Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:04 pm**

qeee1 wrote:But Blitz I didn't attack you

ok, well i edited my rage :evil:

so, who then are you smearing eggs on face then?

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:20 pm**

Blitzaholic wrote:
qeee1 wrote:But Blitz I didn't attack you

ok, well i edited my rage

so, who then are you smearing eggs on face then?

Check the tone of my post, light hearted, self depreciating. I was joking about my own laziness.

I guess I was interested in seeing who the list would out as having a poor ratio. as regards the eggs, no one in particular, if someones on the list it's through their own actions not mine.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:39 pm**

This relative rank stuff, fun as it may be, seems like bs. The guy who was number 1 on the first post, is a question mark who is 0-1. That's right, he has 1 loss, and there happened to be a hat in the game. You should not be rewarded for loosing a game to a good player, not if you've won nothing. Very strange. I would like to see the formula, may need some tweaking.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:53 pm**

Georgerx7di wrote: I would like to see the formula, may need some tweaking.

george.. aren't you the guy that multiplied $25 x 10,000 and came up with $2,500.00 a few weeks ago in the GD? i don't think your seeing the formula is truly going to help you understand this at all... you know i'm teasing!!! but you did screw that up, beyond belief!!-0

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:00 pm**

Georgerx7di wrote:This relative rank stuff, fun as it may be, seems like bs. The guy who was number 1 on the first post, is a question mark who is 0-1. That's right, he has 1 loss, and there happened to be a hat in the game. You should not be rewarded for loosing a game to a good player, not if you've won nothing. Very strange. I would like to see the formula, may need some tweaking.

I agree, on the lower end of the scoreboard the ranking isn't very interesting because the more you lose, the better your relative rank gets. The challenge is to have a high rank and a high relative rank, as fruitcake has pointed out.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:05 pm**

Blitzaholic wrote:ok, well i edited my rage

i know you, you big kitty... settle down...-0

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 am**

qeee1 wrote:
Georgerx7di wrote:This relative rank stuff, fun as it may be, seems like bs. The guy who was number 1 on the first post, is a question mark who is 0-1. That's right, he has 1 loss, and there happened to be a hat in the game. You should not be rewarded for loosing a game to a good player, not if you've won nothing. Very strange. I would like to see the formula, may need some tweaking.

I agree, on the lower end of the scoreboard the ranking isn't very interesting because the more you lose, the better your relative rank gets. The challenge is to have a high rank and a high relative rank, as fruitcake has pointed out.

I think that that is impossible. The relative rank is just the scoreboard upside down. I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:15 am**

Georgerx7di wrote:
qeee1 wrote:
Georgerx7di wrote:This relative rank stuff, fun as it may be, seems like bs. The guy who was number 1 on the first post, is a question mark who is 0-1. That's right, he has 1 loss, and there happened to be a hat in the game. You should not be rewarded for loosing a game to a good player, not if you've won nothing. Very strange. I would like to see the formula, may need some tweaking.

I agree, on the lower end of the scoreboard the ranking isn't very interesting because the more you lose, the better your relative rank gets. The challenge is to have a high rank and a high relative rank, as fruitcake has pointed out.

I think that that is impossible. The relative rank is just the scoreboard upside down. I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks.

Wow, for some one with a mathematical equation as an avatar you have a very simplistic way of looking at what relative ranking is. Go and look at the post I made about the relative ranks earlier in this thread. there is nothing about the scoreboard in reverse there.

I reckon you said that as a joke....you must have.

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:36 pm**

Blitzaholic wrote:
qeee1 wrote:But Blitz if I remember correctly the reason your score was so much more inflated at the time was because you were playing the team game, back when new recruits could still join multiplayer games. If you had been playing mostly those high ranking singles at the time your score wouldn't have been so inflated. As you said you mostly lost points in them.

exactly qeee1 and the points i was winning off teams was so so low but at least i was gaining some, i couldnt control who would join or not, and singles it just was not worth it as the scoring system pounded me either way over time, i had to win over 50% singles for my score to increase and over 90% teams for it to go up, so it was no win either way, almost impossible feat, so at least you see my point on the relativity as does scott-land. over a long time, it will only cripple the higher scores, and help the lower ones

ty

the law of gravity: what goes up must come down

Never a truer word dear Sitzaholic.

Conquer Club

highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank

Re: highest/lowest relative rank