It's actually how I learned to play. It's all about setting up your kill, sitting tight and hoping you get the set at the right time to sweep the board

I think my 8 player esc is 15% or something. It's not great, but it's kinda average. But yeah, those games did take my overall win percentage down to where it is now. lol. If you did play a lot more of them, you would certainly lose more of your win percentage, even if you got really good at it. The upside is the points you get back when you do win.

I played like 1000 1v1 classic with a win rate of 51%. It was a dumb thing to do, but I didn't really get it at the time that classic is not the map to play 1v1 on haha.

Technically, I've been playing CC for less than a year. I came back after several years with 84 games played. You CAN master escalating.

[betiko]

lol well it was from 2 years ago, at the time jefjef was the most annoying thing on CC forums and he particularly hated the pack. now he's not really here anymore... but hey; how could i guess you still had that affair with his wife megaswoman??

and yes; the bigger the map, the more skill is required no doubt; but that example given by josko was using both extremes... but i admit in that case it works!

nevertheless, i got beaten by whambot.

[betiko]

i am proud of my win percentage as i hate losing a single game.

i do play a lot of team games and some 1 v 1 games. i had to look it up but it appears i am 73-20 (78%) on 1 v 1 games. there are quite a few conquer rome games and kings court 2 games there and i do enjoy those maps, but a lot of the games are tournament games. I am guessing there are quite a few players that have a win percentage of 75% or better on 1 v 1 games?

I am guessing my team games are in the same ball park for win percentage but i need to look it up...?

I have 500 plus games right now. My win percentage would be even higher if i would have avoided the 8 man escalating games quicker and not joined that damn tournament with all the escalating games. are you starting to notice my dislike for escalating? I did play quite a few 8 man world 2.1 fog games in the beginning and I am pretty sure i did pretty well there as well?

LOL escalating isn't that bad. Earlier this year, some guys taught me how to play it, as well as reading the SoC strategy threads like "first 4 moves." It's actually how I learned to play. It's all about sitting tight and hoping you get the set at the right time to sweep the board

I think my 8 player esc is 15% or something. It's not great, but it's kinda average. But yeah, those games did take my overall win percentage down to where it is now. lol. If you did play a lot more of them, you would certainly lose more of your win percentage, even if you got really good at it. The upside is the points you get back when you do win.

I played like 1000 1v1 classic with a win rate of 51%. It was a dumb thing to do, but I didn't really get it at the time that classic is not the map to play 1v1 on haha.

Technically, I've been playing CC for less than a year. I came back after several years with 84 games played. You CAN master escalating.

escalating spoils are just the best! it's never over until it's over! I don't understand how some people can possibly say there is no skill invoved and it's pure luck... it does suck when you pull a 4 carder at the wrong timing, but you have so many stuff you have to anticipate... best games are escalating!

[Shannon Apple]

nevertheless, i got beaten by whambot.

I saw that post you made about being the first person to get beaten. I lol'd

[josko.ri]

escalating spoils are just the best! it's never over until it's over!

I witnessed different scenario in my CC career than what you said here. I know for one escalating quads game which was called decided by team who had lead even in moment when all 8 players were still alive and escalating sweep had just started.

[Denise]

escalating spoils are just the best! it's never over until it's over!

I witnessed different scenario in my CC career than what you said here. I know for one escalating quads game which was called decided by team who had lead even in moment when all 8 players were still alive and escalating sweep had just started.

Really. I'd love to hear more about that.

[ChrisPond]

escalating spoils are just the best! it's never over until it's over!

I witnessed different scenario in my CC career than what you said here. I know for one escalating quads game which was called decided by team who had lead even in moment when all 8 players were still alive and escalating sweep had just started.

probably against my team. that is how clueless I am in escalating games

[skillfull]

escalating spoils are just the best! it's never over until it's over!

I witnessed different scenario in my CC career than what you said here. I know for one escalating quads game which was called decided by team who had lead even in moment when all 8 players were still alive and escalating sweep had just started.

Really. I'd love to hear more about that.

From my own experience in trips/quads esc, i had a similar game once with Scott-land and once with Cof.

[BoganGod]

Calling a game before it is won, is a classic mind game trick.

Team A is in a commanding position.
Team B says GG, in the hope that Team A will then relax, stop concentrating as much and make a simple but game changing mistake. Anything from advancing when the shouldn't have, to assuming that a player on Team B doesn't have a set on three cards because Team B wrote GG.

Game ain't over till it is over in esc. Anyone that believes otherwise has their internal dialogue switched to denial.

[MegasWoman]

There is easy implemented and mathematically fair way to adjust winning percentage, if there is will to consider the idea by admins.
This idea would make not perfect (if some can develop perfect system then it would already be here and we would not have this discussion) but will make statistically flawless win-loss ratio.

Statistically, when you play 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 game, then you have 50% chance to win. So, when those games ends, into your statistics is added 1/1 if you win, or 0/1 if you lose.

Also statistically, when you play 8 player standard or freestyle game with whichever settings, you have 1/8 chance of winning and 7/8 chance of losing. In average, you will win every 8th game, if you win more you are better than average and if you win less you are lower than average. Statistically, if you play 8 player standard game, it is the same like you are playing 7 1v1 games vs those 7 players, if you win it, then it is statistically (and CC points wise) the same like you achieved 7/7 score in 1v1 games vs other 7 players. If you lose, statistically (and CC points wise) that is the same like you lost 0/1 vs the player who won, and played 0/0 vs other 6 players.

This can also be applied for Terminator games. If you play 8 player Terminator game, and you eliminated 3 players, and then some other player eliminates you, it is the same like you player 3 1v1 games vs those 3 players and achieved 3/3 result, played 1v1 game vs the player who killed you and achieved 0/1 result, and did not play vs other 4 players (result 0/0), as there is no any point gain nor loss between you and other 4 players.

The same system can very easy be implemented on CC and included all history results of all players, a simple written script would do that easy.

Example how it would work:

Player A (great in 1v1 and team games but bad in standard 8 player games):
played 10 games of 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4. Won 8 of 10
played 10 standard 8 player games, won 1 of them. His score is 7/7 for game won, and 0/9 for 9 game lost.
played 10 Terminator 8 player games. In 3 of them eliminated 1 player and then lost game, in 2 of them eliminated 2 players and then lost game and in other 5 was being the first eliminated. His score is 2/2 *3 + 1/1 *2 + 0/10 = 8/18.
Total score: 23/44 (52%)
Total score with current % system: 9/30 (30%)

Conclusion: With current % system, his performance is penalized a lot because 66% of his games are 8 player standard. With my suggestion, his 52% instead of 30% would better show his performance.

Player B (bad in 1v1 and team games, but great in 8 player standard games):
played 10 games of 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4. Won 1 of 10.
played 10 standard 8 player games, won 8 of them. His score is 7/7 * 8 + 0/2 = 56/58
played 10 Terminator 8 player games. Let's say achievement is the same like player A in this category, so the final result will compare just the discrepancy between 1v1 and Standard performance between player A and B): score 8/18
Total score: 65/86 (76%)
Total score with current % system: 9/30 (30%)

Final conclusion: At first, it is visible how much my proposed system better value the fact that in 8-player games initial chance to win a game is 12,5 while initial chance in 1v1 games is 50%, so for every player on the site, this system will increase their winning %, and average winning % of all players ever played CC would be 50%, which is how it should be. At second, comparison between player A and player B shows how much this proposed system would value the ones who are doing really good in Standard games but with current % system that is not properly represented on their profile.

P.S. For the ones who complain how 1v1 gaming is just luck while team games are pure skill, I would say it is very relative. I can guarantee that much more skill is needed to win 1v1 Hive game, than to win Quadruples on Doodle Earth, o statement that 1v1 is always pure luck in comparing with for example Quads is not true. I would say, they both are 50% for each player to win.

Josko, don't worry about what that big betiko pussy is saying. I think he is just trying to pull your whiskers. Love this suggestion, and like your reasoning, especially using a doodle quad analogy. Doodle manual quad, one team can get knocked out without taking a turn..... No real skill in that, just turn order luck.

Betiko, I'm considering putting megaswoman on foe, am getting so many X rated pm's from her. The high ranked putting more on the line is true. A relative average vs your score at the time would be a good thing. Most points I lost in a single game was 78. That stung. End of the day, would rather play for fun than be a point accumulation whore. Been there done that.

And just for that you are getting no more x rated pms! You are going to have to depend on your goats for your entertainment!