porkenbeans wrote:OK, please explain jarrett155 He has excellent stats, with many "gladiator" and "brawler" tags. How is it, that he can make it so high, and still keep his record exemplary ? He is a very good example of a good player that is not a FARMER
Actually, you just gave a perfect portrayal of Incandenza's point, Jarrett was a major until about 3 days ago and played hundreds of games as a low rank, inflating his stats tremendously.
WTF are you talking about ? Your rank is adjusted after every game.
Let me explain how the map rank statistic works, as you are clearly unable to figure it out for yourself.
After a game is completed, you win a certain amount of points. Map rank takes the amount of points won and divides it by the amount of players defeated, giving a number which represents the rank of the players which you played.
Jarrett had a much lower score and played people who were at his same mediocre rank, giving him a high number because he won close to 20 points from each player he beat. Now that he is a brigadier, the points he won in the games which ended do not change, but map rank reads the number as if ever game he played, he played at his current rank. Hence his stats are inflated.
porkenbeans wrote:OK, please explain jarrett155 He has excellent stats, with many "gladiator" and "brawler" tags. How is it, that he can make it so high, and still keep his record exemplary ? He is a very good example of a good player that is not a FARMER
Actually, you just gave a perfect portrayal of Incandenza's point, Jarrett was a major until about 3 days ago and played hundreds of games as a low rank, inflating his stats tremendously.
WTF are you talking about ? Your rank is adjusted after every game.
...?
And you have just proved my point. With your brain skills, you should NOT be at the top of the leaerboard.
porkenbeans wrote:I suggest that you install map rank, and learn how to use it. You are a noob farmer, or point hoarder on every map you play. If you want to see what decent stats. look like, Take a look at mine.
Ah, so after weeks of reading your shrill posturing, your cries of "The scoreboard is unfair! Farmers are ruining CC!", the point finally emerges. This isn't about points, or farming, or the scoreboard, or the health of CC.
It's all about you.
You somehow think that if people look at your relative rank, everyone will say to themselves, "Gee, that whiny bastard with the annoying animated avvy sure is a good player! We should listen to him! Wow he's amazing!"
News flash: relative rank, not exactly the most reliable statistic in the first place, has less and less meaning the higher you get on the scoreboard. The reason yours might be better than MDM's is because he's in the top tenth of a percentile, and practically every opponent he faces has a lower score.
So, you know, if you ever manage to prohibition chicago your way into the Top 100, then you might have an audience, since you'll be seeing things from his side of the aisle. But from where I'm sitting, those that whine about points wish they had more (or think they're somehow entitled to more), and those that impugn the skills of others wouldn't know solid play if it whacked them in the back of the head.
Do people farm? Yes. Does it really make that much difference? Probably not. Is it worth the thousands of words you've written on the subject? I'll let you guess that one.
Incandenza should be a lyrical dictator. He just pummeled you into a pulp of idiocy, tore down your points of thought oppression, and exposed you for the ignorant sap you truly are. How long are you going to sit up there on your high horse and believe that we are going to listen to these crumb bum arguments? To say that Me-Da and DAT don't deserve their rank is ludicrous. They play all types of games and dominate on a huge pallet of settings while maintaining their current rank and above. They've been that rank for what would seem like an eon now. They are both outstandingly sound players who I can assure you would beat the tar out of you in most given situations if not ANY. That is the exact same quote in which I noticed you starting to sound way too over zealous. The most amusing part of your battle cries is that you don't play many different game types what so ever Porky the fig. That is most apparent. Game history says far more then a transparent map rank will ever tell.
I'd like to also add this. Any one with a head on their shoulders would agree that 1 vs 1 sequential games require the least of "skill" (That is a loose term) to win. I say this because if you take a look at the players who primarily play them, they are easily around the 50% win ratio mark no matter their rank. Thus proving that a 1 vs 1 sequential game can go either way mostly because of the drop followed by the luckier player having fair dice and cards. It does NOT take a genius to win a 1 vs 1 sequential game. Most everyone could surely pound out the victory if given the better drop almost every time. Please don't fool yourself into thinking you are some amazing player and better than people with higher ranks because of the fickle map rank system. What a joke.
Another point that people are to hung up on is rank. Rank does not always determine how good a player is. It is ignorant to say that. I've crossed paths with corporals(that were never much higher) that have out played colonels. Rank is directly related to what type of games a person chooses to play and how successful they are at winning them. That sounds like a vague statement but follow me for a moment. If all a player plays is 1 vs 1's they are not going to rank up very far. If all a player plays is 8 man escalating games then if he/she wins 33% of them they will eventually be on the first page. If all a player plays is team games and they join a like minded unselfish group of players then they will certainly rank up if they get acclimated to each other and test their skills against higher ranks. What I'm getting at is if a player plays a multitude of game settings, wins, and maintains a high rank he is certainly a good player in my book. Not in the least over rated regardless of the average rank of his/her opponent.
King_Herpes wrote: What I'm getting at is if a player plays a multitude of game settings, wins, and maintains a high rank he is certainly a good player in my book. Not in the least over rated regardless of the average rank of his/her opponent.
is noob a rank?
I knew that either you or pork and sniff would say something sneezy like that and then throw in some stupid collage of emoticons while overlooking all valid statements. That's exactly why I said it without elaborating. You're such a puppet. Being smug,The Army asks, "Is noob a rank"? That's for the dogs you excessive fool.
Last edited by King_Herpes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
porkenbeans wrote:OK, please explain jarrett155 He has excellent stats, with many "gladiator" and "brawler" tags. How is it, that he can make it so high, and still keep his record exemplary ? He is a very good example of a good player that is not a FARMER
Actually, you just gave a perfect portrayal of Incandenza's point, Jarrett was a major until about 3 days ago and played hundreds of games as a low rank, inflating his stats tremendously.
WTF are you talking about ? Your rank is adjusted after every game.
Let me explain how the map rank statistic works, as you are clearly unable to figure it out for yourself.
After a game is completed, you win a certain amount of points. Map rank takes the amount of points won and divides it by the amount of players defeated, giving a number which represents the rank of the players which you played.
Jarrett had a much lower score and played people who were at his same mediocre rank, giving him a high number because he won close to 20 points from each player he beat. Now that he is a brigadier, the points he won in the games which ended do not change, but map rank reads the number as if ever game he played, he played at his current rank. Hence his stats are inflated.
One of us just may be a a blubbering fool. I dont know where to begin. You are incorrect in just about everything you just said. Those guys did a spectacular job with MAP RANK. They took in to account, all the variables that you tried to describe. You are dead wrong with your assessment.
Actually, king... you are wrong. Map rank is inaccurate because it uses the score you were at when the game was completed, so other maps and settings alter your score, and thus your map rank is not what it would be if you had only played on that map.
The Neon Peon wrote:Actually, king... you are wrong. Map rank is inaccurate because it uses the score you were at when the game was completed, so other maps and settings alter your score, and thus your map rank is not what it would be if you had only played on that map.
The score you were at, IS, exactly HOW you should be calculated. What other, may I ask, way should it be ?
You are absolutely correct on half of your statement Max. I played the game because of the game setting. I want you to look at my 1v1 games, almost 80% of my last 75+ games of 1v1 are on large standard maps, with escalating and unlimited. Unlike you who i've only played 3 ?'s on 1v1 in my time here at CC
Let's not get to far away from reality people. Map rank is cool and they did do a great job with it. As good a job as they could have for sure. Don't overlook the fact that Map rank holds less and less water the higher a players score is. It's really not that hard to understand.
Incandenza wrote: News flash: relative rank, not exactly the most reliable statistic in the first place, has less and less meaning the higher you get on the scoreboard. The reason yours might be better than MDM's is because he's in the top tenth of a percentile, and practically every opponent he faces has a lower score.
.....
The Neon Peon wrote:Actually, king... you are wrong. Map rank is inaccurate because it uses the score you were at when the game was completed, so other maps and settings alter your score, and thus your map rank is not what it would be if you had only played on that map.
Did I say anything otherwise? Calling it transparent and fickle is all I recall...
porkenbeans wrote:WTF are you talking about ? Your rank is adjusted after every game.
...?
And you have just proved my point. With your brain skills, you should NOT be at the top of the leaerboard.
lol...I love how you quoted yourself as you made that statement
LOL, and I love how you sidestepped.
It is hardly sidestepping when comments are directed to the quoted text and that quoted text is your own post.
you were actually talking to Herpes most probably based upon time time at which it was posted, although I will assume you were agreeing with him and myself that you are undeserving of being at the top because you have yet to play any real games.
That is not my opinion tbh because I dont see what is wrong with you farming, or anyone else for that matter, I am just glad that you are acknowledging that you are a farmer.
wow what a well orgized conferstion over nothing im going to have to fix this whats the deal everyone knows why max and king are in the top but really all the high ranks just dont risk there points simple as that
Stephen Wayne wrote:wow what a well orgized conferstion over nothing im going to have to fix this whats the deal everyone knows why max and king are in the top but really all the high ranks just dont risk there points simple as that
what are you considering high rank. i see scott in plenty of games he doesnt know he can win
