Conquer Club

stringybeany wrote:I'm sure robinette and I will have our games, eventually. I wouldn't be too quick in assuming which way the points will go.

I'll have some of yours too, eventually.

Sir, I think you dropped this....

very impressive and very good analysis, simple yet clear

sully800 wrote:

stringybeany wrote:I'm sure robinette and I will have our games, eventually. I wouldn't be too quick in assuming which way the points will go.

I'll have some of yours too, eventually.

Sir, I think you dropped this....

Now THAT was funny... and in oh so many ways...

It's more pronounced today.

regretfully i contributed to this by dropping from 2196 to 2095.



one more thing about the graph.

please remove the legend (the "series 1") because it takes space. and please add also the numbers on top of each column. it's easy to do it. just look at the options when you do the graph in excel.

DiM wrote:regretfully i contributed to this by dropping from 2196 to 2095.



one more thing about the graph.

please remove the legend (the "series 1") because it takes space. and please add also the numbers on top of each column. it's easy to do it. just look at the options when you do the graph in excel.

yeah, I know.

excel leaves that in as default and I was too lazy to click it out.

Here you go:

stringybeany wrote:

DiM wrote:regretfully i contributed to this by dropping from 2196 to 2095.



one more thing about the graph.

please remove the legend (the "series 1") because it takes space. and please add also the numbers on top of each column. it's easy to do it. just look at the options when you do the graph in excel.

yeah, I know.

excel leaves that in as default and I was too lazy to click it out.

Here you go:

and numbers on top of each column.

for example i can only estimate that there are 122 people in the first column but they could be 121 or 124 i don't know. so put the total of each colum on top of it. it's a small option there. you'll find it.

and one more thing. move me from 2000-2100 to 2101-2200. i just got some points

DiM wrote:.... it's a small option there. you'll find it.

and one more thing. move me from 2000-2100 to 2101-2200. i just got some points

The chart is cleaner this way and conveys the message. Adding stack counts makes it too busy.

You're moved!

stringybeany wrote:

DiM wrote:.... it's a small option there. you'll find it.

and one more thing. move me from 2000-2100 to 2101-2200. i just got some points

The chart is cleaner this way and conveys the message. Adding stack counts makes it too busy.

You're moved!

i agree with comic.... it's not just the stats, it's the art of it that really counts

I think I have a psychological explanation, more experienced players should give more technical details (if they agree with me).

The fact is that a fresh player with score about 2100 more dislikes a possibility of dropping below 2000 than s/he likes a possibility of jumping over 2200. So our player tries to "keep score", by avoiding any unnecessary risks.
What are the risks? What are desired measures? I can't say because I don't have enough experience, but some things come to my mind:

- starting less new games than before
- experimenting less with maps and other game parameters than before
- avoiding games against much weaker players (they are dangerous, because of their low score)
- avoiding games against much stronger players (they are dangerous, because of their greater strength)
- playing more doubles and triples and less singles

All those measures should slower someone's "score waves"...

Perhaps my technical measures are all wrong, but I'm pretty sure that majority of players in that position (about 2100) try hard to avoid "return to below 2000 realm". This way they also slower their ascending.

So who climbs fast toward the major rank? Only the small number of most talented...

Zemljanin wrote:I think I have a psychological explanation, more experienced players should give more technical details (if they agree with me).

The fact is that a fresh player with score about 2100 more dislikes a possibility of dropping below 2000 than s/he likes a possibility of jumping over 2200. So our player tries to "keep score", by avoiding any unnecessary risks.
What are the risks? What are desired measures? I can't say because I don't have enough experience, but some things come to my mind:

1. starting less new games than before
2. experimenting less with maps and other game parameters than before
3. avoiding games against much weaker players (they are dangerous, because of their low score)
4. avoiding games against much stronger players (they are dangerous, because of their greater strength)
5. playing more doubles and triples and less singles

All those measures should slower someone's "score waves"...

Perhaps my technical measures are all wrong, but I'm pretty sure that majority of players in that position (about 2100) try hard to avoid "return to below 2000 realm". This way they also slower their ascending.

So who climbs fast toward the major rank? Only the small number of most talented...

the way you say it sounds very plausible. but i don't think it's true. or at least for me it isn't.

let me expand.
in this moment i have 2078 points. i never considered score to be important and i still don't, i play just for fun. i'm a singles player (79.36% of my games are singles) because for some reason i suck at dubs and trips. in fact my winning % is lower in doubs than in singles.
anyway my games have various setting and maps. as well as various opponents. i currently have 20 games going. 13 standard and 7 terminator on 7 different maps. i have all kinds of cards as well as fortifications. and my opponents have scores from 894 to 2987. i have a lot of public games but also play a fair share of private games. when i receive an invitation from a friend i don't look at his score i immediately join even though he might win 50 points from me while i'd get a measly 7. so i guess this covers points: 2, 3, 4 and 5 from your theory

as for point 1, ever since i became premium i kept my active games count at 20. as soon as i'm eliminated from one game or i win a game i start a new one. so no variation in total game count.
all in all none of the 5 points of your theory have applied to me.
and still for some odd reason i keep oscillating between 2050-2000 points.
2 days ago i was at 2170, yesterday i went below 2100. later i managed to get again above 2100 and this morning i quickly lost 74 points in 3 speed games and dropped to 2030. now i'm up to 2078 and i'll probably end the day over 2100 points.

why this oscillation? is the 2050-2200 mark my plateau? have i reached the peak of my abilities? i'd say no. i feel i can do more. i know i can do more.

then why do i keep staying in this region? well i think it's because i don't care much about score. it's because i sometimes let a guy live just because i like how he talks in chat and because i play with friends that have less than half my score.

in fact after i reached 2000 points i had a total change of play style. before 2000 points i played few maps with few setting after 2000 i have started playing maps i had never played before. had i kept the same routine probably i would have gained more points. or not. who knows.

the point is each player has it's own reasons why he's not moving up. maybe he reached his peak. maybe he started joining the 2000+ games which are much harder, or maybe he simply lacks the motivation when he sees the next promotion is 500 points away instead of 200.

DiM wrote:now i'm up to 2078 and i'll probably end the day over 2100 points.

exactly. now i'm 2147

edit/ and the roller coaster continues i have just passed the 2200 mark.

I don't think you've dialed in the root cause yet (assuming the anomaly sticks around).

We'll take new looks over the next few more weeks and see what develops.

Completely normalized this week!

There's a new small bump forming at 2500 though.

stringybeany wrote:Completely normalized this week!

There's a new small bump forming at 2500 though.

Small bumps are obviously not important, especially when dealing with such small numbers.

sully800 wrote:

stringybeany wrote:Completely normalized this week!

There's a new small bump forming at 2500 though.

Small bumps are obviously not important, especially when dealing with such small numbers.

Yeah, but it's the closest thing I could find remotely "interesting".

stringybeany wrote:Yeah, but it's the closest thing I could find remotely "interesting".

Perhaps something "interesting" will surface if you added a 2nd chart, 2500-3200 with player count incrementing by 5.

Perhaps not.

I've ignored the top since the first run. I'll have to take another peek.

Next week if I'm in the mood I'll automate the spreadsheet so I can just paste in each page of the scoreboard into a worksheet and extract the counts directly into the graphs. That's assuming I can find the time for that kind of bs'ing around. I've got a couple of hot projects that need to be launched into production so my screw around time is a bit limited.

Why the hell did I launch another 30 games yesterday when I had finally whittled 'em down to two?

Now I only have about ten seconds to look at each board, yank a plan out of my ass, roll some dice and move on.

Dumbass . . .

The step is back but shifted up 100 pts, and the upper histogram is more evident this week.

big gap between 2000 and 2100 and 2200 and 2300.

the first gap could be explained by the transition from 200 points promotions to 500 point ones. people get demoralized seeing the next promotion is so far and start slacking.

the next gap can be explained by the ever increasing difficulty of gaining points at that level.

or at least that seems the way the pattern fits to me.

it took me a month to get over 2000 points and then my ascension came to a halt for 1or 2 weeks as i bounced back and forth in the 2100 area. then after 2 more weeks i started slowly climbing again. but it's getting so hard with 6 player games where sometimes i get as low as 40 points when back in the old days i got 80-120.

also i have found that somehow the play style and strategy of people over 2000 points is very different from that of the people below 2000. and this came as a shock since the point difference is not that big.

DiM wrote:also i have found that somehow the play style and strategy of people over 2000 points is very different from that of the people below 2000. and this came as a shock since the point difference is not that big.

This, I think, is a major contributor. People that get above 2000 naturally want to try their hand at the 2000+ games, but the style of play is night and day from that of the lower levels. There's a whole new learning curve, contributing to people breaking 2000 and maybe even climbing a couple hundred more points, but ultimately bouncing backward (unless they play a lot of team games, of course).

I'm still going with the long captain to major jump, combined with the second histogram effect.

Clearly the top will always be occupied by triples teams playing in concert, and that's ok!

There is a very strong rational case made for having a split crown, one for the singles histogram, and one for the team histogram. The data confirms it and the reality of play does also.

-case closed-

Trying my best as usual to get past 2600pts which is a psychological barrier to me at the moment. I may have to resort to doubles and triples games to farm for Ez points but before I do so I would prefer to achieve my objective 3000pts by a mixture of game types.

To me the 2k barrier was a bitch to breack but now that ive addopted a different playing style and specificly look at what settings i play against what kind of ranks im keeping above it easily now. Even made the jump to 2.5k now and can sorta stabelize there by playing 1800+ and 2k+ games.

When i start playing Major+ games however i noticed that here again (as mentioned before for above 2k) the playing style (or should i say competition) is much more 'advanced' and therefor more difficult to keep youre points

that would mean you're the best if you keep a higher score playing only the highest ranks